great read over on the steam forum

[morvael]

Congratulations loki100, I wish you perseverance in doing the manual, and then updating it for the years to come

[randallreed]

ORIGINAL: Crackaces
One example of the rant is details how the algorithums compute combat .. rocket man states in a lot of words why this is not needed .. but I can state in a few that for WITE understanding combat algorithms greatly goes to understanding combat results...

I am the perpetrator of the original post on Steam. I will just note that we are talking about a game that does not currently possess a functional rule book. I think there is adequate anecdotal evidence that people who spent up to $80 for this game, invested many hours trying the learn it, and fail to make sense of a 380-page game manual will eventually just put it aside. Certainly none of those folks are "gold key" players like you guys. But they and others like them will never get to appreciate the game that you all love. In that case, don't ever complain about the lack of opponents or "fresh meat."

Nevertheless, the act of publishing a game with an 18-year gestation period that does not have a coherent game manual is a slap in the face to the wargame buying public. It is unconscionable.

And regarding the comment about algorithms, I firmly stand my ground: If you cannot convey the basic mechanics of the game, why shower the new gamer with info about algorithms and how the code works? That makes no sense. Reminds me of the old joke, "Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

[randallreed]

ORIGINAL: Omat
The OP is using derogatory vocabulary. So, it is not factual and indicating that there is an other motivation for this post.
Omat

There is no ulterior motive except that I have spent decades as a professional game designer and publisher and believe that a publisher has to respect his audience and his customer base. The GAME is the thing. The RULES create the game. My perceived derogatory vocabulary was a manifestation of outrage that anyone would publish a game knowing the rules were nonfuctional. It is just not right.

[RealChuckB]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

As the OP was on another forum, can we here, please treat his comments with the same graciousness as Joel. As the OP may not be a Matrix forum member with an ability to reply we ought to avoid group think. Although don't think that I take umbrage with any posts so far. I love discussion and argument but detest imbalance and rudeness.

Better still can I encourage you to use this thread to provide any thoughts you may have to make the WitE2 Manual a joy to behold. The author is a forum regular (not me!) and I know he will be reading.

So confession time .. I'm doing the manual. And yes am reading avidly any commentary on the existing documentation for both WiTE1 and WiTW - and have found the type of issues raised by those brought to WiTW via Steam very informative as these are less likely to have graduated from paper maps and counter style games.

I've a mixed background - I sometimes lecture in Social Policy research methods, I make a fair bit of my income doing social policy evaluation, I edit documents for the rest of my living and have written on line pedagogic (ie teaching) material focussed on how to conduct research projects. Across that, have a very simple view, if the reader/user mis-understands something its not their fault, its a flaw in the explanation.

So what are we trying to do?

a) we are retaining Red Lancer's brilliant one page guides from the WiTW documentation. I still use these when playing that game as they really capture the key issues;
b) we are trying to write up the manual so there is a single early chapter that covers the key game concepts and how to play the game. Its deliberately detail light and written in the second person (you do ...) and includes a detailed walk through of the intro scenario (incl not just what but why comments);
c) the rest will be detailed but issues such as define terms, abbreviations in a single easy to find place have been adopted; and,
d) If the underlying system matters because its something the player can directly affect using the tools provided - well it will be described in detail (but hopefully in a comprehensible way), if the underlying system is critical to the game well again there will be detail (even if the actual operation is almost all in the game code) [1], if its something that goes on in the logistics phase out of sight then the description will be indicative. None of these categories are hard and fast ... and of course there is no single approach that will satisfy everyone.

The end product hopefully will be documentation that allows a new player with or without experience of WiTE1/WiTW to get into the game and say win a Road to ... scenario vs the AI on neutral settings. But there is also a need to produce a comprehensive reference manual that goes much beyond this.

At this stage the documentation is tentative. We are close to a decent first draft of the manual but major issues of layout/format etc have not even been thought about. Never mind supporting material such as videos etc.

I'm trying to find and follow almost every documentation related thread I can find (the Wargamer has a good critique of the WiTW manual as an eg). As Red Lancer says, raise issues here, they will be read, they may help improve the material supporting WiTE2.

Edit: [1] - the movement rules are an example of this. In practice, in both WiTE1 and WiTW, you left click on the unit(s), the map changes to show you how far you could move, you hover over a hex and a movement path with the cost in MP is overlaid, you right click to execute the move. So unlike a paper/counter game you don't need to add up MPs as you move (ie where you would need a detailed movement cost table) as its done for you. However, I'd very strongly suspect that all of you would be surprised if there was no movement cost chart in the manual? Not least you might want to work our why you can't move to where you want to reach, or be planning moves in advance and want some idea of the likely costs.

Hi loki00,

I'm very happy to hear that you are doing the manual - I read many of your forum posts (and often searched specifically for your posts if I needed some information and have stored many in my Evernote database) and always thought that they were extremely informative and really geared toward helping others to understand what's going on or how to resolve the issue they had.

I think the list above makes a lot of sense. Some additional points:

- I think a lot of new players often struggle less with the "how" but the "why & what" when playing new games. So in good AARs / Let's play the author first states the goals and then derives the actions from that instead of just making some moves and leaving the newbiw behind with the question of "why?"
- What I find often very helpful (especially in boardgames but also computer games) are "designer notes" where the designers explain certain concepts and how and why they were implemented. I think this is especially useful the more abstract games get to help the player connect the games concepts with the "real life"
- I really like how certain manuals use inserts of examples throughout the text to immediately explain the concepts. The Holland '44 manual I linked above is a good example, another one would be the manual of "Enemy Action: Ardennes" from Compass Games.

Let us know how we can help so that you can best help us by writing the best possible manual [:D]

[randallreed]

ORIGINAL: loki100
So confession time .. I'm doing the manual. And yes am reading avidly any commentary on the existing documentation for both WiTE1 and WiTW - and have found the type of issues raised by those brought to WiTW via Steam very informative as these are less likely to have graduated from paper maps and counter style games.

At this stage the documentation is tentative. We are close to a decent first draft of the manual but major issues of layout/format etc have not even been thought about. Never mind supporting material such as videos etc.

Well, I am also a professional writer by trade and an instructional designer to boot. Having been involved with game rules for 57 years, I could perhaps provide some insight with a review of your draft. For FREE even. Could not hurt, right? Let me know.

[56ajax]

ORIGINAL: randallreed

ORIGINAL: Crackaces
One example of the rant is details how the algorithums compute combat .. rocket man states in a lot of words why this is not needed .. but I can state in a few that for WITE understanding combat algorithms greatly goes to understanding combat results...

I am the perpetrator of the original post on Steam. I will just note that we are talking about a game that does not currently possess a functional rule book. I think there is adequate anecdotal evidence that people who spent up to $80 for this game, invested many hours trying the learn it, and fail to make sense of a 380-page game manual will eventually just put it aside. Certainly none of those folks are "gold key" players like you guys. But they and others like them will never get to appreciate the game that you all love. In that case, don't ever complain about the lack of opponents or "fresh meat."

Nevertheless, the act of publishing a game with an 18-year gestation period that does not have a coherent game manual is a slap in the face to the wargame buying public. It is unconscionable.

And regarding the comment about algorithms, I firmly stand my ground: If you cannot convey the basic mechanics of the game, why shower the new gamer with info about algorithms and how the code works? That makes no sense. Reminds me of the old joke, "Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

Randall, I think perpetrator is somewhat harsh. [:)]

Anything that adds to the quality of the game should be voiced and a better manual would be of benefit. Already WiTE2 has taken notice so that is a good thing. I am not sure whether the game lacks opponents or fresh meat as you say, except in the context of game balance favouring one side. No on wants to play the other....

In terms of algorithms perhaps they need to be confined to a 'Experienced Players Manual'.

and as for the $80, having worked in an industry that hires out green graduates at $300+ an hour!!! I think it is a bargain. (Especially as i remember the days when games were purchased on floppy/cd from the shop and when loaded would display Fatal Error)

[randallreed]

ORIGINAL: johntoml56

ORIGINAL: randallreed

ORIGINAL: Crackaces
One example of the rant is details how the algorithums compute combat .. rocket man states in a lot of words why this is not needed .. but I can state in a few that for WITE understanding combat algorithms greatly goes to understanding combat results...

I am the perpetrator of the original post on Steam. I will just note that we are talking about a game that does not currently possess a functional rule book. I think there is adequate anecdotal evidence that people who spent up to $80 for this game, invested many hours trying the learn it, and fail to make sense of a 380-page game manual will eventually just put it aside. Certainly none of those folks are "gold key" players like you guys. But they and others like them will never get to appreciate the game that you all love. In that case, don't ever complain about the lack of opponents or "fresh meat."

Nevertheless, the act of publishing a game with an 18-year gestation period that does not have a coherent game manual is a slap in the face to the wargame buying public. It is unconscionable.

And regarding the comment about algorithms, I firmly stand my ground: If you cannot convey the basic mechanics of the game, why shower the new gamer with info about algorithms and how the code works? That makes no sense. Reminds me of the old joke, "Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

Randall, I think perpetrator is somewhat harsh. [:)]

Anything that adds to the quality of the game should be voiced and a better manual would be of benefit. Already WiTE2 has taken notice so that is a good thing. I am not sure whether the game lacks opponents or fresh meat as you say, except in the context of game balance favouring one side. No on wants to play the other....

In terms of algorithms perhaps they need to be confined to a 'Experienced Players Manual'.

and as for the $80, having worked in an industry that hires out green graduates at $300+ an hour!!! I think it is a bargain. (Especially as i remember the days when games were purchased on floppy/cd from the shop and when loaded would display Fatal Error)

I appreciate the perspective. But, the $300/hour is a bit of a stretch, isn't it? You must admit, if we compare games with games and not games with high-priced over-educated horseflesh, WITE is on the higher end of the price curve! <wink!>

But, if I have awakened a discussion that bears fruit for the game buyer and player, all to the good! Thank you for the feedback. Cheer!

[Franciscus]

If I may add a sugestion:

Please, prepare the manual to be updated as necessary as in the future patches will for sure make the first version obsolete in many parts. At the very least, make available a doc (or Pages [:D]) version...

Best regards

[randallreed]

ORIGINAL: Franciscus
If I may add a suggestion:
Please, prepare the manual to be updated as necessary as in the future patches will for sure make the first version obsolete in many parts. At the very least, make available a doc (or Pages [:D]) version...
Best regards

When I was managing 12,000 pages of documentation for the Buffalo MRAP route clearance vehicle, I was enured in the concept and practice of Total Life Cycle Management, TLCM. Simply stated, this means that developers consider the entire life of a product from concept, design, development, manufacture, testing, maintenance, and final disposal, at every step of the product development and maintenance process. Clearly, when considering something as relatively simple as a rule book, there should be plans, processes, and procedures in place to guarantee that a game's rules keep pace with other parts of the product as the game system matures. It is NOT rocket science. The average customer has expectations of getting years of play value from his purchase. If these things are not considered, he is being denied full value for his money.

Nice post. I hope it rings a few bells for the design team working on TWO.

[morvael]

Perhaps the team needs to switch to a game-as-a-service model, charging monthly. Only a steady stream of revenue can guarantee there will be paid professionalsnto do the work of updating the game and the manual for the years to come. To me it's unreasonable to expect the same treatment for a product that you pay only once for. I think some people feel entitled to updates for life (their's, not product's), but if someone makes a living from selling those games (I don't), then I won't blame them when they abandon current product to focus on the new. Until the game was patched by the original team (up to 1.7.11), there was a living manual. Badly written or not, it was at least updated. After creators moved to next project, this one was left in the hands of volunteers. But there was never a volunteer to update the manual. So here were are. I'm too longing for the day when we all move to WitE2 with new shiny manual.

[Franciscus]

ORIGINAL: morvael

Perhaps the team needs to switch to a game-as-a-service model, charging monthly. Only a steady stream of revenue can guarantee there will be paid professionalsnto do the work of updating the game and the manual for the years to come. To me it's unreasonable to expect the same treatment for a product that you pay only once for. I think some people feel entitled to updates for life (their's, not product's), but if someone makes a living from selling those games (I don't), then I won't blame them when they abandon current product to focus on the new. Until the game was patched by the original team (up to 1.7.11), there was a living manual. Badly written or not, it was at least updated. After creators moved to next project, this one was left in the hands of volunteers. But there was never a volunteer to update the manual. So here were are. I'm too longing for the day when we all move to WitE2 with new shiny manual.

I see your point. But the other side of the coin would be to say that, once a game is no longer supported officially by the devs, but by non-paid volunteers, it should not continue to be sold at the same price...

Regards

[Laz]

I dont understand why the publishing company would not have nor maintain the talent to produce the rules manual etc. and review/revise such online component repository for it's customers. It would make sense to do so, to help improve sales by ensuring quality standards achieve customer satisfaction...happy customers.

[Stelteck]

One thing to consider is that game manual are such a XXème century thing. Maybe this community is a little old [:'(].

Instead of elderly ([:'(]) arguing about how manual used to be better 40 year ago, maybe we need to enter in the XXI century.

Now we need online wiki and youtube tutorial video !!! [:D]

We do not really need volunteers to keep the manual up to date. We need volunteers to keep the online wiki infrastructure fresh, while everyone could (and do) add information in it and keep it up to date.

We have to move forward.

Ps: And maybe the matrix forum could deserve a technology update too [:D]

[morvael]

Stelteck, good points. Most games nowadays ship without any manuals, especially on paper.

A live wiki, like this one would be a lot better. Much easier to update, people can contribute (provided mod approves).

Matrix forum indeed has some problems (like with code tags), that could be solved by updating.

[randallreed]

ORIGINAL: morvael
Perhaps the team needs to switch to a game-as-a-service model, charging monthly. Until the game was patched by the original team (up to 1.7.11), there was a living manual. Badly written or not, it was at least updated. After creators moved to next project, this one was left in the hands of volunteers. But there was never a volunteer to update the manual. So here were are. I'm too longing for the day when we all move to WitE2 with new shiny manual.

In my experience, once a game is released, it becomes part of the company's (back list) catalog of products. It does have a sales life (generating income--pure profit) for years to come, but not as great as that initial release period. It has become practice in the computer game industry to release DLCs and expansions periodically to generate income and update the game system. That is an incentive to continue to support the game. What undermines this system, IMHO, is the profusion of amateur mods and DLCs that offer brilliant to terrible quality and no rational scheme to embellish and improve the system. This undermines the ability of professionals to put food on the table by being very good at their chosen profession. If there IS brilliant embellishment material out there, then pay amateurs to perfect it and pay them money for it so that publishers can charge customers for this extra excellent content. That way, there is a positive incentive to keep development under the publisher's roof. (By the same token, I am no fan of "game editors" and similar products paired with game releases because they (a) take time and effort away from the focus on the game about to be released and (b) put a lot of junk out there that may or may not represent a logical, rational, extension of the game as released. Game editors are a strong disincentive to produce tested and endorsed DLCs and expansions under the aegis of the publisher and adds to the "orphan" game effect of which you speak.)

"Subscription" game development and publishing (ie. prepaid sales for games that are not published until sales reach a certain minimum "trigger" target) has been part of the manual war game scene for years and works so long as the publisher has a track record for honesty and dependability. It is a concept worthy of more discussion. Nice post!

[Ridgeway]

ORIGINAL: randallreed

ORIGINAL: Franciscus
If I may add a suggestion:
Please, prepare the manual to be updated as necessary as in the future patches will for sure make the first version obsolete in many parts. At the very least, make available a doc (or Pages [:D]) version...
Best regards

When I was managing 12,000 pages of documentation for the Buffalo MRAP route clearance vehicle, I was enured in the concept and practice of Total Life Cycle Management, TLCM. Simply stated, this means that developers consider the entire life of a product from concept, design, development, manufacture, testing, maintenance, and final disposal, at every step of the product development and maintenance process. Clearly, when considering something as relatively simple as a rule book, there should be plans, processes, and procedures in place to guarantee that a game's rules keep pace with other parts of the product as the game system matures. It is NOT rocket science. The average customer has expectations of getting years of play value from his purchase. If these things are not considered, he is being denied full value for his money.

Nice post. I hope it rings a few bells for the design team working on TWO.

Out of curiosity, what were Avalon Hill's procedures for updating game manuals in a timely manner for every owner? I remember errata being published in The General (at $4.95 per issue or so), but I do not recall ever receiving any personal updates.

[randallreed]

ORIGINAL: Ridgeway
Out of curiosity, what were Avalon Hill's procedures for updating game manuals in a timely manner for every owner? I remember errata being published in The General (at $4.95 per issue or so), but I do not recall ever receiving any personal updates.

I spent 10 to 15 hours a week personally answering the "nut mail," as it was colloquially known inside the office, and four other staff members spent at least that much time, if not more. We also had a Question Box section in every issue of The General. For new games with " rules issues," we would publish a special feature on the game in the magazine, and then print it up and offer it free to customers send us an SSAE. I know for The Longest Day, which was actually released after I left the company, Bruce Milligan, my ace developer at AH, consolidated questions and put them into a front-and-back single sheet that was inserted into latter-day assembly runs until the first press room update, upon which the rule book was revised to incorporate the Q&A from the errata sheet. At Avalon Hill, we took our obligation to ensure that every player who played our games understood the rules, regardless of whether he was a customer or just the customer's friend from across the street. This was before the days of the internet and online electronic manuals. I imagine that we would have made an effort to create policies and procedures to update the rule book and printed charts and tables in near real time, if it were at all possible. HTH!

[Crackaces]

I just remember the 2st version of rise and decline of the 3rd Reich .. I went through 2 sets of rules from fumbling through 4.1 day’s XYZ but 51.2 says ABC .. I guess a second version cleaned things up .. [8D]

[GamesaurusRex]

And,as usual, Moravael has hit the nail on the head here. It really is a matter of what is and is not practical. I can sympathize with most of randallreed's concerns and agree that products sold should be properly documented. However, this game was and remains a "Monster Game", complete with convoluted coding that not even the programmers were certain of at the time of it's writing. Furthermore, years of effort to debug and correct problems with the game model by Moravael, Denniss , and others has morphed the game over time in major ways that made the original (and even revised) manual obsolete. Today, you really have to read through the matrix forum to come anywhere close to understanding the game.

But let's face it... IT'S A GROGNARD HOBBYIST'S GAME... not a government defense contract. In the end, it has been the labor of hobbyists and historians here (tipping my hat to Morvael and many other contributors) that have made this game something other than a majorly frustrating exercise in fantasy.

I also would like to applaude Matrix, Grigsby, and the producers of this fascinating mess for allowing and fostering the involvement of the game community in this evolution. If they had not been open to it, this game would have been dead already.

(Ah... Avalon Hill...The General... SPI... GDW... Now you're making me swoon reminiscent. I actually have a copy of The Longest Day in my closet... still unplayed... oh well. )

[randallreed]

ORIGINAL: GamesaurusRex
...I can sympathize with most of randallreed's concerns and agree that products sold should be properly documented. However, this game was and remains a "Monster Game", complete with convoluted coding that not even the programmers were certain of at the time of it's writing. Furthermore, years of effort to debug and correct problems with the game model by Moravael, Denniss , and others has morphed the game over time in major ways that made the original (and even revised) manual obsolete. Today, you really have to read through the matrix forum to come anywhere close to understanding the game.

But let's face it... IT'S A GROGNARD HOBBYIST'S GAME... not a government defense contract. In the end, it has been the labor of hobbyists and historians...
(Ah... Avalon Hill...The General... SPI... GDW... Now you're making me swoon reminiscent. I actually have a copy of The Longest Day in my closet... still unplayed... oh well. )

Thanks. I suggest you try The Longest Day. You will find that the rules are straightforward and the game play crisp. The only thing that makes that game a monster is the sheer size of the mapboard and the number of counters in play. For WITE,any hassles and complexities with the code have little bearing on what the PLAYER needs to contend with to play the game without expending many hours of study and dedication. If things don't work right in the visual display, or the panzers won't compute correctly when moving over the Prypyat Marshes, then fix it, but all you need to tell the player is, "Its fixed!" There is no need to go into detail on how you corrected the code to make it work the way you originally intended.

The advantage of a computer game is its ability to automate and reduce game complexity for the player. I note that in most computer games I have played, no one spends pages describing how the Artificial Intelligence works. They don't seem interested in it very much except to say, "The AI is really stupid in this game, even on the hardest setting." Why do players not crave information about the AI? Because they do not need it in order the play and enjoy the game (in most cases). Are they interested in the logic built into the AI? Probably, but not to the point that they need pages in the rules covering aspects of the AI.

I am desperately trying to think of an analogy here but the best I can come up with is finding a big old grey blob of a hornet's nest in a tree. In order to avoid being stung, I do not need to know the intricacies of how the nest is constructed on the inside, all I need to know is the location of the hole where all the hornets will come swarming out. If I don't stick my finder in the hole and shake it around, my experience with the outside of the nest should be fairly uneventful. (I said it was lame!) The programming code is there to facilitate the player's task load, not add to it.

When I wrote the game manual for The Longest Day, it was published as a fairly dense 48-page "Rules of Play" document. Of the 48 pages, 14 pages are actual rules, the rest are designer's notes, game variations, a 224-item annotated bibliography, five pages of "job aid"-like summary charts and tables, and five pages of index. To play the first scenario, a player needs to digest less than two pages of rules. Of the 34 pages that are not rules, much of that is filled with interesting data gleaned from my research that can be optionally accessed by any player so inclined. These 34 pages are part of the game manual, but are clearly not part of the rules. I went out of my way to delineate to players what were rules, what were optional variations and embellishments, and what was historical and other data listing my research sources as a courtesy for full academic disclosure.

I believe that the 380-page WITE manual is about the same or even less. As an educated guess, I believe that the essential rules to WITE could be presented in 38 pages or less, using the same typeface, text density, and page layout as the online game manual. Then, create a second document,and let's call it Historical Synopsis and Data. There you can do with it what you will; study it or ignore it or worship it. But sequestering the two categories of information can only help the first-time player.

Likewise, even in beta testing, online rules can be kept reasonably current as major changes are made to the system. But, if the rules are horribly disorganized and poorly written, revising a hot mess is not at all easy. Create a solid, structured, foundation for a set of rules and one will find that the ability to keep pace with revisions or expansions is pretty robust.

GROGNARDS? Well, yes, I guess I still am. But the same can be said of the majority of wargame players, whether manual or computer, right? Play on!