A Layman's Guide to Successfully Editing the MWiF Game File.

[Majorball68]

Found them!

Around line number 10000 in the save. Same order as appears in the lending window from top to bottom. The last 3 zeros indicate something to do with a mandatory trade so I copy and past from a good save to get the trades back to temporary. Don't know how they became all mandatory.

0,1,1,1,0,0,201,53,-1,0,1
0,0,2,0,0,0,80,201,-1,0,1
1,0,5,0,0,0,79,89,-1,0,1
2,0,0,0,0,0,79,51,0,0,0
0,0,1,0,0,0,100,79,0,0,0
0,1,1,0,0,0,120,80,0,0,0
1,0,0,0,0,0,49,11,0,0,0
0,2,2,0,0,0,78,49,0,0,0
0,1,1,0,0,0,68,201,0,0,0
0,2,2,0,0,0,101,79,0,0,0
0,1,1,0,0,0,101,89,0,0,0
0,0,3,0,0,0,87,79,0,0,0
0,0,1,0,0,0,103,79,0,0,0
0,3,3,0,0,0,11,201,0,0,1
0,2,2,0,0,0,11,80,0,0,1
0,2,4,0,0,0,11,49,0,0,0
0,2,7,0,0,0,51,79,0,0,0
0,3,3,0,0,0,34,201,0,0,0
0,3,3,0,0,0,34,11,0,0,0

[Joseignacio]

ORIGINAL: AxelNL

Excellent sherlocking! Maybe somebody will make a little program to do this edits with a nice GUI, and it saves even more time.

What is a GUI? Never mind, i found it's meaning but I still don't know what it is or how it can affect to editing these txts.

A GUI (graphical user interface) is a system of interactive visual components for computer software. A GUI displays objects that convey information, and represent actions that can be taken by the user. The objects change color, size, or visibility when the user interacts with them.

[paulderynck]

If someone was to write a program that could edit MWiF game files, but was able to present this to a user with drop-down selection lists and buttons to make changes, then that would be a GUI. For example, the program might have a drop-down list from which you can select a major power, and then another from which you can select the name of any sea zone, and then an up-down control to adjust the quantity of convoy points in the selected sea zone. The default starting number of CPs would be read from the submitted game file and once this and maybe other changes were made, the program would write out a new game file.

Maybe those controls would be in a separate window that opens after you press a button labelled "Change CPs".

I remember several programs like that which were offered as freeware by some hobbyist developers, to edit game files from the game Master of Orion, for example.

[Joseignacio]

Thanks for the explanation

[Mayhemizer_slith]

In our current game all trade agreements have switched to "mandatory". That causes some issues. Those can be worked around by editing file every turn to get BPs and oils right, but it's not easy. Is it possible to fix "mandatory" to "voluntary"?

If any beta tester with fixing tool is reading this, can this be fixed using tool? If not, can you use tool give every major power one BP to be saved? That way I can fix and give them more every turn. I don't know how to give 1 BP if one has none. I know how to turn 1 into 5.

We are still working on to find the exact moment when the bug appeared and will post it to tech support.

[ViktorKormel]

Thank you very much for this thread! It is very useful for me and my friends. No more fightings with the convoy system and many other nasty bugs![&o][&o][&o]

[Joseignacio]

Hey Viktor, the betatesters now say the system is working properly and it's just us who cannot manage the convoys the right way! LOL.

Even there is a thread trying to convince people that this is true. ROLFMAO

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4962925

[Angeldust2]

To get an idea, how customers really value the experience MWIF gives them, one can go to this thread:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5018009

But attention, here some real players of this specific game, who spent hundreds of game hours over several years, report on their experiences and their perceived value-for-money, they are getting from MWIF already now, with all its small weaknesses and imperfections.

[Joseignacio]

Does that contradict any of the previous statements?

I have bought the game in the first batch that came to the market, with transport and taxes it costed me about 200€. and it didn't work well even in solitaire (which for 99% for people is not worth playing but anyway...).

After what? 15 years, the game seems to work in solitaire but not in Netplay, most people who play in a group use diverse systems to share screen et al, to be able to play. Even with this, the AS (Artificial Stupidity) keeps sending my resources through lame routes even though I correct it once and again; some resources are not credited, like recently the NEI resources to Japan, and I need like 5 or 10 convoys more to be able to get the resouces than I should need, to compensate the errors of the program. Extra convoys which are more prey for enemy subs , giving sometimes an extra bonus because of becoming more than 10, and always a higher number of ships, which means higher values of losses in the table.

Sometimes we get the game hanged like it did recently with something that was supposed to be solved but fails sometimes, the ships AA fire; that not counting on MIL that dont come up like the Nanking (which was later adressed), partisans that cannot be killed and can stack with enemies, or desync problems due to Matrix's online platform, which kicks us from time to time, or the game simply hanging because one of the computers believe one side has one CAP to do and the other doesn't think so, so the game doesn't progress.

When I reported this last one and asked whether someone was checking netplay errors after there had been no comments at least in the netplay Tech support forum for two weeks I got a message from a (I think) betatester, and the answer I got is "sorry to say that there are game stopping bugs in netplay. cant tell you when they will be fixed." which looks suspiciously similar to "sh*t happens, shut up and man", although maybe I am guessing too much here, but honestly that's how I felt then.

This system is retro-feeding, the worst it works in netplay the more people who plays it in the solitaire and sends screen through TeamViewer and similar. Apart from not being theoretically necessary if the game worked right, this brings security risks for the computers connected. And the less people plays netplay the less reports come and less attention is paid by the Tech Support. So the less netplay improves.

After 15 years more or less, I thought something more could come from this, not an AI, not all the scenarios, not the optionals, not a 5 or 7 players game, but at least a good netplay system for 2.

Now I believe all the effort seems to be concentrated in AI for the game (not only conv), but I have no faith in it after seeing that I order the computer for the 10th time how to carry the resources (routes drawn by me in a paper just to make sure) with more than enough convoys and the computer rejects it for the 10th time...after doing all this following the book and video tutorial sequencies. I cannot hope too much of the general AI in year 2050 when it comes out.

I am a fan of the board game, have recommended MWIF to my mates and in the forums, where everybody told me how naive I was for believing in this project, and I am finally coming to see that they were right.

Some people, old fans of the board game and newcomers have both fallen in love with it cause it is better than nothing and allows them to play their favourite game with a distant opponent... somehow.

For me, who was here from the beginning it is a list of dissapointments and only now some happiness that goes away soon, after seeing how after more than a decade of difficult birth, the baby is left crying with wet diapers, in order to make a new child.

I am not complaining on Steve, I know he tries to be fair and does his best, but maybe this project was too much for just one person in the first place.

And some things I believe are just a matter of pride and could be easily solved, like accepting that the Artificial Dumbness cannot manage convoys and letting the user decide which convoy carries what where. But alas... here we are.

[paulderynck]

Game released in 2013, your life is slipping by more quickly than you imagine.

[Joseignacio]

I have been following this forum and contributing to the debates on features and strategies, as well as waiting for the release of it from at least 2009 (unfortunately I cannot be sure exactly since when). So maybe my clock is not so wrong, considering that i said 15 years aprox..

My greatest dissapointment with a game in my life came when a few months from it's first projected date, suddenly we were informed that it would take many more months /some more years to be released.

I have downloaded the game at several points in the developement, just to find it unplayable and leave it after several highly frustrating attempts to play because of omnipresent bugs (then). Somehow we were unofficial beta testers I guess.

[Joseignacio]

deleted

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

Does that contradict any of the previous statements?

I have bought the game in the first batch that came to the market, with transport and taxes it costed me about 200€. and it didn't work well even in solitaire (which for 99% for people is not worth playing but anyway...).

After what? 15 years, the game seems to work in solitaire but not in Netplay, most people who play in a group use diverse systems to share screen et al, to be able to play. Even with this, the AS (Artificial Stupidity) keeps sending my resources through lame routes even though I correct it once and again; some resources are not credited, like recently the NEI resources to Japan, and I need like 5 or 10 convoys more to be able to get the resouces than I should need, to compensate the errors of the program. Extra convoys which are more prey for enemy subs , giving sometimes an extra bonus because of becoming more than 10, and always a higher number of ships, which means higher values of losses in the table.

Sometimes we get the game hanged like it did recently with something that was supposed to be solved but fails sometimes, the ships AA fire; that not counting on MIL that dont come up like the Nanking (which was later adressed), partisans that cannot be killed and can stack with enemies, or desync problems due to Matrix's online platform, which kicks us from time to time, or the game simply hanging because one of the computers believe one side has one CAP to do and the other doesn't think so, so the game doesn't progress.

When I reported this last one and asked whether someone was checking netplay errors after there had been no comments at least in the netplay Tech support forum for two weeks I got a message from a (I think) betatester, and the answer I got is "sorry to say that there are game stopping bugs in netplay. cant tell you when they will be fixed." which looks suspiciously similar to "sh*t happens, shut up and man", although maybe I am guessing too much here, but honestly that's how I felt then.

This system is retro-feeding, the worst it works in netplay the more people who plays it in the solitaire and sends screen through TeamViewer and similar. Apart from not being theoretically necessary if the game worked right, this brings security risks for the computers connected. And the less people plays netplay the less reports come and less attention is paid by the Tech Support. So the less netplay improves.

After 15 years more or less, I thought something more could come from this, not an AI, not all the scenarios, not the optionals, not a 5 or 7 players game, but at least a good netplay system for 2.

Now I believe all the effort seems to be concentrated in AI for the game (not only conv), but I have no faith in it after seeing that I order the computer for the 10th time how to carry the resources (routes drawn by me in a paper just to make sure) with more than enough convoys and the computer rejects it for the 10th time...after doing all this following the book and video tutorial sequencies. I cannot hope too much of the general AI in year 2050 when it comes out.

I am a fan of the board game, have recommended MWIF to my mates and in the forums, where everybody told me how naive I was for believing in this project, and I am finally coming to see that they were right.

Some people, old fans of the board game and newcomers have both fallen in love with it cause it is better than nothing and allows them to play their favourite game with a distant opponent... somehow.

For me, who was here from the beginning it is a list of dissapointments and only now some happiness that goes away soon, after seeing how after more than a decade of difficult birth, the baby is left crying with wet diapers, in order to make a new child.

I am not complaining on Steve, I know he tries to be fair and does his best, but maybe this project was too much for just one person in the first place.

And some things I believe are just a matter of pride and could be easily solved, like accepting that the Artificial Dumbness cannot manage convoys and letting the user decide which convoy carries what where. But alas... here we are.

Is it artificial dumbness or player dumbness? I said before, and I say again: apart from 1 minor bug regarding the lending of build points by an active and hostile Vichy and a cosmetic one found by mr. Warspite, there are no bugs in production planning that I'm aware of.
But there is of course, the inability of players to understand the right way to get things done in the game. It's not simple, it's pretty difficult to get it right.

If you can't get it right, do it like Mr. Warspite. Post a gamesave in here and let other players give you tips and tricks on production planning.
The problem is partially the program which is written out of a certain way of thinking which isn't easy to understand. But that doesn't mean the program is wrong. It is the way players approach it. It takes a different way of thinking and that's not easy to grasp. And believe me, it cost me an awful lot of time to accept that different thinking.

To be honest: I'm a bit troubled by the fact that you keep posting this issue again and again without giving others who got the program to work for them the opportunity to help you.

Finally: I agree with what you say about netplay bugs. Problem is: other players cannot check on those bugs. Only Steve can do so because we can't load other peoples netplay games.

[Joseignacio]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

Does that contradict any of the previous statements?

I have bought the game in the first batch that came to the market, with transport and taxes it costed me about 200€. and it didn't work well even in solitaire (which for 99% for people is not worth playing but anyway...).

After what? 15 years, the game seems to work in solitaire but not in Netplay, most people who play in a group use diverse systems to share screen et al, to be able to play. Even with this, the AS (Artificial Stupidity) keeps sending my resources through lame routes even though I correct it once and again; some resources are not credited, like recently the NEI resources to Japan, and I need like 5 or 10 convoys more to be able to get the resouces than I should need, to compensate the errors of the program. Extra convoys which are more prey for enemy subs , giving sometimes an extra bonus because of becoming more than 10, and always a higher number of ships, which means higher values of losses in the table.

Sometimes we get the game hanged like it did recently with something that was supposed to be solved but fails sometimes, the ships AA fire; that not counting on MIL that dont come up like the Nanking (which was later adressed), partisans that cannot be killed and can stack with enemies, or desync problems due to Matrix's online platform, which kicks us from time to time, or the game simply hanging because one of the computers believe one side has one CAP to do and the other doesn't think so, so the game doesn't progress.

When I reported this last one and asked whether someone was checking netplay errors after there had been no comments at least in the netplay Tech support forum for two weeks I got a message from a (I think) betatester, and the answer I got is "sorry to say that there are game stopping bugs in netplay. cant tell you when they will be fixed." which looks suspiciously similar to "sh*t happens, shut up and man", although maybe I am guessing too much here, but honestly that's how I felt then.

This system is retro-feeding, the worst it works in netplay the more people who plays it in the solitaire and sends screen through TeamViewer and similar. Apart from not being theoretically necessary if the game worked right, this brings security risks for the computers connected. And the less people plays netplay the less reports come and less attention is paid by the Tech Support. So the less netplay improves.

After 15 years more or less, I thought something more could come from this, not an AI, not all the scenarios, not the optionals, not a 5 or 7 players game, but at least a good netplay system for 2.

Now I believe all the effort seems to be concentrated in AI for the game (not only conv), but I have no faith in it after seeing that I order the computer for the 10th time how to carry the resources (routes drawn by me in a paper just to make sure) with more than enough convoys and the computer rejects it for the 10th time...after doing all this following the book and video tutorial sequencies. I cannot hope too much of the general AI in year 2050 when it comes out.

I am a fan of the board game, have recommended MWIF to my mates and in the forums, where everybody told me how naive I was for believing in this project, and I am finally coming to see that they were right.

Some people, old fans of the board game and newcomers have both fallen in love with it cause it is better than nothing and allows them to play their favourite game with a distant opponent... somehow.

For me, who was here from the beginning it is a list of dissapointments and only now some happiness that goes away soon, after seeing how after more than a decade of difficult birth, the baby is left crying with wet diapers, in order to make a new child.

I am not complaining on Steve, I know he tries to be fair and does his best, but maybe this project was too much for just one person in the first place.

And some things I believe are just a matter of pride and could be easily solved, like accepting that the Artificial Dumbness cannot manage convoys and letting the user decide which convoy carries what where. But alas... here we are.

Is it artificial dumbness or player dumbness? I said before, and I say again: apart from 1 minor bug regarding the lending of build points by an active and hostile Vichy and a cosmetic one found by mr. Warspite, there are no bugs in production planning that I'm aware of.
But there is of course, the inability of players to understand the right way to get things done in the game. It's not simple, it's pretty difficult to get it right.

If you can't get it right, do it like Mr. Warspite. Post a gamesave in here and let other players give you tips and tricks on production planning.
The problem is partially the program which is written out of a certain way of thinking which isn't easy to understand. But that doesn't mean the program is wrong. It is the way players approach it. It takes a different way of thinking and that's not easy to grasp. And believe me, it cost me an awful lot of time to accept that different thinking.

To be honest: I'm a bit troubled by the fact that you keep posting this issue again and again without giving others who got the program to work for them the opportunity to help you.

Finally: I agree with what you say about netplay bugs. Problem is: other players cannot check on those bugs. Only Steve can do so because we can't load other peoples netplay games.

Thank for your nice words, I hadn't allowed to the possibility that I am stupid, maybe because I have had successful career with a degree in Economics, Business Admninistration and Master in Finance among other achievements, working for decades for a multinational firm in an according level, I am also reasonably proficient in English and speak some of other languages, I have been dealing with computers since they reached the public, starting with a Dragon, a model that loaded from a cassette, so I am not more computer iliterate than the average Joe.

That means I never imagined that, after reading the chapter relative, and seeing the videos several times, practicing in sessions of more than 40 minutes each how to organize the CW convoys, I have not been able to do it. Neither me, nor my two mates in both games I am playing. But, hey, maybe we all are retards.

This thread was precisely started to be able to deal with several problems with this game, mainly this one. In the previous page you can see people who is still insatisfied by how this "works", and those are yesterday's posts. No problem, we must be all retards.

And that said (just in case, I was being ironic when saying we all must be retards), even if the program works according to the wishes of the programmer, I think that a Game, not a NASA Vessel Control System, should be easy and intuitive. And obviously it is Not.

I have considered Warspite's chain of posts as a way to whiten the convoy and Production system that I had enough evidence to know it's black, that's why I didnt take part in it, to try for the umpteenth time to fit a square piece in a round hole. I have lost more than 20 hours seeing videos and trying to follow them and I was weary, that's the reason I didn't follow that thread. And I am not accusing Warspite of anything, just in case.

For me the fact that it is a pain in the ass to direct the Artificial Dumbness to the desired parameters is already a defect in a game, but I still have the doubt that it can be done at all.

Same as you are getting tired of hear my ranting, I am getting tired of excuses for what I believe inexcusable, so I will open a thread and see, since you recommend so:

1 If it is possible to carry the resources that I want where I want with the number and position of convoys that I pretend, and that would be enough in the board game.

2 How complicated is this to achieve for a player (or if it needs to be done by editing the files)

and it won't be a difficult display. No need to worry about Asia.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

I have been following this forum and contributing to the debates on features and strategies, as well as waiting for the release of it from at least 2009 (unfortunately I cannot be sure exactly since when). So maybe my clock is not so wrong, considering that i said 15 years aprox..

My greatest dissapointment with a game in my life came when a few months from it's first projected date, suddenly we were informed that it would take many more months /some more years to be released.

I have downloaded the game at several points in the developement, just to find it unplayable and leave it after several highly frustrating attempts to play because of omnipresent bugs (then). Somehow we were unofficial beta testers I guess.

That's all well and good. Your dedication is commendable. I became a playtester in 2007. But what I am saying is that you are providing a false narrative in terms of how long the game should have had to fix issues. No game should be dissed for time spent in development. Indeed for most games no one knows the time period from inception to release. So it should not be claimed that issues have extended over 15 years when it released 7 and one half years ago.

Nor should the developer that undertook to bring a niche game to market in 2003 (I think it was) be insulted by using preciously unfunny redefinitions of the terminology. This game was not the output of a production studio with a budget of millions.

It surprises me the developer continues to plug away at improving the game after this much time. Clearly he has quite a thick skin when it comes to some of the comments on this forum.

It is just a game after all...

[Joseignacio]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

I have been following this forum and contributing to the debates on features and strategies, as well as waiting for the release of it from at least 2009 (unfortunately I cannot be sure exactly since when). So maybe my clock is not so wrong, considering that i said 15 years aprox..

My greatest dissapointment with a game in my life came when a few months from it's first projected date, suddenly we were informed that it would take many more months /some more years to be released.

I have downloaded the game at several points in the developement, just to find it unplayable and leave it after several highly frustrating attempts to play because of omnipresent bugs (then). Somehow we were unofficial beta testers I guess.

That's all well and good. Your dedication is commendable. I became a playtester in 2007. But what I am saying is that you are providing a false narrative in terms of how long the game should have had to fix issues. No game should be dissed for time spent in development. Indeed for most games no one knows the time period from inception to release. So it should not be claimed that issues have extended over 15 years when it released 7 and one half years ago.

Nor should the developer that undertook to bring a niche game to market in 2003 (I think it was) be insulted by using preciously unfunny redefinitions of the terminology. This game was not the output of a production studio with a budget of millions.

It surprises me the developer continues to plug away at improving the game after this much time. Clearly he has quite a thick skin when it comes to some of the comments on this forum.

It is just a game after all...

Have I insulted the developer? Why, I had not realized it... Saying he does his best and tries to be fair is an insult? Wow.

So, an Artificial Intelligence which does not show intelligence should not be called Arificial Dumbness...

And yes, the developer has a level of compromise some others obviously cannot match.

[paulderynck]

Your posts are artificially sincere.

[craigbear]

Is this the right thread for this? I keep seeing new posts in a thread I am interested in, and they are not exactly relevant.

[Joseignacio]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Your posts are artificially sincere.

I dont have any interest in your biased opinions on my posts.

For me, this is over, i have already explained myself and I don't have time nor feel like any public kid's quarrels.

[Orm]

Could this thread be dedicated to its original purpose? Please.