Release Date ?

[CPUsports]

EBworld.com has it listed as May 14th.

Is that date still looking good?

[madflava13]

Don't trust those dates - EBworld and other companies like it put any old date up in the hopes of securing more pre-orders. From everything I've heard, sometime in June is more likely...

[siRkid]

ORIGINAL: CPUsports

EBworld.com has it listed as May 14th.

Is that date still looking good?

Not from where I sit. We are still in Alpha. But I don't have any say in these matters.

[tiredoftryingnames]

EB uses a random date generated from what I see. If the developer's website doesn't list the same date ignore it.

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: CPUsports

EBworld.com has it listed as May 14th.

Is that date still looking good?

We are striving to go into production in late May and ship in late June, but this could easily change. We are very close to being at Beta.

[Sonny]

Thanks Joel. It is reassuring to hear an official word every once in a while. Hope you make your projected date 'cause I wanna play!

[Damien Thorn]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
We are striving to go into production in late May and ship in late June, but this could easily change. We are very close to being at Beta.

Wow! That's sooner than I'd hoped. My birthday is in June and WitP would make a great present if it comes out in time.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
We are striving to go into production in late May and ship in late June, but this could easily change. We are very close to being at Beta.

Wow! That's sooner than I'd hoped. My birthday is in June and WitP would make a great present if it comes out in time.

MINE'S NOT UNTIL AUGUST. If it's a choice between getting it "right" and getting it "out",
please take the extra time. By the way..., how are the "improvements" to arial reccon
coming along? Is there a chance that we'll finally get a version where it takes more
than 9 Emily's to watch the whole Pacific?

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
We are striving to go into production in late May and ship in late June, but this could easily change. We are very close to being at Beta.

You are only planning to spend a month in Beta test?

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
We are striving to go into production in late May and ship in late June, but this could easily change. We are very close to being at Beta.

You are only planning to spend a month in Beta test?

Yes, because the game has been in test for an unheard of 18 months now, and it was based on the stable UV engine. Getting it technically to Beta involves adding some art and music which does not impact game play and adding 2-4 more small additions to the game that are very localized changes. It also involves some more tweaking of the scenario files and game balance of the scenarios. The actual gameplay has been solid for some time, much longer than most games I've worked on. I remember working on games at SSI that you could barely play before it was termed Beta, and then it would get the 1-2 month beta cycle. This game is not like that.

On the other hand, this game is so big, takes so long to play, and has such a massive database for each scenario that I fully expect many changes to be made with patches. However the game should be fun to play and stable at release. Yes we could take longer (you always can), but it's a case of diminishing returns with 10-20 testers versus letting a much wider group start playing it.

[denisonh]

So it would seem that like UV, it will be those who initially purchase WitP to conduct the "extensive" beta testing.

As one who was not totally enthralled with some of the naval targetting changes in UV 2.3, I am concerned that we will run into the same situation with progressive upgrades to WitP that we did with UV: correcting "percieved" problems (or the ones that recieve the most frequent and vocal complaints) piecemeal without respect to a balanced approach to implementing solutions for a more holistic solution.

In other words, we must be circumspect with responding to "bitching" without regards to overall game play.

Given that the UV engine is stable, and the play development can draw on the expeiences of UV and the patching for it, there still must be some "diverse" testing to reveal key gameplay issues prioir to release.

I can see that an PBEM game is started, restarted, and restarted due to upgrades and discovery of serious game imbalances.

Maybe I am just a pessimist, but sincerely believe that quality beta testing performed by the dedicated testors needs to be performed through the entire period of game play to ascertain the game balance and game mechanics over the entire period.

Maybe I ask too much, but dread spending 6 months on a PBEM to have to restart due to "Database changes" that require a restart vis a simple upgrade.

I think that this is a potential problem for a game of this scope and magnitude.

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
We are striving to go into production in late May and ship in late June, but this could easily change. We are very close to being at Beta.

You are only planning to spend a month in Beta test?

Yes, because the game has been in test for an unheard of 18 months now, and it was based on the stable UV engine. Getting it technically to Beta involves adding some art and music which does not impact game play and adding 2-4 more small additions to the game that are very localized changes. It also involves some more tweaking of the scenario files and game balance of the scenarios. The actual gameplay has been solid for some time, much longer than most games I've worked on. I remember working on games at SSI that you could barely play before it was termed Beta, and then it would get the 1-2 month beta cycle. This game is not like that.

On the other hand, this game is so big, takes so long to play, and has such a massive database for each scenario that I fully expect many changes to be made with patches. However the game should be fun to play and stable at release. Yes we could take longer (you always can), but it's a case of diminishing returns with 10-20 testers versus letting a much wider group start playing it.

game balance of the scenarios. The actual gameplay has been solid for some time, much longer than most games I've worked on. I remember working on games at SSI that you could barely play before it was termed Beta, and then it would get the 1-2 month beta cycle. This game is not like that.

On the other hand, this game is so big, takes so long to play, and has such a massive database for each scenario that I fully expect many changes to be made with patches. However the game should be fun to play and stable at release. Yes we could take longer (you always can), but it's a case of diminishing returns with 10-20 testers versus letting a much wider group start playing it.

[pasternakski]

Thanks for the response, Joel, and I trust you people to know what you're doing.

All the same, I suspect that the "WitP" forums are going to be a busy, interesting, and chaotic place for quite a long time to come after release.

Are you ready, partner? The Clantons are headed for the corral...

[pad152]

So it would seem that like UV, it will be those who initially purchase WitP to conduct the "extensive" beta testing.

No, UV was stable and working fine from the start, all of the patches were from player requested changes and very minor bug fixes. More content was added to UV after the release then you find in new versions of John Tiller games! Anybody remember the new version of the week from Talonsoft, where almost every patch for "Art of War" from Korm Koger was turned into a new product release.

Matrix knows full well that the second players get their grubby little hands on this game there will be hundereds of posts requesting changes to this or that, even if they spent the next year beta testing.

Gary & company and Matrix has a proven track record on supporting released products, even the free ones like PacWar.

[bilbow]

Playing through patches was never a problem for me in UV. One game started after 1.2 and ended with the current 2.3. OK, I missed the benefit of database changes, but the game was stable theough all those patches. Why would WITP be any different?

[Mike Scholl]

DEAR JOEL. May we then ask ONE BIG favor from 2by3. A fair number of us "fools"
will be starting PBEM games of the "Whole War Scenario" relatively quickly after it's
release. Given the enormous time investment this will require could you guys please
try to have the patches "insertable" in "on-going games" (like if both players load a
patch after turn 26, the game can continue with the upgrade in place?). It could
save a lot of people's tempers and friendships. Just imagine how a Japanese Player
who had had a really outstanding opening offensive is going to feel when "patch 1.2"
comes out and his opponant wants to upgrade and start over? Or the Allied Player
who managed to "duck" many of the "opening blows" on finding out he has to "do it
again" but now his opponant knows all his "tricks"?

[mogami]

Hi, Patches that deal only with the execution of the program will not effect saved games.
Any patch that alters the data base will. Because the on map unit will no longer match the unit in the data base. Some data base changes are minor and could be ignored except for the fact that you would not be able to begin any new PBEM games where the update is used. (Unless you keep multiple copies of WITP installed)
I don't think people should jump right into PBEM games. Play a few scenarios against the AI to get used to all the chages from UV (The early turns are very important and you don't want to screw them up)

[ADavidB]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
We are striving to go into production in late May and ship in late June, but this could easily change. We are very close to being at Beta.

You are only planning to spend a month in Beta test?

Yes, because the game has been in test for an unheard of 18 months now, and it was based on the stable UV engine. Getting it technically to Beta involves adding some art and music which does not impact game play and adding 2-4 more small additions to the game that are very localized changes. (clip)

Will there be options to turn off music, animation, movies and so on as with UV? It would even be nice to have options not to load the "all dressed" versions. (I never play with music or animation.)

Thanks -

Dave Baranyi

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: pad152
the second players get their grubby little hands on this game

Hey! My grubby little hands object to being called grubby little hands.

In any event, I see David's point that a year and a half was spent in alpha, so that a lot of what usually happens in beta probably was taken care of there.

I remember that most of the post-release UV discussion revolved around two things: weapons system (particularly aircraft) performance and allegedly flawed game dynamics (for example, pilot allocation and AI naval target selection silliness). Although the subjects may be different this time around, I expect that the harping and carping will increase in scale in proportion to the degree WitP is larger than UV.

[MadmanRick]

I personally, can hardly wait for this particular game! I have loved "monster" games since the days of AH's "The Longest Day", GDW's "Third World War" and all the others, so this one will be right down my alley! As far as all the comments concerning price go, obviously I would prefer it be available for minimum $$$, but considering the time & effort involved, the limited appeal the subject matter has and all the other factors, I think $70 is acceptable. I also STRONGLY encourage the folks involved with the decision making powers to please, please follow through on the UV-Med plans. I am also a lock to purchase that game if it does make it to the market. I loved SSG's CCAW and in fact, STILL have it on my HD, but I hated the fact that there was no campaign capabilities. So, I look forward to seeing a UV-Med simply for the campaign possibilities.

Thanks,
Rick

[Sonny]

I recall starting over several times in UV due to patches. While I agree with denisonh (we usually don't see eye-to-eye which is why he is such a good opponent) that there is a much greater possibility to have to restart after a hefty time investment with WitP, I feel pretty confident that the alpha testing has worked out a lot of the problems - at least the major problems. I can also see that what has been said about diminishing returns is probably true with a game that has been in testing for so long.
On the other hand, I'm not sure enough complete games have been played to insure playability (i.e no glaring loopholes) and balance throughout the entire campaign. But in a game like this I recognize the near imposibility of completing an adequate number of games by players.

Kid and Mogami are two people I have had the pleasure of playing against and they seem to be among the more level-headed folks encountered here on the forum. Their interest in seeing a well balanced and playable game being produced gives me confidence that things will go a bit smoother than the UV experience.

And I am ready for it - bring it on - been waitng quite a while (though i am not finished my current PBEM UV game).