When?

[po8crg]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


I have decided that it is time to buy a new computer. The current one has served me well over the past 3 and a half years, but the salt air in Hawaii plays havoc with metallic elements. By now there are just too many things “not quite right”. I could provide a list of defects, but it would be boring to read. What I have started to do, and will finish in December, is make a detailed list of all the hardware and software in my current system and what I want in the new one.

So far that is one page for hardware and a second for software, but it will probably be 6 pages total once I get everything identified precisely. When I was younger, I would configure a new system off the top of my head and then go buy it. But I’ve become aware these days I have a lot of ‘stuff’ on my system. I do not want to lose any capabilities, plus I have a couple of small items under ‘improvements’. Mostly I will be upgrading my software, with the big changes being to Windows 7, the latest Delphi, and the latest Theme Engine. The portable computer I bought last year runs under Vista, and I will stay that way. This will give me systems for testing both Vista and Windows 7. I expect to be able to test Windows XP under Windows 7 (can anyone confirm that for me)?

You can run Windows XP "virtually" inside Windows 7 using XP Mode. To support that, your Windows 7 computer needs to have enough RAM and disk space to hold two full operating systems running simultaneously - I would suggest using 64-bit Windows 7 to support more RAM, as 4GB (the 32-bit limit) is only just enough to run Win 7 (which really needs 2GB) and Win XP (which needs about 3/4 of a GB) at the same time.

XP Mode requires hardware support for virtualization in the processor. I just got stung on that with my new laptop; I bought one with a cheaper processor and it doesn't have Intel's VT extensions on the processor so XP Mode doesn't work. There are equivalent AMD extensions too, though they have a different name.

To use XP Mode, you have to install Windows 7 Professional (or Ultimate, but why waste money?) on the PC; Home Premium, which is fine in all other respects, does not include XP Mode.

[alf16371]

Thanks for the update, Steve!

[micheljq]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

So far that is one page for hardware and a second for software, but it will probably be 6 pages total once I get everything identified precisely. When I was younger, I would configure a new system off the top of my head and then go buy it. But I’ve become aware these days I have a lot of ‘stuff’ on my system. I do not want to lose any capabilities, plus I have a couple of small items under ‘improvements’. Mostly I will be upgrading my software, with the big changes being to Windows 7, the latest Delphi, and the latest Theme Engine. The portable computer I bought last year runs under Vista, and I will stay that way. This will give me systems for testing both Vista and Windows 7. I expect to be able to test Windows XP under Windows 7 (can anyone confirm that for me)?

I’ll purchase the new system in January and I’ve scheduled a week of misery getting it to perform as well as my current one.

It's a pity I do not live in Hawaii, being an hardware/software technician with 10+ years experience, I could have help you configure the new PC, or do it for you. But Quebec is far away from Hawaii. [:)]

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: po8crg

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


I have decided that it is time to buy a new computer. The current one has served me well over the past 3 and a half years, but the salt air in Hawaii plays havoc with metallic elements. By now there are just too many things “not quite right”. I could provide a list of defects, but it would be boring to read. What I have started to do, and will finish in December, is make a detailed list of all the hardware and software in my current system and what I want in the new one.

So far that is one page for hardware and a second for software, but it will probably be 6 pages total once I get everything identified precisely. When I was younger, I would configure a new system off the top of my head and then go buy it. But I’ve become aware these days I have a lot of ‘stuff’ on my system. I do not want to lose any capabilities, plus I have a couple of small items under ‘improvements’. Mostly I will be upgrading my software, with the big changes being to Windows 7, the latest Delphi, and the latest Theme Engine. The portable computer I bought last year runs under Vista, and I will stay that way. This will give me systems for testing both Vista and Windows 7. I expect to be able to test Windows XP under Windows 7 (can anyone confirm that for me)?

You can run Windows XP "virtually" inside Windows 7 using XP Mode. To support that, your Windows 7 computer needs to have enough RAM and disk space to hold two full operating systems running simultaneously - I would suggest using 64-bit Windows 7 to support more RAM, as 4GB (the 32-bit limit) is only just enough to run Win 7 (which really needs 2GB) and Win XP (which needs about 3/4 of a GB) at the same time.

XP Mode requires hardware support for virtualization in the processor. I just got stung on that with my new laptop; I bought one with a cheaper processor and it doesn't have Intel's VT extensions on the processor so XP Mode doesn't work. There are equivalent AMD extensions too, though they have a different name.

To use XP Mode, you have to install Windows 7 Professional (or Ultimate, but why waste money?) on the PC; Home Premium, which is fine in all other respects, does not include XP Mode.

Thank you very much![&o]

[micheljq]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Optional Rules
I added a new optional rule that makes the Nazi-Soviet pact easier to break in 1941. It is a small change that was easy to code. Simply, the ratio of garrison strength needed to break the pact drops from 4:1 to 3:1 for the second half of 1941.

Isn't it 2:1 to 3/2:1 in the second half of 1941 in this case of the optional rule?

[composer99]

Game Engine Redesign
One major annoyance this month was the discovery that the sequence of play for the subphases of Land Combat Resolution was incorrect. I had published section 7 of the Players Manual early this year describing these subphases in gruesome detail, but no one had noticed the two serious errors.

What now needs to be done is: (1) modify section 7 text - to me, this is the design specification for the sequence of play, (2) add two new subphases for Converting Shattereds to Retreats and Disorganizing Attacking Units following the Advance After Combat subphase, (3) modify the Land Combat Resolution form to reflect the changes, (4) take new screen shots of that form for the Players Manual, and (5) modify the accompanying text in the Players Manual, (6) modify the text in Help Content.txt, and (7) redo the chapter of the Training Videos on land movement and combat. As someone who has programmed for over 40 years, having the design specifications change after I have written the code and it is thoroughly debugged and documented, instantly infuriates me. I think I’ll go buy more chocolate.

Ouch.

[Steely Glint]

And the release date estimate remains sometime in 2010?

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: micheljq

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Optional Rules
I added a new optional rule that makes the Nazi-Soviet pact easier to break in 1941. It is a small change that was easy to code. Simply, the ratio of garrison strength needed to break the pact drops from 4:1 to 3:1 for the second half of 1941.

Isn't it 2:1 to 3/2:1 in the second half of 1941 in this case of the optional rule?

IMO 4:1 and 3:1 are simplifications which could confuse someone reading RAW or RAC. It is better to say you always need a 2:1 ratio to break a pact and that in the second half of 41 the USSR garrison value is multiplied by 0.75. This is because each sides entry markers are not affected by the annual multipliers, but when added to their garrison value cannot more than double it. After all that, you see if there's a 2:1 ratio.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: micheljq

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Optional Rules
I added a new optional rule that makes the Nazi-Soviet pact easier to break in 1941. It is a small change that was easy to code. Simply, the ratio of garrison strength needed to break the pact drops from 4:1 to 3:1 for the second half of 1941.

Isn't it 2:1 to 3/2:1 in the second half of 1941 in this case of the optional rule?

IMO 4:1 and 3:1 are simplifications which could confuse someone reading RAW or RAC. It is better to say you always need a 2:1 ratio to break a pact and that in the second half of 41 the USSR garrison value is multiplied by 0.75. This is because each sides entry markers are not affected by the annual multipliers, but when added to their garrison value cannot more than double it. After all that, you see if there's a 2:1 ratio.

I wasn't trying to write the rule nor was I trying to describe it with overwhelming precision. I went to that effort in the Players Manual et al, but not here.

What I wrote in the status report is correct.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: alf16371

Thanks for the update, Steve!

Would you like a MWiF Folgore ?

[bo]

This is the new nice me[had a lobotomy last week] being nasty does not work, how about I send Steve two Tony Lukes pork sandwiches will that help to speed things up?

Bo

[Caquineur]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
December 1, 2009 Status Report for Matrix Games’ MWIF Forum
IX. Glitz (historical video, sound effects, music, historical unit write-ups)
...The currently active authors for the unit writeups are Robert, Alain, and David.

In fact, the currently active authors for the unit writeups are Robert, Eric (grisouille), and David. And Adam should be active again very soon, and maybe others too.

I'm not an author myself, just sort of a biological grammar/spelling non-automatic corrector (and the analogy with software doesn't stop here : there are bugs too in the current version [:D])

Alain

PS : thanks for the update

EDIT : spelling

[yvesp]

ORIGINAL: Steely Glint

And the release date estimate remains sometime in 2010?

Well... I still hope so.
But I'd not expect anything sooner than July, and that's optimistic.

Remember that little significant progress has been made (functionaly speaking that is) since
September, and that none is forthcoming in December. [:(] (did I miss something in the reports ?)

Sorry Steve ; I'm not laying stones in your garden, just laying down facts. I really respect
your work and commitment and support you fully, having a good insight at the intricacies
that lay behind a ruleset as big as that of WiF... especially when one adds optional rules.
The fact that you take your time to crush bugs shows me that you're a doing a good and serious job.
[&o]

That leaves all the AI (which, as of now, is mostly only written on paper), and that's not the easiest part.
July is optimistic, because that leaves only 5 months to complete the AI (count one month to launch
the commercialization), and the AI for such a game will be tremendously difficult to tweak in order
to get an acceptable opponent.

For exemple, I have in my mind a difficult AI choice (there are a lot many more of course) :

End of turn, time to rebase. Do you rebase that convoy in the mediterranean ?

• pro : it's in danger and cannot be protected in the first impulse of the next turn.
• pro : you have no replacement ready if it goes down and cannot stay at sea unprotected because it is crucial at this very moment in your supply chain.
• con : you lose that resource it was transporting ; production reduced (or not... maybe that's a superflous resource)
• con : your ground/air forces in Malta and further down around the globe will be out of supply in the next first impulse at least. As a consequence, those air units won't be able to fly to try and intercept an invasion or provide ground support, and the land forces may be (depending on a possible ground strike) unable to defend themselves seriously.
• con : you'll have to do either a combined or a naval as the first impulse next turn, unless you agree to let the previous situation (unsupplied Malta and other units)
• con : if you don't have the initiative next turn, you're vulnerable to an airborne invasion of Malta (or possibly other places around the globe)
• question: what is your chance of getting the first impulse ?
• question: what is the chance that your convoy might be sunk if the opponent moves against it ?
• question: what is the chance that your ground unit will be turned down by a ground strike ?
• question: what is the likely wheather next turn ? It affects both previous answers.
• question: what is the real risk on Malta (assess opponent airborne and amphibious forces)
• question: how likely is it that the opponent will divert his attention to this theater, knowing he is seriously involved in other places. The answer is trickier than is seems, because providing such a "diversion" may give a lifesaving relief on another part of the front (the opponent may have to do a combined to ensure his capture of Malta.)
• question: can Malta be kept on the long run or will it be too costly ?
• question: how does losing Malta affect the strategic plan ?

OK... You see the picture. Moving a single counter can have daunting ramifications... It's worst than chess because you have more counters, more "squares", and randomness in addition. Even if the AI doesn't go down the whole tree of possibilities, it will still have to make serious decisions on such situations, lest it leaves half of it's units unsupplied (depending on which options are used of course!).

Which is why I believe that 5 months in the making will be the bare minimum.
I'd like to know Steve's estimation at this time though.


Edit: I know that some purists around will jump on their seats, but I believe it will be necessary for the AI to cheat somewhat, at least in the first release, and later (after the AI hopefully performs well) to provide for a stronger opponent. I think such cheats should be known (I don't like when the bonus are unknown) and switchable, or even configurable. Such cheats could come in terms of:

• Knowledge of the unknown (in the previous exemple, the AI could know the forecasted wheather or the normal impulse order ; it could still get it wrong in case of rerolls ; it could then decide not to rebase because it knows the weather will be storm ; too bad if there is a reroll.) This might also include to some degree the normal results of combats, so that it could have a chance of not attacking if the result would turn ugly.
• Slight combat advantage (like a probability of getting +1 on combat die rolls)
• Slight production advantage (maybe up to 20%)

Yves

[wfzimmerman]

Detail-lovers will argue with this, but I am a great fan of WAGs based on actual historicals. If it took 4.5 years to fix 1900 bugs, then that's roughly 420 bugs fixed/year, considered against the context of all the other things that Steve has had to do. Even though Steve is currently focused on bug fixes, if you look at the framework of the next year, he still has a lot of "context" of other things to do, so maybe 400 bugs/year is not so unrealistic for 2010. How many bugs are left?

[quote]ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


I spent several days revising my master task list. Besides redesigning how information is stored, I also grouped similar bug reports together. One major improvement is that the bugs are now listed in the order of the sequence of play. This lets me review, say, all the bugs reported concerning the Declaration of War phase, which has 9 subphases. Besides changing the order, I renumbered the current bugs starting with 100, so they are all 3 digits. My previous numbering had run over 2000, which I found discouraging to look at every day. Roughly, in the past 4 and ½ years I have fixed 1900 bugs that had the temerity to make it to my task list.
[/quote/

[Zorachus99]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: po8crg

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


I have decided that it is time to buy a new computer. The current one has served me well over the past 3 and a half years, but the salt air in Hawaii plays havoc with metallic elements. By now there are just too many things “not quite right”. I could provide a list of defects, but it would be boring to read. What I have started to do, and will finish in December, is make a detailed list of all the hardware and software in my current system and what I want in the new one.

So far that is one page for hardware and a second for software, but it will probably be 6 pages total once I get everything identified precisely. When I was younger, I would configure a new system off the top of my head and then go buy it. But I’ve become aware these days I have a lot of ‘stuff’ on my system. I do not want to lose any capabilities, plus I have a couple of small items under ‘improvements’. Mostly I will be upgrading my software, with the big changes being to Windows 7, the latest Delphi, and the latest Theme Engine. The portable computer I bought last year runs under Vista, and I will stay that way. This will give me systems for testing both Vista and Windows 7. I expect to be able to test Windows XP under Windows 7 (can anyone confirm that for me)?

You can run Windows XP "virtually" inside Windows 7 using XP Mode. To support that, your Windows 7 computer needs to have enough RAM and disk space to hold two full operating systems running simultaneously - I would suggest using 64-bit Windows 7 to support more RAM, as 4GB (the 32-bit limit) is only just enough to run Win 7 (which really needs 2GB) and Win XP (which needs about 3/4 of a GB) at the same time.

XP Mode requires hardware support for virtualization in the processor. I just got stung on that with my new laptop; I bought one with a cheaper processor and it doesn't have Intel's VT extensions on the processor so XP Mode doesn't work. There are equivalent AMD extensions too, though they have a different name.

To use XP Mode, you have to install Windows 7 Professional (or Ultimate, but why waste money?) on the PC; Home Premium, which is fine in all other respects, does not include XP Mode.

Thank you very much![&o]

Almost all AMD processors support virtualization. Intel has a HCL on their and microsoft's site for VT. About half of Intel's processors do not support virtualization.

Additonally the only some versions of windows 7 have virtualization for free with the OS.

CPU List
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_virtualization

OS List
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtua ... ments.aspx

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Caquineur

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
December 1, 2009 Status Report for Matrix Games’ MWIF Forum
IX. Glitz (historical video, sound effects, music, historical unit write-ups)
...The currently active authors for the unit writeups are Robert, Alain, and David.

In fact, the currently active authors for the unit writeups are Robert, Eric (grisouille), and David. And Adam should be active again very soon, and maybe others too.

I'm not an author myself, just sort of a biological grammar/spelling non-automatic corrector (and the analogy with software doesn't stop here : there are bugs too in the current version [:D])

Alain

PS : thanks for the update

EDIT : spelling

Sorry about that.[:(] One of the ways I maintain my happy disposition is through blissful ignorance.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman

Detail-lovers will argue with this, but I am a great fan of WAGs based on actual historicals. If it took 4.5 years to fix 1900 bugs, then that's roughly 420 bugs fixed/year, considered against the context of all the other things that Steve has had to do. Even though Steve is currently focused on bug fixes, if you look at the framework of the next year, he still has a lot of "context" of other things to do, so maybe 400 bugs/year is not so unrealistic for 2010. How many bugs are left?

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


I spent several days revising my master task list. Besides redesigning how information is stored, I also grouped similar bug reports together. One major improvement is that the bugs are now listed in the order of the sequence of play. This lets me review, say, all the bugs reported concerning the Declaration of War phase, which has 9 subphases. Besides changing the order, I renumbered the current bugs starting with 100, so they are all 3 digits. My previous numbering had run over 2000, which I found discouraging to look at every day. Roughly, in the past 4 and ½ years I have fixed 1900 bugs that had the temerity to make it to my task list.

I gave some thought this morning, before getting out of bed, as to what I have done over the last 4 years, 5 months. Here a very rough breakdown:

~1 year getting the map and unit data correct and writing the graphics to display them on the screen.

~1 year redesigning the program structure to support NetPlay, PBEM, and AI Opponent. This includes redesigning the sequence of play so each phase of the game has its own module (~60), explicitly coding the subphases (~80) for the major phases in the sequence of play, and the addition of digressions (~10) to handle game events that cause the sequence of play to 'freeze' (e.g., rebasing overrun naval units, aborting units from air combat). Also under this very large umbrella is modifying the screen layout to better use multiple monitors.

~1 year redesigning the forms and creating new forms. The number of forms, compared to CWIF, has increased 50% to over 150, and every form has received extensive changes and frequent improvements based on feedback from the beta testers.

~1 year writing text etc. to help new players learn how to play MWIF and to help all players play the game both correctly and knowledgably. This includes:
(1) A rewritten Rules and Written (RAW) as Rules as Coded (RAC), which is 150+ pages as a PDF. Many clarifications to rules were necessary to finish this document, which includes all the 'deviations' where MWIF does not follow WIF FE precisely.
(2) Picture and text tutorials which are 125 pages of screen shots with accompanying explanatory text. These are intended for players to learn by 'reading'.
(3) Interactive tutorials (designed but not implemented yet), where players can move the mouse, click on items, and use the keyboard to learn by "seeing what happens".
(4) Training Videoes in 12 chapters (8 are finished) which let the player learn by "watching and listening". When done, these will run to over 6 hours.
(5) A Players Manual which covers not only the basics of loading the program and starting a new game, but also includes 40 pages describing the sequence of play in terse prose, 35 pages of advice from a half a dozen players with over 100 years of WIF playing experience, and 150 pages of descriptions of the forms (with screen shots) which detail the purpose of the form, how it relates to the rules, and how to use it.
(6) Context sensitive help for each of the 150+ forms.

~6 months on NetPlay, PBEM, and the AI Opponent.

It is the last item that I have still have left to finish. The 4 other items are done except for debugging and where noted above - accomplishing these tasks was non-trivial (I received tons of help from numerous volunteers, to whom I am deeply indebted).[&o][&o][&o][&o]
---
Oh, well, back to work.

[WIF_Killzone]

Sorry to hear about the game engine redesign issue Steve, bummer.

It would be nice to have to someone to blame..for the firing squad. Hmm, is that us?? [X(]

[wfzimmerman]

So if you assume that task #2 (redesign)& task #3 (forms) accounted for the majority of the 1900 bugs, it would be reasonable to assume that task #5 (NetPlay, PBEM, AI) will generate, say, 500 or more bugs. A daunting task! A few years ago I posted about what we did at LexisNexis to project release dates -- a chart with # of open bugs v. # of closed. Eventually, the # of open bugs will start to approach an asymptote (not 0), and the closure rate will be predictable enough to provide a reliable release date.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


I gave some thought this morning, before getting out of bed, as to what I have done over the last 4 years, 5 months. Here a very rough breakdown:

~1 year getting the map and unit data correct and writing the graphics to display them on the screen.

~1 year redesigning the program structure to support NetPlay, PBEM, and AI Opponent. This includes redesigning the sequence of play so each phase of the game has its own module (~60), explicitly coding the subphases (~80) for the major phases in the sequence of play, and the addition of digressions (~10) to handle game events that cause the sequence of play to 'freeze' (e.g., rebasing overrun naval units, aborting units from air combat). Also under this very large umbrella is modifying the screen layout to better use multiple monitors.

~1 year redesigning the forms and creating new forms. The number of forms, compared to CWIF, has increased 50% to over 150, and every form has received extensive changes and frequent improvements based on feedback from the beta testers.

~1 year writing text etc. to help new players learn how to play MWIF and to help all players play the game both correctly and knowledgably. This includes:
(1) A rewritten Rules and Written (RAW) as Rules as Coded (RAC), which is 150+ pages as a PDF. Many clarifications to rules were necessary to finish this document, which includes all the 'deviations' where MWIF does not follow WIF FE precisely.
(2) Picture and text tutorials which are 125 pages of screen shots with accompanying explanatory text. These are intended for players to learn by 'reading'.
(3) Interactive tutorials (designed but not implemented yet), where players can move the mouse, click on items, and use the keyboard to learn by "seeing what happens".
(4) Training Videoes in 12 chapters (8 are finished) which let the player learn by "watching and listening". When done, these will run to over 6 hours.
(5) A Players Manual which covers not only the basics of loading the program and starting a new game, but also includes 40 pages describing the sequence of play in terse prose, 35 pages of advice from a half a dozen players with over 100 years of WIF playing experience, and 150 pages of descriptions of the forms (with screen shots) which detail the purpose of the form, how it relates to the rules, and how to use it.
(6) Context sensitive help for each of the 150+ forms.

~6 months on NetPlay, PBEM, and the AI Opponent.

It is the last item that I have still have left to finish. The 4 other items are done except for debugging and where noted above - accomplishing these tasks was non-trivial (I received tons of help from numerous volunteers, to whom I am deeply indebted).[&o][&o][&o][&o]
---
Oh, well, back to work.

[michaelbaldur]

as a beta tester.

I don´t worry about the bug in the games. there are more and more parts of the game totally bug free.

steve is doing a superhuman work on the bugs [&o][&o][&o]