Matrix Games Forums

1. AI
2. AI
3. AI
4. AI
5. AI

1. Bugs (supply, Vichy etc) and work on making one map scenarios available.
2. Missing optionals

I see no point looking at an AI while important elements of the game are buggy or still missing. E.g. how does the AI play Japan/USSR if a key element in game play is missing?

3. AI
4. Once the game is (as much as is practicable) bug free, and contains all options, then an AI should be introduced.

While this is happening, and alongside this work, continue on netplay as this seems to be non-negotiable from Matrix/ADG? side.

Concerning bugs or MWiF mechanics, my opponent (Brian) and I are having a lot of trouble with the convoy system (getting resources to the factories properly). Its brought our game to a halt until we find a way to fix it. There should be some way to do this manually.

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

Concerning bugs or MWiF mechanics, my opponent (Brian) and I are having a lot of trouble with the convoy system (getting resources to the factories properly). Its brought our game to a halt until we find a way to fix it. There should be some way to do this manually.

I love this game with the exception of getting my convoy routes set, which at times is infuriating. For example, a traded oil point from the USA to a factory in London is routed first through the Caribbean Sea to the East Coast, North Atlantic, Bay of Biscay instead of first going into the East Coast. This uses 4 CPs when only 3 CPs should be required. The result is that 1 of the 3 oil points from Venezuela being saved to Canada goes idle. Infuriating to say the least.

I've been looking into how to edit the game file to force convoy routes but I haven't figured that out. What I have figured out is how to increase the number of CPs in a given sea area. So, for this example, I could increase the number of CW CPs in the Caribbean Sea by 1 to compensate for MWiF wasting that 1 CP. This would get the USA traded oil point to London and all three Venezuela oil points saved to Canada. In effect I would be creating a "virtual" CPs to compensate for the one that MWiF was wasting. However, this would require me keeping up with and removing all "virtual" CPs when they were no longer needed. By the way, all of this is in the thinking stage and is something I would NOT put in effect in my AAR game with Pat.

In terms of getting the CP routes working properly this is the only workaround I've found (so far) that seems fairly easy to do.

1) Collection edition rules and maps and units implemented (raw 8.1)
2)option & bugs (banner army Heavy unit and CBW)

3)AI
4) politics in flames
5) DOD
6)fatal alliance

In effect I would be creating a "virtual" CPs to compensate for the one that MWiF was wasting. However, this would require me keeping up with and removing all "virtual" CPs when they were no longer needed.

If you could enable the: 'rename convoy'...renaming is available for all ships, but not convoys.

1) bugs control
2) new system to control production and convoys
3) mini AI to allow PBEM
4) full AI
5) NetPlay

Concerning bugs or MWiF mechanics, my opponent (Brian) and I are having a lot of trouble with the convoy system (getting resources to the factories properly). Its brought our game to a halt until we find a way to fix it. There should be some way to do this manually.

Fully agree. I currently stop to play this game until this major issue is fixed. At least, restore the previous way of doing which was not perfect but playable.

The bugs in production planning should have priority now, I believe. The convoy system isn't working like it should (editing manually isn't working correctly) and has far to many problems to get things done according to the rules of the board game.

If it's automatically calculated by the program (and it should be, because the AI needs it later too), it should always give the most optimized result possible, according to the rules. That isn't done at the moment too...

IMHO, Netplay should have been the first priority. This would have allowed for a lot of people to play the game (with a good number of out-of-the-loop actions and strategies) and thus for bugs to be identified in a quicker manner.

Today the procedure is Bug-fixing ---> Test by a relatively small number of beta-testers ---> Release ---> Back to step one.

Beside, the game would have had been at least Netplay. Not to sound like a broken record (*), but after three years what we have are brainstormings about the best way to fix the game. Among the few who didn't move on in the meantime.

(*) Well, to be honest: who cares?

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

IMHO, Netplay should have been the first priority. This would have allowed for a lot of people to play the game (with a good number of out-of-the-loop actions and strategies) and thus for bugs to be identified in a quicker manner.

Today the procedure is Bug-fixing ---> Test by a relatively small number of beta-testers ---> Release ---> Back to step one.

Beside, the game would have had been at least Netplay. Not to sound like a broken record (*), but after three years what we have are brainstormings about the best way to fix the game. Among the few who didn't move on in the meantime.

(*) Well, to be honest: who cares?

warspite1

This is a good plan in theory, but...... At no point EVER has Steve been sat twiddling his thumbs because there are no more bugs to fix. If that was the case then that idea would perhaps have mileage, but would in practice just mean an ever growing list of bugs waiting to be fixed.

As said above convoy routing is an issue that really needs addressing.

And Steve is working on Netplay. However, for as long as bugs in solitair are around which are stopping the game or have a huge impact on gameplay, those should be adressed first. You can't expect from players to have a game freezing in solitair, because a bug is fixed in Netplay and causes a regression bug in solitair. This happens quite often.

ORIGINAL: Centuur

And Steve is working on Netplay. However, for as long as bugs in solitair are around which are stopping the game or have a huge impact on gameplay, those should be adressed first. You can't expect from players to have a game freezing in solitair, because a bug is fixed in Netplay and causes a regression bug in solitair. This happens quite often.

I'm not sure I'm following you here (but maybe it is a language thing). To me playing solo is a placeholder while waiting for the game to be finished (and with this I mean free of bugs and with Netplay; I never expected an AI).

Actually, what is happening is that MWiF was a wonderful way to better learn the game, but since now I have the space when I want to play solo I put down the real, physical cardboard game. Not to mention that Italy has a small but devoted community who plays WiF over VASSAL (I never asked to be part of it, but the opportunity is there). Plus, of course, the international community you can find on BGG. And you can play solo on VASSAL too. For free (you need to have the original game of course).

So, why a bug in solitaire mode should be privileged over a bug in the "real thing" (Netplay)? To me, it makes no sense. And past experience (the original War in the Pacific, The Operational Art of War...) shows how there is nothing like people being able to play competitively against each other to have bugs jump out like if you kicked an anthill.

Anyway, this is spilled milk under the bridge (cit.) Yet, I'm still mildly surprised by how what remains of all the people who were waiting for this game is, after three years, accepting philosophically that the current stage is "Plans for defining a list for the next wave of bug-fixing" - in a game where part of the optional rules are still to be coded because..." well, you know, before those there are bugs to fix". This from someone who bought WiF when buying the three hardbound books was mandatory (i.e. before - SURPRISE! - it wasn't anymore; I wondered why ever since).

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

ORIGINAL: Centuur

And Steve is working on Netplay. However, for as long as bugs in solitair are around which are stopping the game or have a huge impact on gameplay, those should be adressed first. You can't expect from players to have a game freezing in solitair, because a bug is fixed in Netplay and causes a regression bug in solitair. This happens quite often.

So, why a bug in solitaire mode should be privileged over a bug in the "real thing" (Netplay)?

warspite1

Because the 'solitaire' mode is what people are using to play the game by PBEM. It is not just so one can play by himself. So, without a working netplay (and I have no idea what the timescale is for getting this ready) solitaire mode is pretty all important as it allows both solitaire players and PBEM ers to play the game.

I'm borrowing "spilled milk under the bridge." Sounds like a Rickyism from Trailer Park Boys. His best one for playing WiF is "sounds like a Supply & Command issue."


I predict that when NetPlay is perfected more people will use Solitaire mode to PBEM to get things done while another player is offline, anyway.

All other modes depends on solitaire. If there is a bug in solitaire, it will be there in netplay. All solitaire bugs are netplay bugs, but not all netplay bugs are solitaire bugs. Also, usually it is harder to find and fix a bug while running netplay than when running solitaire. Thus one fixes solitaire bugs first.

And than there is the fact that bugs which are fixed in Netplay, sometimes causes bugs to appear in solitair, which are halting that type of gaming, making the game in itself totally unplayable.

This means that those bugs, when they appear, need to have top priority, because we depend on at least one type of gameplay to be running as best as possible (i.e.: solitair at this moment, since that is the one people are also using with Teamviewer and E-mail play).

I would like to also see people that actually own and play the game given more consideration than the overly aggressive people who don't and won't until it has 'insert feature here'

As above with following addition: People should stop quoting WIF8.x rules as this is MWIF, not WIF8.x

Just to be clear, I did play the game in solo mode - because I do love WiF but hardly my gaming group could find the space to set it up. But now that I moved and I have my gaming room, I'm setting up the Deluxe version on a...

...BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIG...

...table, and I'll play either solo or with my friends there. Meanwhile my PC gaming time is now devoted to WitP AE and HoI 3 + mods (the "finished" version, up to "Their Finest Hour" expansion; BTW, deriding HoI is futile, when you go against a grand strategy WWII game which works).

My point about a "Netplay First" strategy, as I mentioned, come from the fact that (if past experience taught me something) there is nothing like a lot of players who play the game competitively to have bugs jump out and eat your face like facehuggers. Sure, this would have led to a lot of broken games, restarts etc. But, again IMHO, maybe to one year of suffering; not three - and counting. Because, right now, I'm not seeing an end to this.

And this leads to my last question. I remember how excited I was when WiF finally appeared at Essen. Some people even bought the "Essen Version" personally signed by Harry Rowland. Every day I waited for the postman to ring the bell - something I didn't experience since when I started to buy things from Amazon in the 90s. And, yes, I was ready for bugs and the need of some patches - maybe for six months.

My question, since then, is: was Matrix aware of the state of their product when they launched it? And I will leave this at it.

Sorry for the rant but somehow the third anniversary since the Big Launch unlocked it inside me [:(]

Edit: @ brian brian: "Spilled milk under the bridge" is a quote from "Margin Call". It is really a great movie and I suggest it wholeheartedly [:)]