Matrix Games Forums

Hey general,
There's nothing wrong with discussing ideas on a post. Perhaps a motivated programmer can offer ideas/programming fixes not related to matrix that others could benefit from (much like scenarios).
Besides, such a great game will never be truly fixed. We might not see more changes but SPWAW II may come out in the future and the 'makers' would want to at least read the ideas for making the game. A SPWAW II might sell pretty well. Look at CIV III! Sid didn't quit improving and Civ III is so far the best product yet according to reviews and the industry.
Sure, I want to see the other games get produced without everyone focusing on SPWAW but ideas should never be squelched just because no future updates are planned. I said planned, who knows what the future holds.
So lighten up and Merry Christmas! God bless America!

Discussion of "how things ought to be" shouldbe moved up to the CL forum. As has been stated, SP:WaW is done. IS it perfect - HELLNO! But at this point it is more productive to spend teh time fixing things to be correct in the new game than to do much more with SP:WaW.

As has been pointed out by Rockin Harry and others, between Freds editors and the preference adjustments, one can make scenarios with the game that do some pretty incredible things, but I think folks need to look into getting proficient with the tools at their disposal to make scenarios and campaigns that do what they want. THere is only so much we can do to automate them.

THe game can only do so much in the "out of the box default" mode, and certainly can;t please everybody. As I said before its time for a new guard of moddes to to take up where we began long ago working without code on improving the original SP game.

IF things crop up that need to be changed in the code, we may consider it if it is a bona fide bug, but at least not for about a year.

IF you feel the OOBs are screwed up, fix them! you have teh tools, and get Tankhead of Fabio et al to post your revision on their site. With the great OOB manager out there, its easy to manage multiple OOBs and OOB mod projects.

THe "tough bugs" like aircraft reveling enemy units are jsut too hard to fix (need to rewrite the spotting routine), well we are doing that for combat leader.

We have wrapped up work on v 7 and will have an availability announcement on when v 7 will be available for down load in a day or two. THere will be a complete game download and a patch, though the patch form 6.1 may be avialable a couple days sooner than the "big package". Lost Victories will be hot on its heels (as releasing V7 means its off to the CD burner to cut in quantity). Watchtower will be close behind that.

Being a former IT Project Manager I have to disagree with Warrior, Larry and others that don't like the word "bug" and so violently are defending their lady. First of all the lady is not being attacked and secondly she does not need to be defended because her merits speak for it selves.

The term "bug" in current international English (and I know because I heard it a lot from lots of users) have evolved to express not only major disasters and crashes, not only designer deviations but things that the majority of the users community think it is wrong. “Nice to haves” as we used to call it at my place are minor bugs. It is shorter to say bug than to say nice to have or user requirements, it’s not depreciative it's just easier.

If a gamer thinks that other gamers will share his opinion that one particularly thing is a bug then probably he is right. And I’m sorry to say this: you are wrong. You are wrong until you are absolutely sure that the majority doesn’t think like that particular user.

For example, that aviation bombardment “bug” mentioned above is really a BUG. Not because it is a designer deviation but because the majority of gamers think it is wrong.
The same applies to vehicles not choosing the best path - the majority thinks it is wrong - therefore bug. It is just too complicated to be thinking on the reasons why that thing is happening.

I'm sorry again to say this but that kind of defensive attitude I saw a lot in frustrated IT people, me included at times, for I also had my share of frustration for hearing too much critics after a well done and very hard job, so I know what I'm talking about. You have to understand the users – in this case the gamers - even if it is difficult sometimes.

My message is this - we all to some extent appreciate the effort dedicated to this piece of art of a game. If we criticize the lady is not because we like to criticize, it's because we are so delighted with her that we would like her to be perfect. We will never be completely satisfied, not even in version 999.01.

Don't defend her so hard. If the opportunity comes all we critics will be in the same side of the barricade to defend her.

[ December 01, 2001: Message edited by: RichardTheFirst ]</p>

i agree with RichardTheFirst 101% <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[ December 06, 2001: Message edited by: OKW-73 ]</p>

You can call them what you want at your shop, here a bug is something that doesn't work at all,not in accordance with the documentation or causes the game to crash.

If it doesn't work the way you want it to, but is the way we meant it to be is a Design Issue. IF it turns that we agree that it needs to be fixed then it gets changed, but we don't call them bugs.

You can waste time in semantic arguments or you can help us out. Its a fact in the game community that more talk of "bugs" associated with a game, the more of a turn off to players.

So make your choice, you can help us here or hurt us here. IF you like SP:WaW and think you might like to see better games from us in the future, choose your words carefully because they matter.

The whole reason we are working on COmbat Leader is to be able to fix many BUGS and DESIGN ISSUES that we can't address in SP:WaW. IF you ever want to see CL, then contribute here in a positive way.

Good points, Paul. Not only words matter, but also tone and attitude.

We, the faithful, are deeply interested in CL. You need to be assured of that, Matrix. And please don't allow some postings to blunt your enthusiasm for the projects.

How about turn settings. The reason I think it is important is because I always play email games, and they are always mirrore to guarentee play balance.
The problem is we think we are playing a mirrored game but one game will only go 12 turns when we had it set for 25. Meanwhile the other game goes 25.
Other than that I am very happy with the game.

One last comment to echo Pauls feelings on the "B" word.

I have heard that WWII Online is
incredibly "buggy". Has the "b" word been important. YES!!

Regardless of how the industry uses the word. To me it paints a big sign on the software. The sign reads, dont waste time on this software.

That in a nutshell is why words are dangerous. That is why the choice of words becomes paramount.

Its why we have a file in the game to switch from swastikas to iron crosses. Who cares if the swastika means nothing to a north american. Its bad press in Germany.

Freedom to choose means freedom of choice. But it doesnt mean a choice always enjoys freedom of equality.

When Combat Leader appears. It will be forced under the spotlight. Steel Panthers is a hard act to follow eh. if CL succeeds cool. I am hoping to buy it myself.

Good analogy here is going from Squad Leader to ASL Advanced Squad Leader. I learned Squad Leader with the more user friendly programmed instruction method (a few rules at a time). Worked fine in that game too. ASL was released as a 70 dollar manual (here read this and get back to me in a few months). No game, just a friggin all inclusive manual. No programmed instruction. Like a university degree all in one gulp sort of thing, by skipping the 5 year program and going straight to the finals.
Was quite a shock. As well written as it was, the manual costs me most of my potential new players. They take one look at the manual and go hmmmm sorry I will pass.

I am assuming CL has been quite a task for Matrix. Not the least for it being forced to improve on Steel Panthers. The first release of CL is likely going to be a day with lots of underarm deorderant required (I know I would be nervous).

I for one will be more than a bit dismayed if 5 days after its release the "B" word is splashed all over comments about it (keep that in mind).
So when that great day shows up, and CL becomes available. Forget the "b" word. Or are we to assume that some would be crazy enough to bluntly critique their woman 5 minutes after a session in bed too.

Leave irrational comments to politicians.

Redleg - wasn;t there a workaround for the turn ending too soon problem? IIRC if pad the number of game turns by 9 you get a minimum number that doesn't fall below the threshold?

The game ending early happens sometimes - that is part of the game. If you lay back to long you risk not being able get back on the initiative.

Paul puts the round through the dot, again!
Well done...
Now let's move our suggestions and ideas over to CL and move on...