State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November 2017

World in Flames is the computer version of Australian Design Group classic board game. World In Flames is a highly detailed game covering the both Europe and Pacific Theaters of Operations during World War II. If you want grand strategy this game is for you.

Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets

User avatar
Joseignacio
Posts: 3008
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 11:25 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November 2017

Post by Joseignacio »

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

Joseignacio:
No dumb reason, the reason is that most of the buyers bought it for it, and the possible future ones even more, it's only a very small minority (according to the polls in the past - and those were among "grognards", who are more prone to accept solitaire) who wants solo games.

Just to be clear, "solitaire" in MWiF is not really solitaire as in playing yourself (solo). I have never played this game solo and never will. I always play it vs a human opponent. In this case trading files. I'm sure you and most people know this about "solitaire" MWiF, but perhaps not everyone reading this does.

Including me. I heard about trading files but didn't think of solitaire as the source, I myself traded files with my opponent when Netplay was too buggy, years ago, but they were files obtained with "netplay" gaming.

I have played solo solitaires sometimes (which is how I understood the players were doing, and I think some or many do) till after some turns I almost dropped dead of boredom.
As for the statement "most of the buyers bought it for it" (Net play)...I don't recall ever being asked that question when I bought MWiF. And I submit you are even less accurate when you write "possible future ones even more, its a very small minority". You cant poll someone who looked at this game today for the first time and bought it (unless you do it at the point of sale). Its possible there was a poll done a long time ago, but how accurate (highly doubtful)?

Accurate or not may be discussed, but the fact that you don't know it doesn't mean it was not done, and IIRW over 100 answers in a niche game like this, in it's early moments of developement is an important datum.

In those polls (which are somewhere in the older threads, the ones interested mainly in solitaire were very few. Once again IIRW 15-20% +-5%.
As for grognards, I do not know of a single one that enjoys playing solo by himself. Every grognard I know revels in the contest of human vs human. MWiF human vs human is already here and doing quite well from my experience.

True, but only grognards would accept only solo playing (which I believed was Solitaire for, after it's name), the same way that only reals chess frikies would play chess solo.
I don't care about Net play, trading files is just fine when playing another human opponent. Coding the remaining options and scenarios are of higher value to me than Net play.

Bottom line, I believe Steve is coding Net play because Matrix requires it, and there was an agreement between them that it happen. I think Matrix should drop that requirement for this game and ask Steve to keep going on Net play only if he enjoys doing so. I also think Matrix at this point should ask Steve to continue fighting bugs and give him complete leeway to do as he wishes, what ever that may be.

That being said, it appears Net play is almost here any way, what ever.

User avatar
paulderynck
Posts: 8475
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Canada

RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November 2017

Post by paulderynck »

The last tabulated results of the poll are in post #260 of the thread linked below, but there were more replies after that, not sure how many voted multiple times though.

tm.asp?m=2108161&mpage=9&key=poll

Paul
User avatar
Joseignacio
Posts: 3008
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 11:25 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November 2017

Post by Joseignacio »

Thanks for bringing the link.

There was a definition of what was solitaire which is what I had been using. Of course I knew people exchanged files in order to play avoiding the netplay bugs online but I believed they exchanged the netplay game files (thus, trying to avoid the sincronization and game "lobby" bugs...) as I did for a time.

fb.asp?m=2111310
Ah, a last thing, please don't confuse "Solitaire" play with "AI Opponent" play.

Here are the 5 mode of play, reminded to you :
Solitaire - you play both sides and make all decisions.

Head-to-head (Hotseat) - two players use a single computer, with the players taking turns moving their units/making decisions using the same mouse and keyboard.

AI Opponent - the player takes one side and the Artificial Intellengent Opponent plays the other.

NetPlay - 2 to 6 players with each player having his own computer; there are game 'sessions' where all the players log into the game and communicate their decisions using the internet.

PBEM - Play by email for 2 players, with all decisions communicated via email (an option to temporarily switch to NetPlay if they so desire).

User avatar
paulderynck
Posts: 8475
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Canada

RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November 2017

Post by paulderynck »

If you want to play with another person by email, it doesn't make much difference whether you use Solitaire or Head-to-Head. AAMOF when we played by screen sharing we found H2H just added needless overhead in the clicking required to tell the computer we were a different player. Either one requires the use of the "honor system" to keep US entry and pact chits secret. I suppose one could say doing so by email versus screen sharing even requires more "honor". [:)]
Paul
User avatar
TeaLeaf
Posts: 451
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 3:08 pm

RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November 2017

Post by TeaLeaf »

As a player who gets the convoys working very well in 2.7.5 (they do what I want 100% of the time, sometimes with just a small workaround), I must wonder how people can get it working after 2.7.5.

Because I can't.
True, my savegames are 'tainted' (tampered with the GAM), but can't it have anything to do with our machines (OS, hardware, that stuff)?
Otherwise I cannot help but thinking that people who can get it working after 2.7.5 just have lower demands on CW production than I (and some others) do. Perhaps even don't care if the CW produces 21BP or 18BP per turn, as long as the CW gets 'most of their resources' to a factory?

I can tell you if the allies want to win the war, they HAVE to worry about NOT producing 18BP per turn and be able to actually crank it up to 21!
And higher once the PM's start to increase... Some sort of 'laissez faire' attitude doesn't get the CW anywhere.

But once again, I don't know the current state of the convoying, because I have no 'tamper-free GAM' game going on atm.
Soon I'll patch and start a new game, hope I can get the same 100% satisfaction while convoying as I get with 2.7.5 now.
jjdenver
Posts: 2477
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 11:07 pm

RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November 2017

Post by jjdenver »

My #1 item would be convoy system.
My #2 item would be fixing cvp bugs. It often happens with various versions that I play (2.7.1, 2.9.1.4) that cvp's get "stuck" on a CV and it's as if they are not really there anymore - you can't take them off and they don't show up in naval combats. Also occasionally I see cvp's get "stuck" in a sea box.

I will literally never have a need for netplay. Only PBEM with files.

Thanks
AARS:
CEAW-BJR Mod 2009:
tm.asp?m=2101447
AT-WW1:
tm.asp?m=1705427
AT-GPW:
tm.asp?m=1649732
User avatar
Joseignacio
Posts: 3008
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 11:25 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November 2017

Post by Joseignacio »

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

If you want to play with another person by email, it doesn't make much difference whether you use Solitaire or Head-to-Head. AAMOF when we played by screen sharing we found H2H just added needless overhead in the clicking required to tell the computer we were a different player. Either one requires the use of the "honor system" to keep US entry and pact chits secret. I suppose one could say doing so by email versus screen sharing even requires more "honor". [:)]

Thanks for that, I thought there had been a reason why I didn't like that system. I had only one (non frustrated by bugs) longer game with one guy and IMO he was not very gentlemanly, kinda tricky and mean, so I got scared of not regulated games. If you sum this to the variety of persons you find in tabletop, ..., you are still worried about this. There is a guy I no longer play with (in cardboard) called Dar***gton, here in Madrid, which is generally known as a cheater, I use to call him "Cheaterton" when speaking with my friends about him.

The problem is that, even though there are (it seems) a higher percentage of wiffers in Madrid that in other cities, the distance and the bad communications (frequent traffic jams), incompatible timetables (parents-family), make that guys like that are still admitted because some people accept a level of cheating as far as it's not outrageous. And guys like this still infect the gamers meetings.
User avatar
ncc1701e
Posts: 10714
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 7:50 pm
Location: Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards

RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November 2017

Post by ncc1701e »

ORIGINAL: David Clark

Steve is the only developer the game will ever have.

For some reason, he's decided to spend his last years bug-fixing this game.

He might change his mind at any moment, and retire.
It is my fear. I am playing solo from time to time not following all patches. But, if Steve leaves, does anyone in Matrix have an idea of ​​the code to take it back?
Chancellor Gorkon to Captain James T. Kirk:
You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.
David Clark
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 5:20 pm

RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November 2017

Post by David Clark »

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

It is my fear. I am playing solo from time to time not following all patches. But, if Steve leaves, does anyone in Matrix have an idea of ​​the code to take it back?

Nope. MWiF is programmed in object pascal, which is a sufficiently obscure language now that the remaining people who know it command big bucks, certainly beyond Matrix's inclination for a game whose marketing budget is long spent and whose niche-of-a-niche-of-a-niche market already either purchased the product or decided not to. Steve has these huge binders of the source code, but the vast majority of what he knows is probably implicit - approaches he could have taken, but decided not to for one reason or another, and bugs he saw coming and avoided without documenting. It would take a new programmer forever just to acquaint themselves with the code sufficiently to make minor changes, let alone code new features. Consider that MWiF was pretty much written from scratch rather than adapted from CWiF, which was an order of magnitude simpler.

In any case, Matrix doesn't really have 'programmers'. They're an online publisher that provides branding and marketing support, forums and download infrastructure to small groups that already have a largely finished product. What 'should' have happened was when the game was shipped in an unfinished and largely unplayable state, Matrix would have contracted someone to augment Steve and hopefully to take over from him someday. The decision was made to not do that, and I can't really argue. Matrix knows very well that post-release support is usually a waste of money with this customer base (which is mostly composed of game collectors, not game players) except for 'gamer goodwill', which is about as fictional an entity as can be imagined.

Everyone's gotten more than they by rights could have expected - Matrix has another entry in the product list, Steve is still working on his labor of love, and we get a game that works better than our tiny customer base would justify.
User avatar
nukkxx5058
Posts: 3141
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:57 pm
Location: France

RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November 2017

Post by nukkxx5058 »

So this is the end ?
Winner of the first edition of the Command: Modern Operations COMPLEX PBEM Tournament (IKE) (April 2022) :-)
David Clark
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 5:20 pm

RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November 2017

Post by David Clark »

Why would this be the end?? As far as I know Steve is still working, fixing bugs and adding features when he can. Until he decides to retire (or the bombs fall) I see no reason why the game wouldn't continue to see updates.
AlbertN
Posts: 4273
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Italy

RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November 2017

Post by AlbertN »

Over the course of the years I still follow the forums here - and by the looks MWiF progressed. Slowly maybe - but it's a colossal thing in the end of the day.
And the code programmer, Steve, seems passionate about it - which matters.

While I personally moved to Vassal for an amount of reasons (Using latest rules, other counters / possibility to add America / Patton in flames units if you want to play on post end of the game, etc), I owe to Matrix WiF the way I learnt the game. Enforced rules are marvels for someone who just knows nothing of the game and both me and my pal played MWiF (through Skype and sharing the screen) for some years before to hop to Vassal. And as said, not for reasons imputable to MWiF (unless you can finger it toward the remaining crystalized to the Final Edition WiF rules - which still make the game very playable and enjoyable. I am just the type of wargamer that prefers to play with the 'latest' rules, in usually safe assumption they're so for balance / gameplay reasons).

But I do not see a problem in future developments and improvements of MWiF.
User avatar
paulderynck
Posts: 8475
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Canada

RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November 2017

Post by paulderynck »

There is a roadmap for the game's development (at the start of this thread) and Steve continues to work on what is necessary to follow it. So it's not the end, and it's not possible to know when the beginning of the end might occur.

The game was released to the public in 2013 but he's been working on this project for something like 14 years now.
Paul
CanInf
Posts: 360
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 4:31 pm

RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November 2017

Post by CanInf »

sheesh... I had a version of the game before Steve got involved.. ohh boy... nothing like the past to remind you of how cool the new stuff is
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 29869
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November 2017

Post by rkr1958 »

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

There is a roadmap for the game's development (at the start of this thread) and Steve continues to work on what is necessary to follow it. So it's not the end, and it's not possible to know when the beginning of the end might occur.

The game was released to the public in 2013 but he's been working on this project for something like 14 years now.
"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." - Winston Churchill, 1942.
Ronnie
brian brian
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:39 pm

RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November 2017

Post by brian brian »

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." - Winston Churchill, 1942.

also mal-appropriated into the movie Darkest Hour last year, iirc, bringing the quote into the war 2 years early
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November 2017

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: David Clark

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

It is my fear. I am playing solo from time to time not following all patches. But, if Steve leaves, does anyone in Matrix have an idea of ​​the code to take it back?

Nope. MWiF is programmed in object pascal, which is a sufficiently obscure language now that the remaining people who know it command big bucks, certainly beyond Matrix's inclination for a game whose marketing budget is long spent and whose niche-of-a-niche-of-a-niche market already either purchased the product or decided not to. Steve has these huge binders of the source code, but the vast majority of what he knows is probably implicit - approaches he could have taken, but decided not to for one reason or another, and bugs he saw coming and avoided without documenting. It would take a new programmer forever just to acquaint themselves with the code sufficiently to make minor changes, let alone code new features. Consider that MWiF was pretty much written from scratch rather than adapted from CWiF, which was an order of magnitude simpler.

In any case, Matrix doesn't really have 'programmers'. They're an online publisher that provides branding and marketing support, forums and download infrastructure to small groups that already have a largely finished product. What 'should' have happened was when the game was shipped in an unfinished and largely unplayable state, Matrix would have contracted someone to augment Steve and hopefully to take over from him someday. The decision was made to not do that, and I can't really argue. Matrix knows very well that post-release support is usually a waste of money with this customer base (which is mostly composed of game collectors, not game players) except for 'gamer goodwill', which is about as fictional an entity as can be imagined.

Everyone's gotten more than they by rights could have expected - Matrix has another entry in the product list, Steve is still working on his labor of love, and we get a game that works better than our tiny customer base would justify.
One small correction.

The CWIF code was not simpler.

It rarely used case statements, instead relying on nested IF statements for branching logic. For example, using case statements makes it easy to read and understand the processing for the 27 different subphases of naval combat. Similarly processing the 60 different phases of the game.

I also put the code for initializing, processing, and terminating each of the phases into separate modules (i.e., pascal files). As part of those changes, I also standardized the code structure for each phase - you read one and all the others have the same structure. You don't have to twist your mind into a new logic structure every time you change which phase of the game you are analyzing.

Another aspect of the CWIF code that I removed entirely was the use of WITH clauses. [I despise them.] A WITH statement applies to a following block of code and adds a prefix to numerous variables within the code. For example, WITH U (U being a specific unit in the game - e.g., a land unit) means that variables such as MovementPoints, CombatFactors, Name, Country, etc all translate as U.MovementPoints, U.CombatFactors, U.Name, U.Country, etc. That isn't too bad if the block of code is small, say less than 20 lines. But when the block of code is over 200 lines and there are nested WITH statements in the block, it can become virtually impossible to understand. 'Name' could be U.Name, or U.Country.Name, or City.Name, ...

---

MWIF has increased the number of forms in the game enormously over what were in CWIF, and there are also a bunch of new features for optional rules and the player interface. The Delphi compiler tells me that the current number of lines of code is 708,000+ and they are separated into 430 pascal files (which I refer to as modules - Delphi calls them Units which to say the least is awkward when working with WIF code). So, yeah learning the code for the game would take a lot of time and effort.

But the code isn't opaque, and Pascal doesn't have a lot of obscure features like some other languages. More to the point in this instance, I always choose the simplest way to write code and avoid all those "new and wonderful improvements", authors of compilers like to invent to sell upgrades to their product. Give me a FOR loop, a FUNCTION call, rudimentary PROCEDURE calls, a CASE statement, IF .. THEN, and a few variable types and I am happy.
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
User avatar
Courtenay
Posts: 4396
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:34 pm

RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November 2017

Post by Courtenay »

No, Steve is still diligently working on the game, and shows no sign of stopping. Only when he is done might it be the end.

The real killer is that Pascal. If the game were in something like C or C++ others might have a try at it, but the number of people who know Pascal well is small compared to other languages.
I thought I knew how to play this game....
User avatar
paulderynck
Posts: 8475
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Canada

RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November 2017

Post by paulderynck »

Those statements mentioned in the last line of Steve's email sound like the same ones available in VB and certainly have equivalents in C, and C++. Most of the battle in learning a new programming language is wrapping your mind around the syntax rules.
Paul
User avatar
Gar-Dog
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:55 pm

RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November 2017

Post by Gar-Dog »

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
Most of the battle in learning a new programming language is wrapping your mind around the syntax rules.

I'll second that. I happen to have learned Pascal before C, and basically Pascal is very similar except the syntax is a little thicker (a few extra keystrokes), doesn't process whitespace the same, and otherwise is pretty similar in structure. It's not like Fortran or Ada...

I don't know Java, but I'd venture that it's as close or closer to C than Java.

If I happen to win the lottery, I might dedicate my days to helping out Steve!
Post Reply

Return to “World in Flames”