Clarification of future development plans

[pauk]

greetings...

Thanks from me also.

But, i'm interested about 2by3 games future plans. Just visited 2y3 homepage and noticed status of the War in Russia - the game is currently on hold.
[:(]

I thought that after the WoW, WiR is going to be next product. Please, can we get informations about WiR schedule-relase?

Thanks in advance

[dtx175]

If you'd like add'l insight on the challenges of improving the AI for WIP (or really any computer wargame), consider getting a copy of "How Computers play chess." Despite the book's focus on chess, reading it will give you much insight into the challenge of getting a computer to "see the map" and make good strategic decisions (particularly, since a chess "map" (i.e., board) is far simpler than the WIP map).

It's a very easy book to read, no programming knowledge is needed. (however, it will take thought to see its relevance to computer wargames). The book will give you much insight into critically evaluating games.

I remember reading that one individual did his entire PhD thesis on calculating the value of a knight in the center 4 squares of the board. (These values help the computer "see" the chess board.) WIP does "see" the map better than older programs like WIR. E.g., in WIR, the AI didn't expend extra effort to attack or defend Moscow, despite its importance. WIP does seem to do a better job at attacking & holding key locations.

[BPRE]

I'm afraid that a lot of the "seeing" of the WitP map is pre-programmed for the AI. At least that's the impression I get from some comments you can see now and then on the forums. It's still doing quite a good job and even just pre-programming it is an enormous job probably.
Comparing with chess is interesting. Especially if you imagine an 8 hex by 8 hex square somewhere on the WitP map. That's the complete chess board but it's really a minor part of the WitP map.

/BPRE

[dtx175]

In a totally ahistorical mod, I added oil to an island near Japan to help the Japanese AI.
I was pleasantly surprised that the AI could "see" oil & the AI sent convoys to get it.

Hence, as BPRE noted, there must be some hard coded (pre-programed) value assigned to oil sites so that Japanese AI "knows" to get oil from them.

The difficulty in getting the WIP AI to be sufficiently aggressive, but not overly so, must have been quite a challenge. Years ago I read that complexity tends to make AI less aggressive. It would be interesting to hear what has been done to overcome this.

[freeboy]

one way to "code " is to set smaller scripted paths into the game, but the hrder they are set in any game the less fluid the future results may become, this can be modified with a randomizer, but with thae amount of budget and hardware anything really attempting difficult settings for an AI must "cheat" imo

[BPRE]

Seeing available oil is probably not too difficult since the amount of oil available in each base is stored somewhere in the save file and all you require is a bit of code looping through all of your bases and if there's more than a certain amount of oil stored send a tanker.
I was really thinking about problems like routing ships from point A to B when there are enemy bases in the vicinity of the shortest route, finding the best base to head towards with a damaged ship to both avoid enemy bases and units but still find the closest base with a reasonable chance to repair the ship.
It's very easy for us to just glance at the map and see that there are no enemy bases between Rabaul and Truk for instance and also to make a decent guess if there's any enemies in the area, but the AI has to figure it out somehow.

/BPRE

[Gray_Lensman]

What about pure database errors that lead to bugs, when they are encountered? Where do we send them too?

Example:

Scenario 16: When No. 30 RAAF Sqdn (#1244) comes into play. Delay=420309. It is supposed to be a Beaufighter Mk 21 (#152), but instead Beaufort V-IXs are brought in instead, I assume because the Beaufighters aren't available until 430101. This gives you a hybrid Beaufort V-IX that has the characteristics of the Beaufort V-IX, but the default bombload of the Beaufighter Mk21. Obviously, this could be corrected in the Database, but the underlying bug that mixed the characteristics needs to be addressed.

I would expect the database errors to be corrected before calling the game complete.

As far as new features, if they are considered good enough to improve the game in a much better way, then I for one, would gladly pay a slight additional fee for such continued work. This is the best game I have seen on the strategic/operational level of World War II in the Pacific.

[Stwa]

So I guess this means there won't be a War in the Atlantic... hehe just kidding. [&:]

I want to thank Joel, Gary, everyone at 2x3 and Matrix for a most wonderful game/simulation. I was fortunate enough to have one of the original games way back when and I was totally astonished when this game (an UV) was re-juventated.

[saj42]

ORIGINAL: Gray_Lensman

I would expect the database errors to be corrected before calling the game complete.

As far as new features, if they are considered good enough to improve the game in a much better way, then I for one, would gladly pay a slight additional fee for such continued work. This is the best game I have seen on the strategic/operational level of World War II in the Pacific.

I support this. Fix the well known database anomalies and bugs, and then i would happily pay for product enhancement (such as the 'user defined upgrade'). But how much do you put in such an 'EXPANSION PACK' and what do you charge for it?

Over to the experts..... and grognards[:D]

[el cid again]

How many boardgame companies do you see rewriting their rules after release?

No disrespect intended, but how many boardgame companies release games with fundamental flaws in the game mechanics?

While boardgames and computer games based on boardgames are both software, computer code is significantly different than boardgame rules. Players do not have the same function in a computer game - they do not handle the mechanics of resolution in at all the same sense. Any complex software system needs to spend MOST of its development time in testing - and it is impossible to believe Matrix did that. I thought Matrix might be brilliant in a business sense - start generating money soon and let players help with the testing process (sort of free labor)? But IF you drop these games patch process - I was wrong. And IF you ALSO do not release the code to players to continue its patching - both ethical and legal issues arise. US Supreme Court says unsupported software is OWNED by those who bought what previously were licences. And there is way too much player time invested in these games to think there is no moral obligation not to keep development going at least until the major bugs are addressed. It might kill the goose that laid the golden eggs to convince players Matrix will NEVER develop ANY game through to the point the average board game is on its INITIAL release.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

How many boardgame companies do you see rewriting their rules after release?

No disrespect intended, but how many boardgame companies release games with fundamental flaws in the game mechanics?

SPI for one. Their original HIGHWAY TO THE REICH was so screwed up they actually released a complete replacement set of rules and charts. The biggest difference with board and computer games is that to "fix" a board game, all you need is an intelligent player or two. To fix a computer game, you need code access and programming skill, or a cooperative company that follows through.

[el cid again]

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

How many boardgame companies do you see rewriting their rules after release?

No disrespect intended, but how many boardgame companies release games with fundamental flaws in the game mechanics?



SPI for one. Their original HIGHWAY TO THE REICH was so screwed up they actually released a complete replacement set of rules and charts. The biggest difference with board and computer games is that to "fix" a board game, all you need is an intelligent player or two. To fix a computer game, you need code access and programming skill, or a cooperative company that follows through.

I talked to one programmer familiar with board games and his reply was "all of them." He feels that issuing new rules was the normal case, even though players could always rewrite them without help. But in the case of a computer game, few players can rewrite - and NONE if the code is not released. It is a fundamental thing - you are taking people's money for a product that does not work in fundamental ways - and saying this does not create any obligation to fix them. Wall Street Journal had a favorable review of a US Supreme Court decision that suggested this was not functional in US law - software companies MUST support their products in order to claim ownership of the code. A decision NOT to support means those stuck with the code have rights to do whatever they can. It is horribly inefficient - and it is in my view unethical as well. I think the only thing that makes sense is a mutual respect and support attitude. A decision to abandon is hardly going to gain market support for other future products.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

How many boardgame companies do you see rewriting their rules after release?

No disrespect intended, but how many boardgame companies release games with fundamental flaws in the game mechanics?



SPI for one. Their original HIGHWAY TO THE REICH was so screwed up they actually released a complete replacement set of rules and charts. The biggest difference with board and computer games is that to "fix" a board game, all you need is an intelligent player or two. To fix a computer game, you need code access and programming skill, or a cooperative company that follows through.

I talked to one programmer familiar with board games and his reply was "all of them." He feels that issuing new rules was the normal case, even though players could always rewrite them without help. But in the case of a computer game, few players can rewrite - and NONE if the code is not released. It is a fundamental thing - you are taking people's money for a product that does not work in fundamental ways - and saying this does not create any obligation to fix them. Wall Street Journal had a favorable review of a US Supreme Court decision that suggested this was not functional in US law - software companies MUST support their products in order to claim ownership of the code. A decision NOT to support means those stuck with the code have rights to do whatever they can. It is horribly inefficient - and it is in my view unethical as well. I think the only thing that makes sense is a mutual respect and support attitude. A decision to abandon is hardly going to gain market support for other future products.

Matrix might lose a few supporters because of bad product, but mostly the people around here seem to be happy with what they're shoveled. At least that's what I read in the main.

[el cid again]

Matrix might lose a few supporters because of bad product, but mostly the people around here seem to be happy with what they're shoveled. At least that's what I read in the main.

The people who stay are self selected. They must like or tolerate the product, or they would not be here. But many people have left. Actually, I left. I considered my $150 cost a rip off and refused to play even one time - based on map and OB alone. ONLY Andrew Brown's map and a series of upgrades made me take another look. I STILL refuse to play - until gross errors are addressed - but most of them can be addressed. I ALSO remember the support Matrix gave to UV - and I expect the SAME support. IF this is not forthcoming, I expect Matrix to release the code. IF neither is forthcoming, I will go away too. I think WITP is a great teaching tool - IF it becomes close to correct. I always wanted something like it. Bottom line - Matrix will lose some fraction of its market share - how much is not easy to know - but I bet it is the majority - IF it refused to make the game work well.

[BossGnome]

in what way is the game unplayable? The ASW has been fixed, the air ASW has been fixed. The leader bug has been (mostly) fixed, the plane dissapearance bug has been fixed, the "its friggin easy to take china out in the early game" problem has been fixed, Russia can still be taken out, but it takes time and effort on the part of the japs, and it gives the allies an easier time in the early war, no really i don't see what makes you refuse to play??

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: BossGnome

in what way is the game unplayable? The ASW has been fixed, the air ASW has been fixed. The leader bug has been (mostly) fixed, the plane dissapearance bug has been fixed, the "its friggin easy to take china out in the early game" problem has been fixed, Russia can still be taken out, but it takes time and effort on the part of the japs, and it gives the allies an easier time in the early war, no really i don't see what makes you refuse to play??

Air ASW is not fixed...they actually made it worse by getting it to work as designed because the subs are treated as surface ships during air search phases. They are going to fix it I'm sure. There are a ton of issues that El Cid has but he is even more hardcore than the hard rock miners around here.[;)]

[Tankerace]

It seems to me there are two kinds of people. Those who want WitP to be perfect, and fail to realize that it is a game, and those who realize it is a game, and while not necessarily a perfect one, a damn good one. There are errors, and some wierd design decisions. But it is the best thing on the market now. And frankly, I also have a hard time seeing all these people who say "I don't like it, I left. Give me the code, or I'll go away again." Ok, why are you telling us this? Does the fact you are leaving change the gameplay for the rest of us? No. Does your leaving at anyway affect those of us who are enjoying the game? No. The fact is it is a game people. And a damn good one. No one made you buy it. No one makes you like it. If you are in constant search of perfection, then just keep waiting. No game, or anything in life for that matter, will be perfect. But frankly, the way I see it, if you are going to "leave", just leave, and make room for the next guy who will probably enjoy the game. I have yet to find a perfect game (Tetris maybe?). And if small console games, first person shooters, and entry level wargames are impefect, it is naive and unreasonable to believe a massive game such as WitP would be perfect.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: BossGnome

in what way is the game unplayable? The ASW has been fixed, the air ASW has been fixed. The leader bug has been (mostly) fixed, the plane dissapearance bug has been fixed, the "its friggin easy to take china out in the early game" problem has been fixed, Russia can still be taken out, but it takes time and effort on the part of the japs, and it gives the allies an easier time in the early war, no really i don't see what makes you refuse to play??

It is playable. LCU's still disappear sometimes when transported by air. They've stated this is thier top priority for fixing in the next patch. Air ASW works pretty well. You can spot subs far more often than you can hit them, which I think is realistic.

[bwheatley]

Ok i've been following this thread...
Enough is enough. Please quit your damn belly aching and leave us in piece. If you are really so hell bent that you wasted your money ask for it back i'm sure they will give it to you. If they don't your CC company probably will. It is not worth matrixs time to keep the money of someone who is unhappy when there are many of us who are happy.

The dev's bust their ass on this game and it is a game. Your complaints are petty and have no purpose. Get your money back and please just quit trying to be a troll.

I've bought almost every single game matrix has put out becuase they put out great games. I will be happy to buy another copy of Operational Art of Warfare when matrix re-releases it... So they will not miss your money. They want customers who are supportive and enjoy their products. They don't want people who are just going to gripe and be a pain in their asses.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Matrix might lose a few supporters because of bad product, but mostly the people around here seem to be happy with what they're shoveled. At least that's what I read in the main.

The people who stay are self selected. They must like or tolerate the product, or they would not be here. But many people have left. Actually, I left. I considered my $150 cost a rip off and refused to play even one time - based on map and OB alone. ONLY Andrew Brown's map and a series of upgrades made me take another look. I STILL refuse to play - until gross errors are addressed - but most of them can be addressed. I ALSO remember the support Matrix gave to UV - and I expect the SAME support. IF this is not forthcoming, I expect Matrix to release the code. IF neither is forthcoming, I will go away too. I think WITP is a great teaching tool - IF it becomes close to correct. I always wanted something like it. Bottom line - Matrix will lose some fraction of its market share - how much is not easy to know - but I bet it is the majority - IF it refused to make the game work well.

[BossGnome]

i actually rather like the air ASW. It was always my impression that the german subs in the atlantic were shit scared of being spotted by allied airplanes, so they really only operated in the "dark zone" in the middle of the atlantic, where the airplanes couldn't reach. I think the spot vs hit ratio on the subs is pretty good.