HistWar
HistWar (English zone) => General discussions => Discussion démarrée par: Simon le 11 décembre 2014, 23:10:14 pm
-
Every six months or so, or at least when a patch is issued, I test the game to see if it is anywhere near playable. Here are the the results of the latest 20 minute session (I will keep it brief): -
Nonsensical commander messages.
Dreadful user interface. Impenetrable and useless information on the units.
Far too dark.
Apparent distance between units far too great.
Commanders and units still run around in little circles. Impossible to attack.
Regimental battalions mixed all over the place.
I could go on. Sadly.
At this rate, the “game” is simply never going to be playable. A serious, rational taking stock of the situation needs to be done urgently. At present this is a failed project. The truth might hurt but it has to be faced.
-
Every six months or so, or at least when a patch is issued, I test the game to see if it is anywhere near playable. Here are the the results of the latest 20 minute session (I will keep it brief): -
Nonsensical commander messages.
Dreadful user interface. Impenetrable and useless information on the units.
Far too dark.
Apparent distance between units far too great.
Commanders and units still run around in little circles. Impossible to attack.
Regimental battalions mixed all over the place.
I could go on. Sadly.
At this rate, the “game” is simply never going to be playable. A serious, rational taking stock of the situation needs to be done urgently. At present this is a failed project. The truth might hurt but it has to be faced.
Yes, basically critics are justified, cos many things didnt work far as soon as they were announced.
But here the timing is a bit questionable. If things dont turn completely wrong we will see a major patch in a couple of days or maybe weeks. So it actually would make much more sense to do testing after its release.
"Dreadful user interface. Impenetrable and useless information on the units."
> Developers admited this issue & new UI is under development.
"Far too dark."
> Are you talking about HW: Les Grognards? Most people, I guess, play the new HW "Napoleon" and its allright there. I am sure this can be fixed.
"Apparent distance between units far too great."
> Take into account the scale. Imagine 1:1 scale fills the space much more as might be displayed. Furthermore the units need room to maneuvre, so they cant be too close to each other.
Another point is the lengh of the deployment-lines. If people try to cover the whole width of the maps, they most certainly cause bigger gaps. But this might not be the way playing a real simulation. A real commander must not deal with limited maps. So HW maps are big enough to allow outflanking or bypassing maneuvres. If you yet want to cover the whole maps front, you rather cause a fatal inconsistency of your forces.
Commanders and units still run around in little circles. Impossible to attack.
> If you mean the certain blocking-bug?! I think this has been much improved to early versions. Also the river crossing is much better than before. I think this progress justfies to be more optimistic.
Regimental battalions mixed all over the place.
> Take notice that there are 2 different engines working: inner simulation and 3D view displaying engine. They dont work perfectly simultanious. As far as I know they are continiously optimizing this matter. On the other hand "battailons mixed all over the place" is napoleonic warfare & chaos of battle. At some point accurate order mostly turns into a mess.
I suggest you test again after the upcoming patch. And keep up being critical.
But if you dont want to risk to miss the chance playing the best napoleonic wargame somewhen, you probably need to overthink your relation to the 4th dimension. This unfortunately might be what every napoleonic wargamer has to do talking about HW.
-
You're right Sandman. One thing we need to consider is Division and Brigade comand. This is a big source of another series of bugs and much more complicated than whipping out the last bugs I would guess. As these bugfixes needed over a year since Napoleon started, I would rather get a good working game without Brigade and Divsion comand than a buggy with brigade and division.
-
Thanks for taking the trouble to respond in detail. I could have posted a much lengthier review with literally scores of queries but I have pretty well accepted my own conclusions about the game. It is the Napoleon version that I have been trying (my second purchase of the game).
It’s not simply a case of the queries per se. Serious problems (such as units and leaders running around in circles instead of doing anything productive) have been present for several years. I have absolutely no confidence therefore that the next patch will suddenly resolve everything. That’s not prejudice but experience.
There are also serious problems with the design concepts. Let’s take one particular example of the user interface - and here I am not talking about the presentation aspect of it but rather the information content. The unit detail box has icons which are useless because they do not convey an immediate meaning. Worse, the information is presented numerically. Worse than that however, is the overload of specific numbers.
People do not assimilate lists and numeric data as readily as graphic data. The whole of this area should be replaced by shapes/sliders/colour coding. I’m informed that morale is “24” - what the hell does that mean? I have no threshold by which to judge it - on its own it is meaningless, giving no clue to the unit being either on top of the world or at breaking point.
It would take too long to go through everything (which would still include that issue of mixing up of regimental battalions). What I am saying is that after so many years, if the game isn’t working even close now, it’s unlikely ever to do so.
It is said that without the Apollo 1 launchpad fire, the project would never have reached the moon in 1969. NASA was forced to rethink everything and implement a complete overhaul of its administrative procedures. Unless a similar reassessment of the game is implemented, I cannot see it ever being playable. It is very sad that such a promising and well meant project seems to be coming to nothing, despite the passing of many years now.
-
I’m informed that morale is “24” - what the hell does that mean? I have no threshold by which to judge it
This is a bad example for you to pick.
Moral is rated zero to 100, guess what, 100 is better than zero, and so it so follows 24 is also better than zero, but not as good as 50, or 75, or 95........the higher the better, the lower the worse............you can replace that with a "graphic" but I find it hard to believe anything could be any simpler to understand than a sliding scale of 0 to 100.......check the units moral, very high when safe and not in action, higher for Guard and Elite troops, lower for line and lower when in danger or sustained loses.
-
I actually wrote this yesterday and wasn't going to post, but hey that's what forums are for?
Don't know what to say if anything to make people change their mind a wait a bit longer...
After a promising release of HWN, and a comprehensive list of future updates to the game, things went sadly wrong.
I think the complexity of the engine is unfortunately making things very difficult for everyone. One slight change here to rectify this or that invariably leads to problems somewhere else. Unfortunately they are not always blindingly obvious...
Version 5.5fg is or has been beta tested, (seems to be only 2 people prepared to spend time doing this?) but unfortunately there are still some minor issues, I say minor as they seem minor, but in the world of game coding, maybe a bit more complicated to fix.
To all intents and purposes it is still a one man show, with another person working solely on the graphics and another on the new interface. I have great confidence that the graphics and interface will both be very good, but, it is now undeniable that the game engine should have been functioning superbly well before now.
But who is to blame, is there any point in blaming anyone. I think the community, myself included played the game and accepted too many slight problems early on and recently it has back fired because more and more people have stopped playing or have left because of general lack of communication on the forum.
I don't think you have said anything wrong Simon, in fact, behind the scenes there are a lot of people feeling like you, I would disagree on some of the comments made, but that is more about Napoleonic aesthetics than criticism of the long wait, and disappointment.
It would take too long to go through everything (which would still include that issue of mixing up of regimental battalions).
This is one thing HW does well, although the internal engine and 3d have difficulty displaying with 100% accuracy.
Reading any Napoleonic book will tell you, that confusion reigned in these battles, a regiment was made up of battalions and a battalions were the currency of the field, ie 2 battalions from one regiment would support battalions of another regiment, in the doctrine editor, what that is set at will make a difference, is the doctrine editor set to send battalions from one regiment to support another?
You mentioned spacing, the average regiment needs 300m to deploy in line, its all in the manual, if you have 20 units deployed over 2km with 50% reserve, that is 200m per regiment, now, is your doctrine set to engage enemy line formation with line formation? Suddenly one engaged infantry does not have the room to deploy into line... These are all the considerations that are unfortunately missed and the game appears to not do would it should do, but after spending so much time reading the manual there is more that this game does right than it is given credit for.
Deploy 10 units of infantry over 1km with reserve of 50% 1/2 scale spacing looks about right to me.
The great pity is about 3 or 4 years ago there were some minor problems but the whole package was a lot bigger than what we now have in HWN, and once most saw the great change in graphics more than a few were reluctant to go back to the old version.
The sad thing is all that time ago there were minor issues, and unfortunately a few years on there still is... But they are slowing getting rectified.
One thing we need to consider is Division and Brigade command. This is a big source of another series of bugs and much more complicated than whipping out the last bugs I would guess.
This now concerns me too.
Presumably Simon you have HWN, therefore you have bought your place to return at any point you wish, because the new GUI at least cannot be that far away...
I will hang in there, because I think and hope something good is coming...
BUT what I am most bemused about and cannot for the life of me understand is the secrecy, if it is that and total lack of 'tasters', ie screenshots, information and what we may have to look forward to. We will be told that everyone is busy doing their bit, but how long does it take to post a screenshot or line or two?
I do sometimes wonder if this forum is just here for the petit quiz?
Anyway, you have paid for your copy, so will be entitled to any further patches etc, the man working on the GUI at the present I am certain will do a good job...
-
Gunner24 - your evident lack of understanding of the point being made makes your sarcasm look not only misplaced but silly. I could explain the issue to you in detail but I (really) doubt that it would be much use to you. Just some things to help though...
At what range of values are troops (due to current morale) breaking/halting/raring to go/quitting the field/etc.? From the changing values, (often erratically), how do you know, battalion by battalion, the rate at which morale is being eroded. Two digit values are meaningless and far, far too precise. No-one is bothered about a 1% difference. A scale of 1-5(ish), with definitions would be much better. That's the trouble with much of the design generally - there appears to be little appreciation of what is needed.
Or try...
Which is the third longest line below? : -
1 -----------------------------------------------------------
2 -----------------------------------------------------------
3-----
4--
5-----------------------------
6------------------------------------------------------
7-----------------
Easy eh? Quick too! Now... which is the third largest number in this list?
46
48
39
42
18
81
42
45
Get it now matey?
-
makes your sarcasm look not only misplaced but silly
Ha, perhaps you better read it again, I was not sarcastic or silly.
You like graphics, I like numbers, that is called a difference of opinion, nothing more.
-
How about the "old" system, used with the "G" key to switch back and forth - which I still use most of the time..........a line and a figure :
-
Sadly I gave up a long time ago.
I posted in Simon's other thread about six months ago and nothing has really improved since then.
I check in on the forum from time to time (it used to be every day) to see if things are moving along but alas one year after release and promised features this version appears to be heading the same way as LG. Very little in the way of information is frustrating too. All seems to be a huge secret.
Even the die hard supporters of the game seem to have their doubts.
More work needs to be done on the game play to make it work rather than spending time on how pretty the units or terrain look. I would settle for matchstick men if they acted like they were suppose to. Dress a pig up in fancy clothes , it is still only a pig that looks good. It may pay dividends if the programmer takes note of Simon's analogy about the Apollo space program.
My only solace is that I only paid for the basic version. Would have been even more annoyed if I had paid more for this apparent failure. Twice now by the way. Three times if you count LGA at Austerlitz all those years ago.
Disappointed. Valuable lesson learned though. This game only takes up space on my hard drive now in the hope that I might get to play it one day. Don't even have a cd to use as a coaster.
As I said before. Hope I am proved wrong, but........
-
Surprising...
You may consider that the lack of activity on this forum is a bad sign. Actually we play multiplayer battles every week and we are happy with the present version of HWN: no news, good news. There are still some improvements to be done but overall the game is good, at least better that all what is existing. It seems to me that all the critisisms are coming from too much expectations by experts or by a misunderstanding of the game itself coming from gamers who what to have a total control on their units or corps. I hope that JMM will be able to correct this in the future tutorials
-
For HWN actually still a lot of work.
he took in more than 20 patches for HWLG ... Let's be patient for HWN and amuse ourselves with what we have.
With HWLG we still have a game that is about enough, we play multiplayer very regularly and we are in the DI from the 3rd campaign.
-
"a lot" of work is exagerated (that's my humble opignon).
-
Well thought I would check in to see if anything was happening.
The silence is deafening. I was half expecting tumbleweed to be blowing around.
Still a lack of meaningful information or updates.
I feel that this is definitely going to go the same way as LG. Please prove me wrong.
Will pop by in a month or two. Got other games that work a lot better than this to keep me busy.
-
Just waiting for the new patch with a lot of bad behaviours fixed... just some days...
JMM
-
Hi JMM,
Thank you for that update. I feel that even if you only post a small update perhaps once a week/fortnight people will see that the game has not been abandoned.
Despite my negativity I really want this game to be a success but it has been frustrating over these last months to see a lack of progress and information from the players point of view.
I am sure you have your reasons for the delays, but people are more understanding if they are not kept in the dark.
I said before, I admire you for taking on such a challenging venture but perhaps a longer beta test period with people on the forums, the Grognards, might have been a better approach. As it is at the moment I feel that this is the beta test stage.
Also as I keep saying, I hope you make me eat my words and give everybody the game that you want it to be.
Thank you again for the update.
-
Very difficult to communicate on the game... I prefer to work... and you can believe me, I almost work a lot each day.
The game ran very well, may be 0.1% in the code with some problems.. but this 0.1% breaks the gameplay...
During these last months, I tried to fix all problems. Very difficult because I have to fix without adding new bugs.
I believe the new patch will be a nice version... perhaps yet some bugs, I don't know.
That said, I can understand your frustration but I try to do the best...
Thank you for your huge patience...
JMM
-
I'm checking for the new patch almost every day, because with the Singleplayer, it is not really playable since the last patch (artillery ghost units, or firing over a very long distance) leader units moving strangely unmotivated. I sent save-files of it after release of the patch several months ago. So please eleminate the existing bugs and finish the 3D representation-part. We don't need brigade and division if management on corps and regimtent level works fine, otherwise I expect another year (or years) of bug-hunting - sorry to say that.
-
The new AI (Brigade, Divsion) aren't in the next package... Just this patch fixes a lot of problems reported these last months.
Really sorry for this delay... Art runs very well at this day and again sorry for the frustration.
JMM
-
...
I believe the new patch will be a nice version... perhaps yet some bugs, I don't know.
...
JMM
Hello JMM,
does that really mean, that all yet known bugs were corrected or are there some questionable points remaining you arent sure about if there could be bugs left or newly to appear?
Regards
-
We don't need brigade and division if management on corps and regimtent level works fine, ...
Sorry, but I think this assumption is completely wrong. You just need divisions, not corps in battles. Divisons were main units to accomplish tactical objectives, not corps, which were created for strategic purposes almost exclusively. For example you will never be able to replicate Soult`s manoeuvre at Pratzen Heights and Old Vineyards without his corps divided into separate divisions (not even mention Legrand`s detachment). And the same goes for reinforcements, movement of reserves, covering of withdrawal etc. I know you can link few regiments together, but I don´t think it`s acceptable.
Well, waiting will be even longer...
-
Sorry, but I think this assumption is completely wrong. You just need divisions, not corps in battles. Divisons were main units to accomplish tactical objectives, not corps, which were created for strategic purposes almost exclusively. For example you will never be able to replicate Soult`s manoeuvre at Pratzen Heights and Old Vineyards without his corps divided into separate divisions (not even mention Legrand`s detachment). And the same goes for reinforcements, movement of reserves, covering of withdrawal etc. I know you can link few regiments together, but I don´t think it`s acceptable.
Well, waiting will be even longer...
Agreed! But I guess, or lets say I hope, he meant, that there is no need for subordinate levels, until the concerning issues got fixed before.
-
Hello JMM,
does that really mean, that all yet known bugs were corrected or are there some questionable points remaining you arent sure about if there could be bugs left or newly to appear?
Regards
All yet known bugs are corrected... but I am no sure yet there are some bugs... that said, I think -if existing- these bugs will be minor.
I began to work on the AI (Brigade, Division) several months ago... before working only on the bugs and several important adjustments... So, I have to resume this task, but only after working on 3D models and new GUI... Sorry, probably several months before releasing these new AI... however very quickly a new version of Great Tactical AI more reactive...
JMM
PS : Austerlitz is a very good example... but you can build a OoB with the 3 Divisions affected to 3 groups in order to simulate the Soult Corps. Not the best, but a method to wait the AIs...
-
JMM and all,
I'm actually pleased that the current bugs have been addressed (especially ghost artillery after re-loading a saved game) before implementing new features because these types of bugs are game breaking. I haven't played HWN for months because of the artillery problem. If this alone were fixed, at least it would be playable and I would happily jump back into it again. Having a fun and playable game makes waiting for an improved game quite palatable. What's almost unpalatable is having a game you used to know as fun in a currently unplayable state (a game you spent $60 for) while waiting for supposed upgrades that may still be months away. Quite frustrating, actually.
I will always be a fan of yours, JMM, and I will always be a fan of HWN. None of this is at stake in what I am saying. But thinking about the customers of the product is just as much a part of game development as technically developing the game. Just throwing that out there.
Thanks for all you do, sir. You will always have my deepest respect!
MJ
-
I'd rather have the AI take priority than eye candy.
-
Just waiting for the new patch with a lot of bad behaviours fixed... just some days...
JMM
Hello JMM,
how many of the few days did pass yet? Any idea if you will release the patch this week?
Sorry, but I didnt really realize the plan for the next time.
Could you describe a roadmap about what features we can expect next chronologically? I am not asking for any release-dates of the following packages. Just a propper sequence according your plans of upcoming projects.
Greetings
-
Hi,
I have to adjust some parameters and I saw during the last tests some bad behaviours generated during I fixed previous bugs. One of them is critical and I must fix this one.
To be honest, I thought I can release the new version yesterday... missed...
Planning:
-the new GUI,
-the new 3D models... (because I have to delay the Division and Brigade AI),
-new Great Tactical AI,
-the two Div/Brig AIs,
-the 2 new editors (map, oob)
-the campaign editor.
Because a lot of problems are fixed in the game, it is possible I build a new patch for each new bugs detected. I tried during these last months to fix all issues and to adjust some parameters.
I hope it's clear... and I am very annoyed for the huge delay in the planning. It's like that and the team tries to do the best.
JMM
-
Hello JMM,
excellent news for everyone.
I check the forum periodically; as soon as the patch comes out I will also test.
Regarding the map editor; are you suggesting we suspend the use of older maps HW Napoleon
as well as transferring from the maps from the original game into the editor ?
Looking forward to open up the campaign program to check it out.
Thanks again for the update
zu
-
I installed the last patch 03n0b. It would have been nice to have a list of fixes or changes. I still notice that when reloading a saved game the artillery is situated so far away from the previous position making my entire plan unworkable. Does this patch contain the new Great Tactical AI or the Div/Brig AI ???
-
Bah... it's very annoying. Is there anybody else having problems with artillery? Not only I find it at entirely other place after opening the savegame, but very often it won't move no mater how many times I give the order.
-
Hi,
This problem was fixed in the last version of HW:N.
I am working on a new build for both games in order to fix the major issues.
JMM
PS : just a annoyed problem with a virus on my Dev PC... many hours lost for deleting the bad program... really a pity...
-
Great to hear of a new patch.
I sent you some PBEM files in the last weeks with a lot of smaller issues, which sum up so in the end after some hours of playing the game isn't enjoyable anymore. Most anoying are
- sometimes Corps and units that are stuck don't obey orders even when we were playing with no order delay and
- units marching through enemy units without taking notice / stopping / firing from each other.
Did you get to fix these issues. The rest of the game is now very good when you play against human opponents because the Grand AI is not reactive.
-
Hello oho,
I reported the same 2 issues when playing against the AI
the first is instance is ambiguous and could be interpreted as loss of cohesion general anxiety
French Corps were a miniature army in all effects. Depending on the ability of their leaders they
could be deadly but also very weak and inefficient. So which is the case ?
Check in the replay all the units in the corps for cohesion and morale if all are low then my guess
would be that explains the reason why . On the other end if all are ok something is impeding progress.
second instance. I 've seen this many times now. I can't tell weather these units are in a fight or both are trying
to defend the same buildings...in my report eventually one side expels the other so it follows that they are in
a fight but the engine excludes this rendering (if I can use the word)and chooses instead to show both units in a defense
stance.
I haven't played an MP with the new patch so I can't report either way. Keep sending reports in .
Thanks for staying the course
-
Again I would add that my biggest complain now is defensive formation or better its efficiency and strength. I can see it almost in every played battle. Everything goes rather fine when two opponents attacks each other, but when one of them turns to defensive formation, in the same terrain with the same obstacles and objects it gains some kind of big statistical bonus and immediately causes huge losses to attacking enemy opponent. What is worse, even unit in square is able to destroy evolved opponent infantry unit almost without suffering losses for itself. So, when one army or part of it turns to defense, you can just end battle by yourself, I find it quite unplayable since then.
I noticed some strange manoeuvring by some units, too. It seems to me that some unit (cavalry/infantry/artillery) is so focused on selected opposition unit, that it just isn't able to see surrounding enemy units. So this unit just changes formation or even relaxing in the wrong place at the wrong time just in front of enemy, and of course this unit suffers great losses because of it.
-
Sidney: Please send JMM your save files with exact time when it starts and the exact corps and regiments which are involved at both side. I think JMM can then debug the code (I hope) for these objects to see, why they are not attacking / are not attacked.
My problem that I sent to JMM were Cav units with direct attack unit order by the player. They were hunting an enemy cav unit right through the defensive lines. The problem was for me not that they were attacking, but also that they weren't attacked by the defensive line units Inf/artillery, no square formation which is normally well executed.
zu Pferd, 95 % my corps move with order immediate, also the regiments work ok.
I think the 5% of corps that didn't move were not involved in combat before, so fresh and resting.
-
oho: I already sent sav file(s) month(s) ago.
-
Hi Sidney,
I think we have to do a kind of a retest with each new patch-version, and if things don't seem to change, send another file (with the latest patch) and again with precise bug report. That's not very comfortable but maybe it helps JMM.
Normally he should send us a return-message (once he did for my Mails) if he thinks he had solved the issue or not and then we can retest it. At least that's what we do in my IT-company where I work - but we have a crew of 1500 and not only 1. So I forgive the lack of communication here.
Professional testing would include one of the Beta-testers to analize the bug report save files of the comunity before, so that only unkown bugs are reported to JMM for deeper analysis.
-
Sidney: Please send JMM your save files with exact time when it starts and the exact corps and regiments which are involved at both side. I think JMM can then debug the code (I hope) for these objects to see, why they are not attacking / are not attacked.
My problem that I sent to JMM were Cav units with direct attack unit order by the player. They were hunting an enemy cav unit right through the defensive lines. The problem was for me not that they were attacking, but also that they weren't attacked by the defensive line units Inf/artillery, no square formation which is normally well executed.
zu Pferd, 95 % my corps move with order immediate, also the regiments work ok.
I think the 5% of corps that didn't move were not involved in combat before, so fresh and resting.
I saw that 5% issue for exemple when there was a limbered ghost enemy battery unable to move and while the corps was passing this unit, some regiments stayed in this perimeter, probably trying to fight it, although it wasnt possible. Just like a Fata Morgana.
The overlapping of enemy units, even if often occurs due to a lack of synchronicity of the inner and 3D engine (I dont know - whatever), I personal feel appears like a passion-killer. In this context I usually miss multible fights between more than 2 units involved with each other at the same time.
I often wrote before, reaching the players, a simulation like HW should try to combine the aesthetique of arcade-games with the depth of a plausible simulation as good as ever possible.
And I agree that the defence line is too static. If the CiC orders a DL and of course attackers will try to flank it, the CC AI should be able to adjust the formation. Playing under realistic conditions a CiC being elsewhere on the battlefield cant do this in time. Especially with delay of orders.
-
Any update on where the game is heading?
-
Hello,
No news at this day.. always in progress...
I hope the new algorithm will be quickly operational.
Sorry :oops:
JMM
-
Thanks JMM.
Was concerned this had become abandon-ware.
Cheers