Uncommon Valor - patch 2.41

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Hi,

Final patch for Uncommon Valor :

ftp://ftp.matrixgames.com/pub/uncommonvalor/uv-patch-v241.zip

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
40 answers Last reply
More about uncommon valor patch
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    lupi wrote:
    > So I take it they are abandoning support for the game.

    There still are certainties in life : death, taxes and Lupi having
    imaginary problems with Matrixgames :)

    Greetz,

    Eddy Sterckx
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    So I take it they are abandoning support for the game.

    lupi


    <eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1112709491.636881.199750@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    > Hi,
    >
    > Final patch for Uncommon Valor :
    >
    > ftp://ftp.matrixgames.com/pub/uncommonvalor/uv-patch-v241.zip
    >
    > Greetz,
    >
    > Eddy Sterckx
    >
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    Lupi

    Give it a break, Matrix has supported the game less then a month short
    of 3 years from when it was released.

    Andrew


    "lupi" <lupi@cox.net> wrote in message
    news:5CD4e.109348$SF.26350@lakeread08...
    > So I take it they are abandoning support for the game.
    >
    > lupi
    >
    >
    > <eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:1112709491.636881.199750@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    >> Hi,
    >>
    >> Final patch for Uncommon Valor :
    >>
    >> ftp://ftp.matrixgames.com/pub/uncommonvalor/uv-patch-v241.zip
    >>
    >> Greetz,
    >>
    >> Eddy Sterckx
    >>
    >
    >
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    On 5 Apr 2005 06:58:11 -0700, "eddysterckx@hotmail.com"
    <eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >Hi,
    >
    >Final patch for Uncommon Valor :
    >
    >ftp://ftp.matrixgames.com/pub/uncommonvalor/uv-patch-v241.zip
    >
    >Greetz,
    >
    >Eddy Sterckx

    Yea, this is probably just a patch to break my nocd crack. And can
    this patch be installed on top of v2.30?
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    Give me a break. Commercial game companies do this. I thought we were
    supposed to support Matrix and their higher prices because of what they do
    for the community.


    lupi


    "me" <me@dontyouwish.com> wrote in message
    news:NsE4e.41157$qn2.9739704@twister.nyc.rr.com...
    > Lupi
    >
    > Give it a break, Matrix has supported the game less then a month short
    > of 3 years from when it was released.
    >
    > Andrew
    >
    >
    > "lupi" <lupi@cox.net> wrote in message
    > news:5CD4e.109348$SF.26350@lakeread08...
    > > So I take it they are abandoning support for the game.
    > >
    > > lupi
    > >
    > >
    > > <eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > > news:1112709491.636881.199750@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    > >> Hi,
    > >>
    > >> Final patch for Uncommon Valor :
    > >>
    > >> ftp://ftp.matrixgames.com/pub/uncommonvalor/uv-patch-v241.zip
    > >>
    > >> Greetz,
    > >>
    > >> Eddy Sterckx
    > >>
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <yuY4e.213$BM.87@lakeread05>, lupi@cox.net says...

    > I thought we were supposed to support Matrix and their higher
    > prices because of what they do for the community.

    Rather an interesting sentence, this, in that it manages to combine - in
    only 20 words - two of the most common and popular argumentative
    fallacies: The Strawman and Begging The Question.

    The strawman, of course, is contained in the phrase, "I thought we were
    supposed to support Matrix" due to "what they do for the community." I
    can't think of a single person who's argued that Matrix deserves any
    special support (beyond our broad and self-serving desire to see *every*
    wargame designer be generally prosperous) for any reason other than
    exchanging money for a game someone wants to try.

    Begging the question, obviously, is trotted out with the phrase, "and
    their higher prices." Not only has it not been even *remotely* shown -
    much less proven - that Matrix has "higher prices" than ... well,
    anyone, but the best evidence (Mr. Rutins already posted a comprehensive
    list of Matrix prices) demonstrates clearly that Matrix's prices are
    rather *low* when contrasted with other industry standards.

    Nice try, though! There might be one or two 12-year-olds who read the
    group and will be swayed by such a laughable, dimwitted *melange*.


    --
    Giftzwerg
    ***
    "The problem with the entire concept of 'international law'
    is that it can ensnare a Tony Blair while never laying a
    finger on a Saddam Hussein."
    - Mark Steyn
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    Aldwyn Edain wrote:

    > Yea, this is probably just a patch to break my nocd crack. And can
    > this patch be installed on top of v2.30?

    According to the docs it's a comprehensive patch, no prior patches
    needed - but I doubt it as the size of the 2.41 patch is too small
    compared to the 2.40 patch. So I would advise installing the 2.40 patch
    first.

    nocd crack : a loaded disk image works just as well - check out Alcohol
    120%

    Greetz,

    Eddy Sterckx
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    > The strawman, of course, is contained in the phrase, "I thought we were
    > supposed to support Matrix" due to "what they do for the community." I
    > can't think of a single person who's argued that Matrix deserves any
    > special support (beyond our broad and self-serving desire to see *every*
    > wargame designer be generally prosperous) for any reason other than
    > exchanging money for a game someone wants to try.
    >

    Try reading their forums, particularly those where anyone critiques anything
    about them.


    > Begging the question, obviously, is trotted out with the phrase, "and
    > their higher prices." Not only has it not been even *remotely* shown -
    > much less proven - that Matrix has "higher prices" than ... well,
    > anyone, but the best evidence (Mr. Rutins already posted a comprehensive
    > list of Matrix prices) demonstrates clearly that Matrix's prices are
    > rather *low* when contrasted with other industry standards.
    >


    Guess you have difficulty managing their website and websites such as
    ebworld?


    > Nice try, though! There might be one or two 12-year-olds who read the
    > group and will be swayed by such a laughable, dimwitted *melange*.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Giftzwerg


    As long as they don't see your writings as scripture, I guess it is okay.

    lupi
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <yuY4e.213$BM.87@lakeread05>, lupi@cox.net says...
    > Give me a break. Commercial game companies do this. I thought we were
    > supposed to support Matrix and their higher prices because of what they do
    > for the community.
    >
    >
    > lupi

    Personally, I support them because of their great games. One I got is
    Campaigns on the Danube. A really nice game, and I don't consider
    $20.00 a high price.
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 17:41:27 -0400, "lupi" <lupi@cox.net> wrote:

    >So I take it they are abandoning support for the game.
    >

    After only 2 1/2 years? The bastards! If we let them get away with
    this, eventually we'll end up with companies that don't even bother to
    patch their games! oh wait...
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <%b25e.264$BM.124@lakeread05>, lupi@cox.net says...

    > > The strawman, of course, is contained in the phrase, "I thought we were
    > > supposed to support Matrix" due to "what they do for the community." I
    > > can't think of a single person who's argued that Matrix deserves any
    > > special support (beyond our broad and self-serving desire to see *every*
    > > wargame designer be generally prosperous) for any reason other than
    > > exchanging money for a game someone wants to try.

    > Try reading their forums, particularly those where anyone critiques anything
    > about them.

    <laughter>

    Here we have another fallacious construct (though not so formal as the
    previously-cataloged duo...) I call The Handwave. You rhetorically flap
    your hand in the vague direction of "their forums," as though there's a
    steaming pile of fresh and useful and obvious evidence over there, just
    off camera.

    Sorry, but if your contention is that someone, somewhere, at some time
    asserted that Matrix was deserving of support for anything beyond the
    purchasing experience, then it's up to you to produce their argument so
    it can be evaluated - starting with an analysis of whether you've even
    characterized it fairly.

    > > Begging the question, obviously, is trotted out with the phrase, "and
    > > their higher prices." Not only has it not been even *remotely* shown -
    > > much less proven - that Matrix has "higher prices" than ... well,
    > > anyone, but the best evidence (Mr. Rutins already posted a comprehensive
    > > list of Matrix prices) demonstrates clearly that Matrix's prices are
    > > rather *low* when contrasted with other industry standards.

    > Guess you have difficulty managing their website and websites such as
    > ebworld?

    Is this meant as an argument of some sort?

    Because the only reasonable way to demonstrate that Matrix manifests
    "higher prices" is to produce the economic data. My suggestion would be
    simply finding the average price of a Matrix game, and contrast it with
    the average price of, say, an HPS game, or a Shrapnel game, or a
    Battlefront game with an eye to whether there's a statistically-
    significant difference.

    The mere fact that you haven't bothered to support this point with any
    numbers admits to two possible conclusions on our part:

    (1) You're too lazy to get the data you need, preferring another
    handwave, this time in the direction in the direction of "ebworld."

    (2) You've looked at (some of) the data and decided that the last thing
    your "argument" can withstand is a discussion of actual numbers.

    Oh, do tell us which is the correct one.

    --
    Giftzwerg
    ***
    "The problem with the entire concept of 'international law'
    is that it can ensnare a Tony Blair while never laying a
    finger on a Saddam Hussein."
    - Mark Steyn
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    James Gassaway wrote:
    > Am I the only one who remembers that the _correct_ state of affairs
    is to
    > have games that don't NEED to have patches?

    No, but there are a few things at work. Unlike the 1980s, we have a
    direct link to our customers in the form of internet forums and e-mail.
    This results in constant discussion, feedback and suggestions. We
    decided from the beginning that we wanted to participate with our
    customers and take their feedback to heart in improving our games.

    This has lead to many of our games receiving a lot of post-release
    feature updates, directly based on customer feedback. Contrast this
    with many mainstream titles that still don't receive patches or don't
    receive enough to fix major bugs, not to mention add any significant
    features.

    Uncommon Valor went through so many revisions because the game is loved
    by many, including ourselves and we have been improving it since the
    original release. This could easily be called UV 3.0 or 4.0 at this
    point as the latest release included some updates brought back from War
    in the Pacific development as well.

    The trade-off to continuing post-release feature updates is that,
    inevitably, they introduce a few new bugs. It's not a never-ending
    cycle, but it's a trade-off that is generally happily accepted by
    gamers in exchange for some continuing development and the
    participation of the devlopment team. 2.41 was in many ways a "tie up
    loose ends" patch that is meant to leave the game in a stable state
    with all the new features that have been added over time working as
    intended.

    In all of these cases, customers are also free to opt out of the
    upgrade cycle but the vast majority look forward to it and expect it,
    not just for bugs.

    Regards,

    - Erik
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    Then post price data between said companies and actually prove me wrong vice
    continuing your superfluous rhetoric.

    Sorry I don't have the time to keep up with your soliloquies but don't stop
    them on account of me. Odds are an ad hominem retort follows without factual
    data.

    lupi


    "Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1cbee4f9d96d792298a264@news-east.giganews.com...
    > In article <%b25e.264$BM.124@lakeread05>, lupi@cox.net says...
    >
    > > > The strawman, of course, is contained in the phrase, "I thought we
    were
    > > > supposed to support Matrix" due to "what they do for the community."
    I
    > > > can't think of a single person who's argued that Matrix deserves any
    > > > special support (beyond our broad and self-serving desire to see
    *every*
    > > > wargame designer be generally prosperous) for any reason other than
    > > > exchanging money for a game someone wants to try.
    >
    > > Try reading their forums, particularly those where anyone critiques
    anything
    > > about them.
    >
    > <laughter>
    >
    > Here we have another fallacious construct (though not so formal as the
    > previously-cataloged duo...) I call The Handwave. You rhetorically flap
    > your hand in the vague direction of "their forums," as though there's a
    > steaming pile of fresh and useful and obvious evidence over there, just
    > off camera.
    >
    > Sorry, but if your contention is that someone, somewhere, at some time
    > asserted that Matrix was deserving of support for anything beyond the
    > purchasing experience, then it's up to you to produce their argument so
    > it can be evaluated - starting with an analysis of whether you've even
    > characterized it fairly.
    >
    > > > Begging the question, obviously, is trotted out with the phrase, "and
    > > > their higher prices." Not only has it not been even *remotely*
    shown -
    > > > much less proven - that Matrix has "higher prices" than ... well,
    > > > anyone, but the best evidence (Mr. Rutins already posted a
    comprehensive
    > > > list of Matrix prices) demonstrates clearly that Matrix's prices are
    > > > rather *low* when contrasted with other industry standards.
    >
    > > Guess you have difficulty managing their website and websites such as
    > > ebworld?
    >
    > Is this meant as an argument of some sort?
    >
    > Because the only reasonable way to demonstrate that Matrix manifests
    > "higher prices" is to produce the economic data. My suggestion would be
    > simply finding the average price of a Matrix game, and contrast it with
    > the average price of, say, an HPS game, or a Shrapnel game, or a
    > Battlefront game with an eye to whether there's a statistically-
    > significant difference.
    >
    > The mere fact that you haven't bothered to support this point with any
    > numbers admits to two possible conclusions on our part:
    >
    > (1) You're too lazy to get the data you need, preferring another
    > handwave, this time in the direction in the direction of "ebworld."
    >
    > (2) You've looked at (some of) the data and decided that the last thing
    > your "argument" can withstand is a discussion of actual numbers.
    >
    > Oh, do tell us which is the correct one.
    >
    > --
    > Giftzwerg
    > ***
    > "The problem with the entire concept of 'international law'
    > is that it can ensnare a Tony Blair while never laying a
    > finger on a Saddam Hussein."
    > - Mark Steyn
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <Wvh5e.33$H53.27@lakeread05>, lupi@cox.net says...

    > Then post price data between said companies and actually prove me wrong vice
    > continuing your superfluous rhetoric.

    Nope. Sorry. Your contention is that Matrixgames charges "high"
    prices. That's something you need to justify/argue/demonstrate.

    > Sorry I don't have the time to keep up with your soliloquies but don't stop
    > them on account of me.

    The good news is that you can spell "soliloquies." The bad news is that
    you've missed the whole point of what it means.

    > Odds are an ad hominem retort follows without factual
    > data.

    I don't need any "factual data," as I'm not the one with an unproven
    assertion on the table.

    --
    Giftzwerg
    ***
    "The problem with the entire concept of 'international law'
    is that it can ensnare a Tony Blair while never laying a
    finger on a Saddam Hussein."
    - Mark Steyn
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "Frank E" <fakeaddress@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:u0RVQlnEC+5ksw32n5L7TtpqPDH1@4ax.com...
    > On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 17:41:27 -0400, "lupi" <lupi@cox.net> wrote:
    >
    > >So I take it they are abandoning support for the game.
    > >
    >
    > After only 2 1/2 years? The bastards! If we let them get away with
    > this, eventually we'll end up with companies that don't even bother to
    > patch their games! oh wait...
    >
    >
    Am I the only one who remembers that the _correct_ state of affairs is to
    have games that don't NEED to have patches?

    --
    Multiversal Mercenaries. You name it, we kill it. Any time, any reality.
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <eLh5e.13693$m31.134957@typhoon.sonic.net>, dtravel@sonic.net
    says...
    > >
    > > After only 2 1/2 years? The bastards! If we let them get away with
    > > this, eventually we'll end up with companies that don't even bother to
    > > patch their games! oh wait...
    > >
    > >
    > Am I the only one who remembers that the _correct_ state of affairs is to
    > have games that don't NEED to have patches?

    In a perfect world, this might be the correct state of affairs. But
    given the fact that the "target" for a game designer is five separate
    versions of MS-Windows implemented on roughly 87 zillion combinations
    and permutations of software and hardware ... well, a patch or two seems
    almost inevitable, eh?

    --
    Giftzwerg
    ***
    "The problem with the entire concept of 'international law'
    is that it can ensnare a Tony Blair while never laying a
    finger on a Saddam Hussein."
    - Mark Steyn
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    > Am I the only one who remembers that the _correct_ state of affairs is to
    > have games that don't NEED to have patches?

    It may be, but almost anything will need some patch. I company that
    addresses this need is much better than one that doesn't. Also, patches
    don't just fix bugs, they also add features.
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    Thank you, case proven.

    lupi


    "Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1cbf9012caff829798a267@news-east.giganews.com...
    > In article <Wvh5e.33$H53.27@lakeread05>, lupi@cox.net says...
    >
    > > Then post price data between said companies and actually prove me wrong
    vice
    > > continuing your superfluous rhetoric.
    >
    > Nope. Sorry. Your contention is that Matrixgames charges "high"
    > prices. That's something you need to justify/argue/demonstrate.
    >
    > > Sorry I don't have the time to keep up with your soliloquies but don't
    stop
    > > them on account of me.
    >
    > The good news is that you can spell "soliloquies." The bad news is that
    > you've missed the whole point of what it means.
    >
    > > Odds are an ad hominem retort follows without factual
    > > data.
    >
    > I don't need any "factual data," as I'm not the one with an unproven
    > assertion on the table.
    >
    > --
    > Giftzwerg
    > ***
    > "The problem with the entire concept of 'international law'
    > is that it can ensnare a Tony Blair while never laying a
    > finger on a Saddam Hussein."
    > - Mark Steyn
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1cbf90bc4589822598a268@news-east.giganews.com...
    > In article <eLh5e.13693$m31.134957@typhoon.sonic.net>, dtravel@sonic.net
    > says...
    > > >
    > > > After only 2 1/2 years? The bastards! If we let them get away with
    > > > this, eventually we'll end up with companies that don't even bother to
    > > > patch their games! oh wait...
    > > >
    > > >
    > > Am I the only one who remembers that the _correct_ state of affairs is
    to
    > > have games that don't NEED to have patches?
    >
    > In a perfect world, this might be the correct state of affairs. But
    > given the fact that the "target" for a game designer is five separate
    > versions of MS-Windows implemented on roughly 87 zillion combinations
    > and permutations of software and hardware ... well, a patch or two seems
    > almost inevitable, eh?
    >
    I wouldn't be upset if patches were addressing issues with specific
    platforms or drivers, but they're not. They address issues like the Axis
    player being able to issue orders to Allied units in a WWII game or
    improperly working database pointers causing units to disappear from the
    map. They address issues that would be OBVIOUS code errors if even a single
    competent person spent one week testing the code.

    I did not take it as a good sign when a high-level tester on the Matrix
    forums said that the reason why so many of the reported bugs weren't getting
    fixed in one game was because the ones they were correcting kept turning out
    to not be the ones reported. If your code is so bug-ridden that you can't
    even find a specific, frequently reported error, it wasn't ready for
    release.

    And as someone who has done tech support and coding, IMO you shouldn't be
    worrying about adding new features post-release until and unless what you
    are adding to is already stable and working.

    --
    Multiversal Mercenaries. You name it, we kill it. Any time, any reality.
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <ENo5e.13739$m31.135259@typhoon.sonic.net>, dtravel@sonic.net
    says...
    >
    > > In a perfect world, this might be the correct state of affairs. But
    > > given the fact that the "target" for a game designer is five separate
    > > versions of MS-Windows implemented on roughly 87 zillion combinations
    > > and permutations of software and hardware ... well, a patch or two seems
    > > almost inevitable, eh?
    > >
    > I wouldn't be upset if patches were addressing issues with specific
    > platforms or drivers, but they're not. They address issues like the Axis
    > player being able to issue orders to Allied units in a WWII game or
    > improperly working database pointers causing units to disappear from the
    > map. They address issues that would be OBVIOUS code errors if even a single
    > competent person spent one week testing the code.

    You've got a point. No doubt about it. Just last week I was bitching
    about HARPOON3 and the fact that the scenario selection screen is
    flagrantly broken - a problem so profound and obvious that it's
    impossible to believe that anyone even *ran* the update before they
    threw it out on the net. Oh, and their troglodytic "licensing" schema
    means you can't even go back to a working version of the code.

    I'm just saying that I don't necessarily mind patches or believe that
    it's reasonable to expect perfect code on release; the Cathedral *and*
    the Bazaar routinely crank out buggy programs.

    --
    Giftzwerg
    ***
    "The problem with the entire concept of 'international law'
    is that it can ensnare a Tony Blair while never laying a
    finger on a Saddam Hussein."
    - Mark Steyn
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <kGm5e.60$H53.49@lakeread05>, lupi@cox.net says...

    > Thank you, case proven.

    How's that?

    --
    Giftzwerg
    ***
    "The problem with the entire concept of 'international law'
    is that it can ensnare a Tony Blair while never laying a
    finger on a Saddam Hussein."
    - Mark Steyn
  22. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    On 6 Apr 2005 23:39:26 -0700, "eddysterckx@hotmail.com"
    <eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote:


    >nocd crack : a loaded disk image works just as well - check out Alcohol
    >120%
    >
    >Greetz,
    >
    >Eddy Sterckx

    Quite a few games won't install with virtual drives installed now.
    Namely EA and Ubisoft games (Safedisk). I'll have to get the v2.40
    patch and then find a new cd crack for v2.41or just stick with my
    already cracked version. Do these last two patches fix any *glaring*
    holes in UV?
  23. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    James,

    That's really too general for me to reply to. I don't believe that it
    represents in any way the reality of our coding and support. In the
    case of UV, the first two patches and part of the third focused on
    stability before significant new features are added. That's our
    general rule and it's common sense. However, once we get past any
    initial fixes, we are not against adding some customer-requested
    features.

    We test our titles before release, with many competent people testing
    for more than a week, so anything that slips through definitely would
    not have been caught by your rule. ;-) Some are easier to check all
    permutations with than others. Seriously though, in my opinion the
    real test of a company is not if a bug slips through testing.

    Inevitably, a bug will slip through (given complex games and complex
    target hardware). Obviously, the goal is not to have any slip through
    and certainly not many. However, once a post-release bug is reported,
    how is it addressed? Every company has to deal with this and I believe
    our track record is good.

    Regards,

    - Erik
  24. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "James Gassaway" <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote in news:eLh5e.13693$m31.134957
    @typhoon.sonic.net:


    > Am I the only one who remembers that the _correct_ state of affairs is to
    > have games that don't NEED to have patches?
    >

    Yes, you are. The rest of us have reconciled ourselves to life in the real
    world.
  25. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    James,

    War in the Pacific is the most complex game we, and probably anyone,
    has release in years. I thought you might choose that. ;-)
    Nevertheless, there have been no game-breaking bugs. It's been stable
    and playable through the campaign since the first release. There have
    definitely been a lot of minor bugs and a few moderate or severe ones.
    All of these have either been addressed or are being addressed through
    continuing support (currently testing WitP 1.5).

    You completely misinterpreted the announcement of the new test
    coordinator. This wasn't a position that was just filled six months
    after release. This position had been filled throughout testing and
    development, three years prior to release. What changed was that the
    previous coordinator decided to step down and a new one took his place.

    I'm sorry this affects your health, but I don't see that we've done
    anything to you personally that should cause such a reaction.
    Seriously, if you don't feel well discussing this, I'll drop it.

    Regards,

    - Erik
  26. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <1113052581.052984.101040@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
    erikr@matrixgames.com says...
    > James,
    >
    > That's really too general for me to reply to. I don't believe that it
    > represents in any way the reality of our coding and support. In the
    > case of UV, the first two patches and part of the third focused on
    > stability before significant new features are added. That's our
    > general rule and it's common sense. However, once we get past any
    > initial fixes, we are not against adding some customer-requested
    > features.
    >
    > We test our titles before release, with many competent people testing
    > for more than a week, so anything that slips through definitely would
    > not have been caught by your rule. ;-) Some are easier to check all
    > permutations with than others. Seriously though, in my opinion the
    > real test of a company is not if a bug slips through testing.
    >
    > Inevitably, a bug will slip through (given complex games and complex
    > target hardware). Obviously, the goal is not to have any slip through
    > and certainly not many. However, once a post-release bug is reported,
    > how is it addressed? Every company has to deal with this and I believe
    > our track record is good.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > - Erik

    I think games would end up being more boring if all companies made sure
    only the safest coding was used. The programmer never stretching out
    and trying new things.
  27. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    I applied the 2.41 over top of the 2.30 and it started fine indicating
    version 2.41. Just in case, I got the 2.40 too. Just change the link Eddy
    provided to 240 instead of 241.

    Dirk

    "Aldwyn Edain" <ae@invalid.email> wrote in message
    news:igbf51d394m9f0evjg9fe06ri77s55jb90@4ax.com...
    > On 6 Apr 2005 23:39:26 -0700, "eddysterckx@hotmail.com"
    > <eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>nocd crack : a loaded disk image works just as well - check out Alcohol
    >>120%
    >>
    >>Greetz,
    >>
    >>Eddy Sterckx
    >
    > Quite a few games won't install with virtual drives installed now.
    > Namely EA and Ubisoft games (Safedisk). I'll have to get the v2.40
    > patch and then find a new cd crack for v2.41or just stick with my
    > already cracked version. Do these last two patches fix any *glaring*
    > holes in UV?
  28. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 14:49:04 GMT, "Dirk Gross" <a@a.com> wrote:

    >I applied the 2.41 over top of the 2.30 and it started fine indicating
    >version 2.41. Just in case, I got the 2.40 too. Just change the link Eddy
    >provided to 240 instead of 241.
    >
    >Dirk

    OK, thx.
  29. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "ERutins" <erikr@matrixgames.com> wrote in message
    news:1113052581.052984.101040@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > James,
    >
    > That's really too general for me to reply to. I don't believe that it
    > represents in any way the reality of our coding and support. In the
    > case of UV, the first two patches and part of the third focused on
    > stability before significant new features are added. That's our
    > general rule and it's common sense. However, once we get past any
    > initial fixes, we are not against adding some customer-requested
    > features.
    >
    > We test our titles before release, with many competent people testing
    > for more than a week, so anything that slips through definitely would
    > not have been caught by your rule. ;-) Some are easier to check all
    > permutations with than others. Seriously though, in my opinion the
    > real test of a company is not if a bug slips through testing.
    >
    > Inevitably, a bug will slip through (given complex games and complex
    > target hardware). Obviously, the goal is not to have any slip through
    > and certainly not many. However, once a post-release bug is reported,
    > how is it addressed? Every company has to deal with this and I believe
    > our track record is good.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > - Erik
    >

    I have to disagree. In War in The Pacific, I generated an incomplete list
    of over twenty-five separate bugs. All this was in less than two weeks of
    casual play, _after_ four patches had already been released and applied. I
    say the list was incomplete because I quickly gave up writing them down in
    disgust.

    There have also been, in the Matrix forums, public complaints from people
    who were involved in the testing that they were discouraged from reporting
    problems because it was "too late" to change the code. The fact that you
    have a recently appointed "head beta tester" six months _after_ the
    product's release says volumes all on its own.

    I hope you will forgive me for not pursuing this any farther, but the
    increase it induces in my blood pressure gives me throbbing headaches.

    --
    Multiversal Mercenaries. You name it, we kill it. Any time, any reality.
  30. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <Xns963376702FEF5jazjazjaz@216.196.97.136>, jaz@jaz.jaz
    says...
    > "James Gassaway" <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote in news:eLh5e.13693$m31.134957
    > @typhoon.sonic.net:
    >
    >
    > > Am I the only one who remembers that the _correct_ state of affairs is to
    > > have games that don't NEED to have patches?
    > >
    >
    > Yes, you are. The rest of us have reconciled ourselves to life in the real
    > world.

    Games actually seem to be better these days. They don't crash as much
    as they did for awhile.

    Epi
  31. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <1113079710.193179.281760@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
    erikr@matrixgames.com says...
    > James,
    >
    > War in the Pacific is the most complex game we, and probably anyone,
    > has release in years. I thought you might choose that. ;-)
    > Nevertheless, there have been no game-breaking bugs. It's been stable
    > and playable through the campaign since the first release. There have
    > definitely been a lot of minor bugs and a few moderate or severe ones.
    > All of these have either been addressed or are being addressed through
    > continuing support (currently testing WitP 1.5).
    >
    > You completely misinterpreted the announcement of the new test
    > coordinator. This wasn't a position that was just filled six months
    > after release. This position had been filled throughout testing and
    > development, three years prior to release. What changed was that the
    > previous coordinator decided to step down and a new one took his place.
    >
    > I'm sorry this affects your health, but I don't see that we've done
    > anything to you personally that should cause such a reaction.
    > Seriously, if you don't feel well discussing this, I'll drop it.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > - Erik

    In the main, I agree with you, but the "Video" bug could be rather game-
    breaking. Did you ever fix that? I just rename the video folder.

    Epi

    One of the reasons Bush is better about Mexican
    immigration, Jesus wrote him saying he should be.
    Gotta love those low fruit prices.

    http://www.curlesneck.com
  32. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 16:16:29 GMT, "James Gassaway" <dtravel@sonic.net>
    wrote:

    >I have to disagree. In War in The Pacific, I generated an incomplete list
    >of over twenty-five separate bugs. All this was in less than two weeks of
    >casual play, _after_ four patches had already been released and applied. I
    >say the list was incomplete because I quickly gave up writing them down in
    >disgust.

    I'd like to see your list.

    WITP is so complex, that at least 75% of "bug reports" actually
    prove to be simply player not understanding the rules or the way game
    works. Or player *thinking* the game should work this way, while
    developers thought it should work that way. Guess what? Developers
    made it work their way...

    >There have also been, in the Matrix forums, public complaints from people
    >who were involved in the testing that they were discouraged from reporting
    >problems because it was "too late" to change the code.

    James I take it you don't have any experience with beta testing
    yourself, perhaps not with any publishing business in general.

    Yes, sometimes it IS too late to change the code, or too late to
    correct the typos, if the book is already being printed and
    distributed. That is why various phases in the software development
    process have interesting names, like "feature complete" or "code
    complete".

    "Public complaints from people" you mention most probably come
    from one single guy from the beta team, and his name is, let me guess,
    Ron :o)) Ron just never ceases his grumblings, but if you want to be
    fair to Ron and this game, from time to time he also posts why he
    thinks that WITP is the best wargame he ever played (complaints
    notwithstanding).

    Most of Ron's complaints have NOTHING to do with bugs. He thinks
    ASW is too effective (one of his most vocal complaints). Developers
    think it works as intended. Guess what? DEVELOPERS WIN! :o) It's not a
    bug, it's my opinion vs. yours. 95% of public has no opinion on ASW
    and simply enjoy the game.

    >The fact that you
    >have a recently appointed "head beta tester" six months _after_ the
    >product's release says volumes all on its own.

    NO. Your accusations are wrong or even ridicolous. "Head beta
    tester" was appointed couple *years* before release. Kid - I know him,
    and I think he did a GREAT job on this game. AFTER the game was
    released, and AFTER the development of the game was continued, Kid
    stepped away from his duty, but immediatelly new "head beta tester"
    was appointed, EVEN THOUGH game was already released, and was at the
    point when most publishers and developers simply cease ANY support,
    because it brings them no profit.

    DESPITE having other games to work on, Matrix and 2by3 guys,
    primarily Kid (old head beta), Mr. Frag (new head beta, for patches)
    and Mike Wood (head developer) continue to pour their time and energy
    in improving this wargaming masterpiece.

    They don't have to do it, and I guess there's no money incentive
    to continue doing it, but they do it, and game gets some very
    important improvements (improvements, not simply bug fixes!!) with
    every new version.

    Say what you want but this is *dedication* to be very grateful
    for in my book.

    >I hope you will forgive me for not pursuing this any farther, but the
    >increase it induces in my blood pressure gives me throbbing headaches.

    http://www.epill.com/epill/epillmedtimer1.html

    It helps Mario, it may help you as well :o))

    O.
  33. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "Oleg Mastruko" <oleg@bug.hr> wrote in message
    news:9abg5112lb2q8f4d9phled2tdq8928acog@4ax.com...
    > On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 16:16:29 GMT, "James Gassaway" <dtravel@sonic.net>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >I have to disagree. In War in The Pacific, I generated an incomplete
    list
    > >of over twenty-five separate bugs. All this was in less than two weeks
    of
    > >casual play, _after_ four patches had already been released and applied.
    I
    > >say the list was incomplete because I quickly gave up writing them down
    in
    > >disgust.
    >
    > I'd like to see your list.
    >
    > WITP is so complex, that at least 75% of "bug reports" actually
    > prove to be simply player not understanding the rules or the way game
    > works. Or player *thinking* the game should work this way, while
    > developers thought it should work that way. Guess what? Developers
    > made it work their way...
    >

    1) Allied controlled Bangkok reverts to IJA 15th Army.

    2) Air units at Bangkok reset the player-selected target to "Commander's
    Choice". Occurs during turn execution before any missions are flown. Most
    likely a side effect of #1 (above).

    3) Level Bombers set to Naval Attack/Rest joining other LB types from the
    same base in making an Airfield or Port Attack.

    4) TFs not moving. Task Forces stopping movement 1 day out from
    destination, do not move over multiple days even after resetting the
    destination to the same. Sometimes endurance drops as though they are
    moving, sometimes it doesn't. Exiting program and rebooting computer
    sometimes appears to clear this and get TFs moving again, but not always.

    5) Signal Intelligence entries are generated for Canadian bases and for
    mainland Asia bases captured by the Allies. Happens with captured bases in
    the Marshall Islands as well.

    6) Leaders (mostly ship) replaced at random with officers from other service
    types (land/air/sea).

    7) Unable to change commanders of ships disbanded in port.

    8) Ship Commanders already assigned to ships still show up as available for
    assignment to other ships.

    9) Air Missions being concatenated or collapsed into each other. I.E.
    Squadron 1 at Base A is assigned to attack Base B and mission is initiated
    in turn execution. Squadron 2 at Base C is assigned to attack Base D and
    mission is initiated in turn execution. Base B is outside the range of
    Squadron 2 and Base D is outside the range of Squadron 1. During turn
    resolution combat animations will show Squadrons 1 and 2 attacking Base B.
    On map attack vector (base-to-base red line) will only appear from Base A to
    Base B. Damage will only be done to Base B by Squadron 1 in combat reports
    but aircraft from both squadrons will be damaged by defenses (both fighters
    and flak). No attack on Base D will be reported or resolved. (May be
    related to #3 above.)

    10) Some of the above bugs may be caused in part by a memory leak in the
    program. But this is impossible for a user to confirm, must be investigated
    by programmer with access to source code. (See #4 above.)

    11) Second 40mm Bofors on LSTs has no ammo.

    12) Air units with more than 50 aircraft slowly losing aircraft until only
    50 remain, and no replacements filling out TO&E above 50. (Probably no
    maintenance or repairs being done on aircraft over 50 per unit.)

    13) Night air-to-air combat causes the program to hang.

    14) Australian divisions cannot be recombined if they are divided.

    15) Combat animations and reports showing ships being hit by torpedoes when
    all aircraft involved in the attack are listed as "bombing from X,000 feet".

    16) There is insufficient room in the game database(s) for all the air units
    in the game; this sometimes prevents units from being divided. It would
    appear likely that ground and naval units have the same problem. (Related to
    #12, as this prevents the workaround for that problem.)

    17) The Max Strength of carrier based air units is being reset (sometimes
    higher, sometimes lower) when the host carrier is damaged and part of the
    air unit gets redirected to a land base.

    18) City attack maximum range is one less than for Port or Airfield attacks.

    19) Land units do not move to the next hex when they have accumulated the
    required 60 miles of movement. (Related to #4?)

    20) With nothing assigned to computer control, an Air Combat TF was formed
    by the computer from British ships disbanded at Camranh Bay and an Admiral
    was assigned to lead the TF. Under computer control the TF then sailed to
    Japanese controlled Jolo and docked there. Already existing Air Combat TFs
    docked at Camranh Bay are also pre-empted by computer control and sent to
    Jolo.

    21) The "Follow TF" command does not work if the target is a submarine TF.

    22) CL Perth, arrived 05/30/43 as a Cleveland class replacement for lost
    ship, is a 'US Army' unit.

    23) LCU Reinforcements arrive one day prior to what is given by the
    Intelligence window.

    24) LCUs moving between Hue and Hanoi do not follow the rail, instead moving
    inland and using the slower road.

    25) Ships transferred from a TF set to "do not unload" to a TF set to
    "unload cargo" retain the flag to not unload.


    As for mis-understanding how the game is supposed to work, I don't believe
    any of this list fall under that. And those problems could be taken care of
    by having _accurate_ documentation, not deliberately misleading docs or
    intentionally leaving out important information.

    And for the record, my last job was programming and tech support for
    Computer-Aided Dispatch systems used by 911 centers.

    --
    Multiversal Mercenaries. You name it, we kill it. Any time, any reality.
  34. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <MPG.1cc214f2f5942284989690@news.east.earthlink.net>,
    epicat1212@hotmail.com says...
    > In article <1113079710.193179.281760@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
    > erikr@matrixgames.com says...
    > > James,
    > >
    > > War in the Pacific is the most complex game we, and probably anyone,
    > > has release in years. I thought you might choose that. ;-)
    > > Nevertheless, there have been no game-breaking bugs. It's been stable
    > > and playable through the campaign since the first release. There have
    > > definitely been a lot of minor bugs and a few moderate or severe ones.
    > > All of these have either been addressed or are being addressed through
    > > continuing support (currently testing WitP 1.5).
    > >
    > > You completely misinterpreted the announcement of the new test
    > > coordinator. This wasn't a position that was just filled six months
    > > after release. This position had been filled throughout testing and
    > > development, three years prior to release. What changed was that the
    > > previous coordinator decided to step down and a new one took his place.
    > >
    > > I'm sorry this affects your health, but I don't see that we've done
    > > anything to you personally that should cause such a reaction.
    > > Seriously, if you don't feel well discussing this, I'll drop it.
    > >
    > > Regards,
    > >
    > > - Erik
    >
    > In the main, I agree with you, but the "Video" bug could be rather game-
    > breaking. Did you ever fix that? I just rename the video folder.
    >
    > Epi
    >
    > One of the reasons Bush is better about Mexican
    > immigration, Jesus wrote him saying he should be.
    > Gotta love those low fruit prices.
    >
    > http://www.curlesneck.com

    I'm sorry, I should've said sound, not video.
    --

    Epi

    ------------
    One of the reasons Bush is better about Mexican
    immigration, Jesus wrote him saying he should be.
    Gotta love those low fruit prices.
    ------------
    http://www.curlesneck.com
  35. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 22:07:51 GMT, "James Gassaway" <dtravel@sonic.net>
    wrote:

    >> I'd like to see your list.
    >
    >1) snip

    Interesting list. Some minor glitches, many known bugs, some
    issues listed to be fixed in upcoming patch, some issues I see here
    listed for the first time, but all relatively minor.

    Risking to be perceived like a totally subjective Matrix Fanboi,
    I must say with the game of this scope, all your issues - with
    possible exception of #19, which is a known bug on the list - are
    really nothing to lose sleep over, let alone risk health thru raised
    blood pressure and whatnot.

    #13 looks like a game breaker, but is a known glitch, solvable
    simply by pressing Esc key after night bombing sequence.

    Having said that, I respect your list, you do have a good eye
    for spotting these things, and as WITP fan, I do think all bugs should
    be fixed, but lets keep things in perspective here...

    You must realize, nothing even CLOSE to the game of WITP's scope
    was ever made, and I am afraid it will not even be *attempted* by any
    developer in the foreseeable future. If you really want to miss on a
    great, incomparably complex and uniquely detailed game because of
    minor issues, I'm afraid it's your loss.

    BTW, I played countless hundereds of hours of WITP, and didn't
    notice 80% of items on your list. I am not saying issues don't exist,
    I am trying to show how minor they are, how complex the game is, and
    that the game works fine with or without them.

    I also admit I've never experienced 80% of issues listed as
    "fixed" in the upcoming patch. Obviously some people have experienced
    them, reported them, and they are fixed.

    I am not all that "bug blind", either. I personally reported
    some WITP bugs before. If the report is sent at the appropriate place,
    documented with the save, and is verifiable and repeatable on other
    PCs, Matrix and 2by3 guys do all in their power to have it fixed for
    the next patch.

    Did you post your bug report(s) on the appropriate board, and
    document them with savefiles?

    BTW here is the current list of planned fixes for upcoming patch
    1.5. I see some of issues from your list listed as "fixed" here. I
    also see two issues I personally insisted on, listed as either "fixed"
    or "new feature".

    http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=834730

    Now, you can say that "inability to change commanders of ships
    disbanded in port" ruined your health, and I truely respect that, but
    you certainly can't say these guys are not doing their best to fix
    every issue, big or small, AND add new features on top.

    Oleg
  36. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 21:38:18 GMT, "James Gassaway" <dtravel@sonic.net>
    wrote:

    >"Frank E" <fakeaddress@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    >news:u0RVQlnEC+5ksw32n5L7TtpqPDH1@4ax.com...
    >> On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 17:41:27 -0400, "lupi" <lupi@cox.net> wrote:
    >>
    >> >So I take it they are abandoning support for the game.
    >> >
    >>
    >> After only 2 1/2 years? The bastards! If we let them get away with
    >> this, eventually we'll end up with companies that don't even bother to
    >> patch their games! oh wait...
    >>
    >>
    >Am I the only one who remembers that the _correct_ state of affairs is to
    >have games that don't NEED to have patches?

    Nice in theory but it hasn't happened since I started playing computer
    games in the early 80s. ... although admittedly there were, at least,
    some games out there back then that didn't require patches. But I also
    remember buying games that were broke out of the box that never got a
    patch because patches just weren't feasible back then.

    The choice these days isn't between games that work straight out of
    the box and games that need patches. It's between games like UV and
    EU2 where one at least knows that they will still get some developer
    lovin' after release and something like the original Airborne Assault
    where the developer never bothered to fix major bugs.

    Rgds, Frank
  37. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 06:33:18 -0700, Frank E <fakeaddress@hotmail.com>
    wrote:


    >Nice in theory but it hasn't happened since I started playing computer
    >games in the early 80s. ... although admittedly there were, at least,
    >some games out there back then that didn't require patches. But I also
    >remember buying games that were broke out of the box that never got a
    >patch because patches just weren't feasible back then.
    >
    >The choice these days isn't between games that work straight out of
    >the box and games that need patches. It's between games like UV and
    >EU2 where one at least knows that they will still get some developer
    >lovin' after release and something like the original Airborne Assault
    >where the developer never bothered to fix major bugs.
    >
    >Rgds, Frank

    There is the occasional game released these days that don't need
    patches. I don't mind buying games that need the occasional patch but
    when they need umpteen massive patches and all in order of one another
    I just get pissed off screwing around with patch management. Now that
    UV has finished it's patch cycle they should do one big final patch
    for us to download so I don't have to keep track of all the other
    small patches for the next time I do a clean install.
  38. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    > There is the occasional game released these days that don't need
    > patches. I don't mind buying games that need the occasional patch but
    > when they need umpteen massive patches and all in order of one
    another
    > I just get pissed off screwing around with patch management. Now that
    > UV has finished it's patch cycle they should do one big final patch
    > for us to download so I don't have to keep track of all the other
    > small patches for the next time I do a clean install.

    As soon as our production schedule allows, we're going to do just that.

    Regards,

    - Erik
  39. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    On 15 Apr 2005 04:17:41 -0700, "ERutins" <erikr@matrixgames.com>
    wrote:


    >As soon as our production schedule allows, we're going to do just that.
    >
    >Regards,
    >
    >- Erik

    Good, and thanks.
  40. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "ERutins" <erikr@matrixgames.com> wrote in message
    > >> As soon as our production schedule allows, we're going to do just that.
    >

    that statement says nothing, have you thought of a career in politics or
    diplomacy?
Ask a new question

Read More

PC gaming FTP Games IBM Video Games Product