People not wanting the manuals

[warspite1]

Following the FOW comments above I would add my 2 cents as follows:

1. I fully buy into the argument that the computer can be used to improve on areas that a board game cannot achieve and at some point in the distant future, maybe a FOW option could be introduced.

2. However, I do not think this is particularly necessary for two reasons:
a) The game aims to be a faithful reproduction of World in Flames the board game. There is no FOW in the board game and the board game is brilliant - so it’s not necessary here. Far more important would be ironing out bugs, getting netplay stable, producing an AI and writing the optional rules that it is intended to introduce. That is more than enough to be getting on with.

b) Secondly, at the strategic level, I am not sure FOW is really that important. What, at the strategic level was really unknown in WWII? Just two examples:

i) Stalin new full well about the German build-up in the East prior to Barbarossa. You cannot hide 3,000,000 men, their tanks, vehicles, aircraft etc.
ii) D-Day – there was no FOW in play here at the MWIF level. The Germans new an invasion would come – it was where the blow would fall that was the issue. With the North Sea sea box that does not alter; there will be a huge build-up of troops and aircraft in the UK. Where they land is something else.

[OttoVonBlotto]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Following the FOW comments above I would add my 2 cents as follows:

1. I fully buy into the argument that the computer can be used to improve on areas that a board game cannot achieve and at some point in the distant future, maybe a FOW option could be introduced.

2. However, I do not think this is particularly necessary for two reasons:
a) The game aims to be a faithful reproduction of World in Flames the board game. There is no FOW in the board game and the board game is brilliant - so it’s not necessary here. Far more important would be ironing out bugs, getting netplay stable, producing an AI and writing the optional rules that it is intended to introduce. That is more than enough to be getting on with.

b) Secondly, at the strategic level, I am not sure FOW is really that important. What, at the strategic level was really unknown in WWII? Just two examples:

i) Stalin new full well about the German build-up in the East prior to Barbarossa. You cannot hide 3,000,000 men, their tanks, vehicles, aircraft etc.
ii) D-Day – there was no FOW in play here at the MWIF level. The Germans new an invasion would come – it was where the blow would fall that was the issue. With the North Sea sea box that does not alter; there will be a huge build-up of troops and aircraft in the UK. Where they land is something else.

Peal Harbour, Ardennes twice. ? ok maybe more operational rather than strategic.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Otto von Blotto

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Following the FOW comments above I would add my 2 cents as follows:

1. I fully buy into the argument that the computer can be used to improve on areas that a board game cannot achieve and at some point in the distant future, maybe a FOW option could be introduced.

2. However, I do not think this is particularly necessary for two reasons:
a) The game aims to be a faithful reproduction of World in Flames the board game. There is no FOW in the board game and the board game is brilliant - so it’s not necessary here. Far more important would be ironing out bugs, getting netplay stable, producing an AI and writing the optional rules that it is intended to introduce. That is more than enough to be getting on with.

b) Secondly, at the strategic level, I am not sure FOW is really that important. What, at the strategic level was really unknown in WWII? Just two examples:

i) Stalin new full well about the German build-up in the East prior to Barbarossa. You cannot hide 3,000,000 men, their tanks, vehicles, aircraft etc.
ii) D-Day – there was no FOW in play here at the MWIF level. The Germans new an invasion would come – it was where the blow would fall that was the issue. With the North Sea sea box that does not alter; there will be a huge build-up of troops and aircraft in the UK. Where they land is something else.

Peal Harbour, Ardennes twice. ? ok maybe more operational rather than strategic.

warspite1

Yes exactly - its separating the operational and the strategic. E.g Pearl Harbor. The Americans knew full well of the existence of the Kido Butai. Conspiracy theorists aside, they did not know where and when the Japanese would strike.

In MWIF, the American player knows full well the existence of the Kido Butai - he can see it right there on the map. But he doesn't know when/if the Japanese will declare war, he doesn't know what the initial targets will be if the Japanese do decide to attack the US first.

With the Ardennes, again the scale and turn length are the key factors here. The Germans can quite easily line up their forces in the west without specifically telegraphing where the main thrust will fall, be it through Belgium, over the Maginot Line or through southern Belgium between Reims and Metz.

Edit: Spelling [8|] and additional example re Ardennes.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Actually, the Germans made a great show of going to attack France through Switzerland in the spring of 1940.

[Joseignacio]

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: Arnir

I would imagine that if FoW was added, some sort of intelligence system would need to be added to the game. Before ULTRA, etc., was declassified, it was amazing how lucky the Allies were in being at the right place at the right time. After declassification, things made more sense. How do we give the player the "hints" that intel provided in real life?

Please feel sorry for me when I catch hell from the WIF board game people who will gladly wish me to be bannished to some isle called, I think Elba. [:@]

Bo

XDDDD Remember I accused you of Trolling? Didn't know you yet, and that's exactly what it looked like. Quite different from the real Bo, AFAIK.

[Arnir]

Not a serious suggestion, but this thread is reminding me of the old SSI games like invasion America where the counters had their values hidden until combat (or some other criteria that I don't remember - it's been decades). It was always nerve wracking to see that counter flipped over to find out if it was a tiger or a kitten.

Personally I think MWiF is billed as a port of the board game and that is probably what it should stay. Could the engine be morphed into something else with a different name? I have no clue about that.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: Arnir

I would imagine that if FoW was added, some sort of intelligence system would need to be added to the game. Before ULTRA, etc., was declassified, it was amazing how lucky the Allies were in being at the right place at the right time. After declassification, things made more sense. How do we give the player the "hints" that intel provided in real life?

Please feel sorry for me when I catch hell from the WIF board game people who will gladly wish me to be bannished to some isle called, I think Elba. [:@]

Bo

XDDDD Remember I accused you of Trolling? Didn't know you yet, and that's exactly what it looked like. Quite different from the real Bo, AFAIK.

So it was you Jose who was going to banish me to the isle of Elba [:D] And without my 70 virgins [:(]

Bo

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Arnir

Not a serious suggestion, but this thread is reminding me of the old SSI games like invasion America where the counters had their values hidden until combat (or some other criteria that I don't remember - it's been decades). It was always nerve wracking to see that counter flipped over to find out if it was a tiger or a kitten.

Personally I think MWiF is billed as a port of the board game and that is probably what it should stay. Could the engine be morphed into something else with a different name? I have no clue about that.

I also think it should remain a vanilla version of the board game. I always liked games where a unit grew or weakened in strength depending on how that unit fared in combat. The possibilities are there though of a very fine fog of war being implemented.

Bo