Dev Knowledge Quest

[JanSorensen]

ORIGINAL: mdh1204

I would like to see a mod that makes a separate production spiral for the different countries. For example: Italy was capable of building real infantry and aircraft - just much less of it (I think), as was Spain (I think). Although I wouldn't personally go into much detail, as I'm not a programmer, I would imagine that Germany's ability to produce a particular unit within a certain time frame differed than Italy's and Japan's and other allies, and vice-versa, etc. I wonder if Jan or Bill or Matrix has considered making allies (like Italy) have different looking and unique troops with varied and historical quality, and while giving each country its own separate production wheel?

Please keep in mind that I am just a player here - I am not employed by 2by3 or Matrix - I just got moderator status so I could run the ladder.

That said - I played WiF for many years - so I understand what you are referring to.

I think though that you have to accept that in order to remain relatively simply and fast playing GGWaW does not have everything we might believe would be good. If we added up all the minor little details everyone would like the game would likely become alot more complex (and bug ridden) - so its all a matter of compromising.

I guess you have to ask yourself - would it be worth the effort in developing time - not just for ME but for the game as a whole. In many cases the answer is probably "no" even if its hard to accept that ME little addition isnt possible (while I shake my head at the silly stuff others want, ofcourse).

Anyhow, I imagine the main reason Italian units are identical to German ones and English units to American ones is that the game engine does not allow the stacking of different kinds of units. This is mostly to keep the interface from becoming cluttered - again, to keep matters relatively simple.

Finally, would it really change the gameplay much? Personally I dont think so.

[mdh1204]

Well, why should it be kept simple? I understand the looming austere of Risk, but I also believe that past territorial and scale considerations that such a model should be abandoned. Stacking shouldn't be so hard to program for allies, and different production spirals for each country just adds dimension, IMO. You could have teams play both sides, right?

On a different note altogether, has anyone considered revamping the paratrooper functional dynamics? Either you should be required to build transports for the paratroopers or transports should be included with the unit (meaning it can be shot down by enemy fighters). Having to transport your paratrooper with heavy bombers makes no sense to me, or am I missing something?

[JanSorensen]

Because the ideas YOU have arent the same ideas PLAYERA has or the ideas PLAYERB has.

Now, if the game were to include every single little little idea from every player then it would lose the simple and elegant design it has now and instead become a monster game. There is nothing wrong with that - except its a different game.

So, as such there is nothing wrong with your ideas - they are just as good or just as bad as many other ideas to add and expand on the game. The question to ask isnt if the idea is good - its to ask if its good for this particular game. Changing art work, changing and testing code, etc - there was to be a really substantial payoff for that to happen - I fear that even good ideas arent good enough to yield that kind of payoff. You have to remember its not as easy as writing a houserule for a board game - not by any means.

[mdh1204]

That's where you are divergent of judgment, IMO. "My" ideas have nothing to do with me, you, Matrix, or Joe down the block, but with historical accuracy and realistic game-play. So, the question that needs asking, IMO, is whether or not the game is improved in the above terms and still playable (as in not overwhelmed by micro-management) with such an idea?

[JanSorensen]

Even so, its a matter of economical payoff.

Sure, your changes may improve the historical accuracy by some amount in one corner of the game - I am not arguing that. So would countless other suggestions, mind. As you say it has nothing to do with whose idea it was - I fully concur. That doesnt change that there are 1000s of possible ways to increase the accuracy of the game - some better and some worse.

The problem is that unlike a board game where you just scribble down a house rule on a piece of paper it costs quite a bit of money to make the changes you suggest. So, is it worth that increased cost at this stage of the games development? I rather doubt it. The added accuracy simply would not add enough "value" when you consider the "cost" to implement them. If the game had been in the early design phase it might have been a different matter.

Finally, with respect to the stacking you can just play that as a house rule if your opponent agrees. Not a perfect solution but far, far cheaper than coding something into the game that it wasnt meant to handle from the original design.

[mdh1204]

In a word "Patches".

[JanSorensen]

I know what patches are, thank you

That does not mean that you can get anything you would like added. Stacking limitations might cost $1000 in dev time to add. Thus adding that would require that it gave additional sales of probably in the order of 150 more copies. Now, I neither think that adding it would this to the game would yield 150 more sold copies nor do I think its *that* worthwhile an addition to the game.

Just because something makes sense (from one point of view) does not mean it fits within the design - nor does it mean that its economically worth doing. If there were 50000 committed users willing to pay $2 each per patch it would be differ - but thats not the case.

Mind, I dont work for 2by3 or Matrix - so everything here is guesswork and my personal opinion.

[Lebatron]

I've waited many years for a game just like this. There have been hundreds of wargames that are much more realistic. Why force this game into that overcrowed market. If that is what your looking for then play one of those. However if plain old strategy and gameplay is enough to satisfy you, it is for me, then WAW fits the need nicely.

[mdh1204]

Things are either right or wrong or don't fall into either category. Games are either realistic or they aren't. I can play tiddly-winks and who's to say its 'idea' is bad? Although, when I'm playing WW2, there is a lot to be said that is practical and playable; and, the more systematically coherent, the more enjoyable. (yam - yam -yam... CRIKEY!)

[markbrow10]

- Is it possible to seperate the whole Russia/China/Allies versus Nazis/Japanese
Answer-Yes

And its easy

First go into 'Alliance'

And see the following txt line/s

// what are the alliances
// ALLY_LIST,<PLAYER>,<ALLY_PLAYER>,...
ALLY_LIST,AXIS_ALLIANCE,PLAYER_GER,PLAYER_JAP
ALLY_LIST,ALLIES_ALLIANCE,PLAYER_UN,PLAYER_SOV,PLAYER_CHI

Change it to the following as a guide

// what are the alliances
// ALLY_LIST,<PLAYER>,<ALLY_PLAYER>,...
ALLY_LIST,GER_ALLIANCE,PLAYER_GER
ALLY_LIST,JAP_ALLIANCE,PLAYER_JAP
ALLY_LIST,ALLIES_ALLIANCE,PLAYER_UN,PLAYER_SOV,PLAYER_CHI

This means that the germans and japanese can declare war on each other and effectivly help/hinder the allies. This also can apply to the allies/Russia/china alliance if you want.

Now you will need to go down to a lower section of txt


// if neutral and attacked by join what alliance
// JOIN_ALLIAINCE,<nation>,<attacked by>,<join>...
JOIN_ALLIAINCE,Sweden,AXIS_ALLIANCE,PLAYER_UN,ALLIES_ALLIANCE,PLAYER_GER
JOIN_ALLIAINCE,Denmark,AXIS_ALLIANCE,PLAYER_UN,ALLIES_ALLIANCE,PLAYER_GER
JOIN_ALLIAINCE,Portugal,AXIS_ALLIANCE,PLAYER_UN,ALLIES_ALLIANCE,PLAYER_GER
JOIN_ALLIAINCE,Spain,AXIS_ALLIANCE,PLAYER_UN,ALLIES_ALLIANCE,PLAYER_GER
JOIN_ALLIAINCE,Greece,AXIS_ALLIANCE,PLAYER_UN,ALLIES_ALLIANCE,PLAYER_GER
JOIN_ALLIAINCE,Turkey,AXIS_ALLIANCE,PLAYER_UN,ALLIES_ALLIANCE,PLAYER_GER

(this has been shorted though) change it to the following

// if neutral and attacked by join what alliance
// JOIN_ALLIAINCE,<nation>,<attacked by>,<join>...
JOIN_ALLIAINCE,Sweden,GER_ALLIANCE,PLAYER_UN,ALLIES_ALLIANCE,PLAYER_GER
JOIN_ALLIAINCE,Denmark,GER_ALLIANCE,PLAYER_UN,ALLIES_ALLIANCE,PLAYER_GER
JOIN_ALLIAINCE,Portugal,GER_ALLIANCE,PLAYER_UN,ALLIES_ALLIANCE,PLAYER_GER
JOIN_ALLIAINCE,Spain,GER_ALLIANCE,PLAYER_UN,ALLIES_ALLIANCE,PLAYER_GER
JOIN_ALLIAINCE,Greece,GER_ALLIANCE,PLAYER_UN,ALLIES_ALLIANCE,PLAYER_GER
JOIN_ALLIAINCE,Turkey,GER_ALLIANCE,PLAYER_UN,ALLIES_ALLIANCE,PLAYER_GER
JOIN_ALLIAINCE,Tibet,JAP_ALLIANCE,PLAYER_UN,ALLIES_ALLIANCE,PLAYER_JAP
JOIN_ALLIAINCE,Siam,JAP_ALLIANCE,PLAYER_UN,ALLIES_ALLIANCE,PLAYER_JAP

this just means if the the say the Germans attacks sweden then it will join the allies or something like that.

Yu can also change another piece of txt

DECLARE_WAR,PLAYER_UN,PLAYER_JAP,1943,1
DECLARE_WAR,PLAYER_UN,PLAYER_GER,1943,1
DECLARE_WAR,PLAYER_SOV,PLAYER_GER,1943,1

to (again as a guide)


// delcare war based on these dates
// DECLARE_WAR,<PLAYER>,<Target player>,<year>,<month>
DECLARE_WAR,PLAYER_UN,PLAYER_JAP,1945,1
DECLARE_WAR,PLAYER_UN,PLAYER_GER,1945,1
DECLARE_WAR,PLAYER_SOV,PLAYER_GER,1945,1
DECLARE_WAR,PLAYER_JAP,PLAYER_GER,1942,1

This means the japanse get pissed of by the germans that they declare war on them again you can change it to what ever alliance you want. (i am currently figuring out how to make the japanese to stop attacking pearl harbour to give more time for the Germans to take the UK once the yanks join in it is very difficult fot the germans to take the UK, and if you do take the UK the yanks pretty much stop attacking the germans).

I will bring more out when I am bothered[;)]