How is this game related to the one developed by Chris Marinacci?

[bluemonday]

Is this a continuation of that development? Or is it starting from scratch?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: bluemonday

Is this a continuation of that development? Or is it starting from scratch?

An excellent question. Not easy to answer.

I started with Chris' code, and I am still in communication with him about it on a regular basis. Chris was extremely helpful when I first started working on MWIF last summer.

I have done several major changes to the CWIF program including restructuring the basic program internals.

Also, visually, the detailed map is dramatically different with more colors (24 bit versus 8 bit), new terrain graphics everywhere, and high resolution details for coastlines, rivers, alpine hexsides, canals, lakes, rail lines. New icons for all the map elements: cities, ports, factories, resources, etc.. [screen shots available in other threads - exploring them might be of interest to you]

But then the 8 levels of zoom from CWIF are still in place for the detailed map; and the global map is virtually unchanged. Scrolling and linking maps is the same as in CWIF. I have no interest in changing any of that code.

I am working my way through modifying all the forms (100+ originally) and the user interface in general. Eventually, the color scheme/theme for all the forms will be replaced with something more in keeping with the period (WW II).

The units are all redesigned with more detail added to the land units (e.g., names), and the air and naval units radically changed to mimic those of WIF FE. Colors have been tweaked to help color-blind players differentiate between the major powers readily. I did a lot of detail work on the units, pixel by pixel (my wife of 35 years informed me for the first time yesterday that she thinks I am a perfectionist [:D]).

We are adding Internet, PBEM, and an AI opponent.

So, your original question is not all that easy to answer with a simple Yes or No.[;)]

[bluemonday]

Thanks, Shannon. That told me basically everything I was looking for. I looked at some screens and thought they looked somewhat familiar. It's good to see that Chris' effort, although unfinished, was not wasted.

[Mike Wethington]

While I loved playing Chris' "Beta" game, I expect that things will be fairly different from that effort. Adding AI will add completely new dimensions to the game.

It would be interesting to have multiple AI paths that either can be implicitly selected by the player or randomly selected by the AI. These paths could include:

Germany
Major Options:
Focus war efforts against Commonwealth (Sea Lion)
Focus war efforts against USSR (Early Barbarossa)
Mediterranean Lake (self explanatory, maybe see production points given to Italy)
Minor Territorial expansion (includes attacks or diplomacy against Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Turkey, robust Vichy, etc.)

Minor Options
Strategic Bomber Program
Kreigsmarine Triumphant (Surface Fleet Buildup, including CVs)
U-Boats Triumphant (max. U-Boat Production)

Japan
Major
China Focus
GEA Coprosperity Focus (lower china garrison requirements)
etc.

US & Commonwealth
Major
Europe First
Pacific First

Basically these become decision tree points that steer AI strategy (especially production and offensives). These points do not change WiF rules but keep the AI level-set on goals. In a game of this size, the AI can often become quickly confused due to the lack of solid decision tree-goal focus and the unexpected/unrealistic play of live opponents (gaming the system by doing completely throw-away actions that the AI overeacts too.)

Adopting some 'slushy' AI goals, will make the game more interesting and will be less likely to throw the AI into pointless counterattacks and diversions.

Just my .25
Mike

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Mike Wethington
While I loved playing Chris' "Beta" game, I expect that things will be fairly different from that effort. Adding AI will add completely new dimensions to the game.

It would be interesting to have multiple AI paths that either can be implicitly selected by the player or randomly selected by the AI. These paths could include:

Germany
Major Options:
Focus war efforts against Commonwealth (Sea Lion)
Focus war efforts against USSR (Early Barbarossa)
Mediterranean Lake (self explanatory, maybe see production points given to Italy)
Minor Territorial expansion (includes attacks or diplomacy against Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Turkey, robust Vichy, etc.)

Minor Options
Strategic Bomber Program
Kreigsmarine Triumphant (Surface Fleet Buildup, including CVs)
U-Boats Triumphant (max. U-Boat Production)

Japan
Major
China Focus
GEA Coprosperity Focus (lower china garrison requirements)
etc.

US & Commonwealth
Major
Europe First
Pacific First

Basically these become decision tree points that steer AI strategy (especially production and offensives). These points do not change WiF rules but keep the AI level-set on goals. In a game of this size, the AI can often become quickly confused due to the lack of solid decision tree-goal focus and the unexpected/unrealistic play of live opponents (gaming the system by doing completely throw-away actions that the AI overeacts too.)

Adopting some 'slushy' AI goals, will make the game more interesting and will be less likely to throw the AI into pointless counterattacks and diversions.

Just my .25
Mike

Back in October (or so) there was a lively discussion of strategic plans for the AI opponent, with separate threads for each major power. You can find those threads on pages 3 and 4 of this forum. I have detailed notes from all of that discussion that I will use in writing the AIO.

[Mike Wethington]

Sounds good Steve! I'll check them out.
Mike

[bluemonday]

I'm sure someone has thought of this, but I hope it will be possible for the AI to take over droppe players, so that a disappearing opponent does not bring the game to a halt.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: bluemonday

I'm sure someone has thought of this, but I hope it will be possible for the AI to take over droppe players, so that a disappearing opponent does not bring the game to a halt.

I am designing for team play with a lot of possible players per side (two people playing the USA - Atlantic and Pacific for example). having someone pick up a dropped player could be done at any time by anyone. As to having the AI play as an Assistant (AIA) instead of as an opponent (AIO), I have given that low priority. I will design for the AIO.

The AIA raises questions of the interface for the controlling player with a whole range of issues from strategic and operational through to tactical directives. There are also coordination issues for all 3 branches of service (4 if you count the merchant marine). Though I grant you it would be nice to have a competent AIA at your side (and able to take over to missing players), a more important item is to actually publish the game ASAP.

[YohanTM2]

Though I grant you it would be nice to have a competent AIA at your side (and able to take over to missing players), a more important item is to actually publish the game ASAP.

You had me at ASAP [&o]

[c92nichj]

The AIA raises questions of the interface for the controlling player with a whole range of issues from strategic and operational through to tactical directives. There are also coordination issues for all 3 branches of service (4 if you count the merchant marine). Though I grant you it would be nice to have a competent AIA at your side (and able to take over to missing players), a more important item is to actually publish the game ASAP.

Previously you ave talked about the AIA as the program that helps doing minor things like fighting airtoair combat on your behalf in PBEM play.
I hope that PBEM play is not considered a lowpriority task as I myself and I believe quite a few others are hoping to play this ame via email, and replacing the currently used Cyberboard & Vassal components.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

The AIA raises questions of the interface for the controlling player with a whole range of issues from strategic and operational through to tactical directives. There are also coordination issues for all 3 branches of service (4 if you count the merchant marine). Though I grant you it would be nice to have a competent AIA at your side (and able to take over to missing players), a more important item is to actually publish the game ASAP.

Previously you ave talked about the AIA as the program that helps doing minor things like fighting airtoair combat on your behalf in PBEM play.
I hope that PBEM play is not considered a lowpriority task as I myself and I believe quite a few others are hoping to play this ame via email, and replacing the currently used Cyberboard & Vassal components.

A good question.

I am differentiating (these days, maybe not back last October) between the AIA and Standing Orders. With Standing Orders, the player chooses in advance how he wants something decided/handled. The list of choices is closed ended (i.e., pick from a menu). To make PBEM feasible, there needs to be a mechanism for reducing the number of emails required per impulse. Standing Orders are the solution to that problem.

The AIA, as most commonly used by forum members, is a stand-in player. Someone who takes over all the aspects of the decision making - usually constrained to a specific geographic area, group of units, or some other subset of the whole game. Despite the restrictions on the AIA's domain, there is still an expectation that the AIA will make all the relevant decisions. Some of them would be open-ended. For example, the AIA would be expected to decide where to move units and instigate combat.

By contrast, Standing Orders are purely defensive. They are almost entirely concerned with decisions a player makes when he is the non-phasing player. A lot of those concern fighters as I recall.

So, Standing Orders are very specific, the AIA has a broader area of decision making.

PBEM is an essential part of MWIF - it is in my contract if that is of any reassurance to you. I hope you will believe me when I say that I will not permit a poor job be done on the PBEM. It goes against my personal standards. Besides, I labored long and hard over developing the PBEM design document. Including the Standing Orders addendum, it is 30 typed pages detailing the revised sequence of play precisely and describing how the whole thing should work from each player's point of view (phasing and non-phasing players).

[YohanTM2]

Thanks Steve,

PBEM will be key for this game. It is going to involve some compromises that not everyone will agree with (likely to include me <g>) but it is core to a signifcant number of your customers (3 that I know of personally) that will not buy without a strong PBEM.

Rob