What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Jaguar
While MWiF presents an opportunity to widen my opponent list, my previous experiences with distance or online / PBEM wargaming has been disappointing. Several of the opponents have been lacking in courtesy, integrity, or reliability.

Interesting, but not unexpected.

Perhaps a central war game clearing house could be created, where players register for games and after the game is over submit evaluations of each other in regard to 4 or 5 items (you listed 3 candidate items). My idea is that players would have a reputation/history that other players could examine before committing to playing a game with/against them. the system should be both extremely simple and uncorruptable. The more mindless, the better, in my opinion.

I use to play tournament chess and the rating system was very dependable in evaluating the skill level of an opponent (though not his courtesy et al).

[Neilster]

While MWiF presents an opportunity to widen my opponent list, my previous experiences with distance or online / PBEM wargaming has been disappointing. Several of the opponents have been lacking in courtesy, integrity, or reliability.

I think WiF players are better than average in this regard. The Matrix forums; the MWiF one especially, are extremely courteous and populated by intelligent folks.

Thanks for informing me about the U-boats' Med entry. As has been mentioned, some of your other points touch on the topic of how inevitable historical events are in WiF. IMHO, when in doubt, MWiF should be open-ended. This will aid replayability and we don't know how things would have turned out if history was replayed. Just as soon as I perfect the time machine I'm building in my shed (the miniature fusion reactor is proving more difficult to perfect than I expected), I'll nip back to Aug 31 1939, kill a butterfly, and we'll find out. Unless none of you are born because of the new path history will take. Nazi colony ships leaving for the outer Solar System etc [:'(]

Cheers, Neilster

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

I have not seen the details, only the general descriptions. Apparently there are some strength changes and a few additional planes and ships as well as Minor country units and Volunteer units. SUB's seem to have a lot of changes. The Mech in Flames counter sheet is said to have quite a few changes.

I would defer to Patrice for details as I am convinced that he will check it out.

Lars

I listed the changes, except for the new CS23.
Here they are :

CS7 :
No change, except the Kit Identifier (Pl) added.

CS8 :
No change, except the Kit Identifier (Pl) added.

CS9 :
Kit Identifier (Pl) added.
CW LND 1938 : Anson --> 1935 : Range no more in white circle
CW LND 1936 : Anson (0-*-1-1-5) white circle --> 1936 : ATR Harrow (0-1-2-2-9) white circle
CW NAV 1939 : Sunderland (3-1-2-1-20) --> 1939 : Sunderland (3-2-2-1-20) white circle no para
CW ATR 1938 : C-47 (0-*-*-*-15) --> 1941 : C-47 (0-*-*-*-15)
Japan NAV 1941 : D4Y1 (4-3-3-1-6 ext) --> 1943 : D4Y1 (4-3-3-1-6 ext)
France ATR 1938 : C-47 (0-*-*-*-15) --> 1941 : C-47 (0-*-*-*-15)

1 new graphic is needed here, for the Harrow.

CS18 :
No change, except the Kit Identifier (S) added.

CS19 :
Kit Identifier (S) added.
USA SUB (5-7-0-0-6-3) --> (3-7-0-0-6-3) Second Cycle Cost 1 (was 2)
USA SUB (3-8-0-0-4-4) --> Dated 1934 (was 1928)
USA SUB (5-8-0-0-5-4) --> (5-7-0-0-5-4) dated 1943 (was 1941) Second Cycle Cost 2 (was 1)
USA SUB (2-8-0-0-5-3) --> Dated 1938 (was 1922)
USA SUB (3-8-0-0-6-5) --> Dated 1944 (was 1938) Second Cycle Cost 2 (was 1)
USA SUB (4-8-0-0-6-4) --> (5-8-0-0-6-4) dated 1944 (was 1940) Second Cycle Cost 2 (was 1)
USA SUB (4-6-0-0-7-5) --> (3-6-0-0-5-3) dated 1941 (was 1943) Second Cycle Cost 1 (was 2)
USA SUB (6-7-0-0-4-3) --> (4-7-0-0-4-3) dated 1932 (was 1944) Second Cycle Cost 1 (was 2)
USA SUB (4-7-0-0-5-2) --> Dated 1939 (was 1935)
Italy SUB (3-8-0-0-4-3) --> Dated 1933 (was 1935)
Italy SUB (5-8-0-0-5-3) --> (4-8-0-0-5-2) dated 1940 (was 1941) Second Cycle Cost 1 (was 2)
Italy SUB (2-8-0-0-5-2) --> Dated 1935 (was 1927)
Italy SUB (3-8-0-0-6-3) --> (4-8-0-0-6-3) dated 1943 (was 1939) Second Cycle Cost 2 (was 1)
Italy SUB (4-7-0-0-6-4) --> (3-8-0-0-5-4) dated 1941 (was 1940)
Italy SUB (6-7-0-0-4-2) --> (5-7-0-0-6-2) dated 1943 (was 1942)
Italy SUB (3-7-0-0-3-2) --> (3-7-0-0-4-4) dated 1938 (was 1922)
Italy SUB (4-7-0-0-3-2) --> Dated 1928 (was 1937)
China SUB (3-8-0-0-5-2) --> Dated 1942 (was 1939)
China SUB (4-8-0-0-4-3) --> Dated 1938 (was 1942)

CS20 :
No change, except the Kit Identifier (S) added.

CS21 :
Kit Identifier (S) added.
CW SUB (2-7-0-0-4-4) --> (3-7-0-0-4-4) dated 1938 (was 1927)
CW SUB (3-7-0-0-6-4) --> Second Cycle Cost 2 (was 1)
CW SUB (2-8-0-0-3-2) --> (2-8-0-0-4-2) dated 1925 (was 1915)
CW SUB (5-7-0-0-4-3) --> (3-7-0-0-5-3) Second Cycle Cost 1 (was 2)
France SUB (3-7-0-0-6-3) --> Dated 1943 (was 1938) Second Cycle Cost 2 (was 1)
France SUB (2-7-0-0-4-2) --> Dated 1928 (was 1922)
France SUB (5-8-0-0-5-3) --> (4-8-0-0-5-2) dated 1941 (was 1940) Second Cycle Cost 1 (was 2)
Germany SUB (6-6-0-0-6-4) --> (5-6-0-0-6-4)
Germany SUB (5-7-0-0-7-4) --> Walter SUB
Germany SUB (3-6-0-0-4-2) --> (3-6-0-0-5-2) dated 1938 (was 1936)
Germany SUB (6-7-0-0-4-3) --> (3-7-0-0-6-3) dated 1940 (was 1942) Second Cycle Cost 1 (was 2)
Germany SUB (4-7-0-0-6-3) --> Second Cycle Cost 1 (was 2)
Germany SUB (3-7-0-0-6-5) --> Dated 1942 (was 1940)
Germany SUB (4-6-0-0-7-5) --> Walter SUB

CS22 :
Kit Identifier (S) added.
USSR SUB (2-6-0-0-5-3) --> Dated 1938 (was 1931)
USSR SUB (2-8-0-0-6-4) --> Dated 1942 (was 1933)
USSR SUB (4-7-0-0-5-4) --> Dated 1943 (was 1937)
USSR SUB (3-8-0-0-6-5) --> Dated 1944 (was 1940)
USSR SUB (5-8-0-0-4-3) --> (5-8-0-0-5-2) dated 1941 (was 1943)
Japan SUB (2-7-0-0-6-3) --> Dated 1939 (was 1935)
Japan SUB (4-7-0-0-6-4) --> Dated 1943 (was 1942) Second Cycle Cost 2 (was 1)
Japan SUB (3-6-0-0-7-4) --> Dated 1944 (was 1943)
Japan SUB (5-7-0-0-5-5) --> Dated 1942 (was 1941) Second Cycle Cost 2 (was 1)
Japan SUB (5-6-0-0-3-3) --> (4-6-0-0-3-3) Dated 1934 (was 1940)
Japan SUB (6-7-0-0-4-4) --> (5-7-0-0-4-4) Dated 1940 (was 1944) Second Cycle Cost 1 (was 2)

CS24 :
The difference between the 2000 and 2007 WiF Classic countersheet 24 is that some US Entry Chits are changed :
1939
0 --> 1
0 --> 1

1940
0 --> 1
0 --> 1
3 --> 2
4 --> 3

1941
3 --> 4

Previous values (CS24 from 2000 & CS14 from 2003) :
Averages :
1939 2,27
1940 1,35
1941 3,47
1942 4,21
1943 5,08

Standard Deviations :
1939 1,39
1940 1,15
1941 1,41
1942 1,19
1943 1,00

2007 counters values (CS24 from 2007 & CS13 from 2003) :
Averages :
1939 2,33
1940 1,35
1941 3,53
1942 4,21
1943 5,08

Standard Deviations :
1939 1,30
1940 0,93
1941 1,41
1942 1,19
1943 1,00

CS23 will be listed next.

You can see reduced pictures of the new CS at the links accessible at http://perso.orange.fr/froon/WiF/counters/index.htm


All in all, there are not much changes, only the SUBs that are made coherent with the 2003 ones (changed in the CS1-6), and the US Entry made a little less random.

There will be at most a dozen new graphics to add to the game, most of them being on CS23 (only one is in those 9 CS, the Harrow). Not much to do for the gain IMO.

[JagWars]

There are advantages to a computer-based game, particularly at the complexity level of WiF.
- it eliminates rules arguements and discussion; after twenty years and thirty some-odd games of WiF, we still incur rules disagreements and misinterpretations.
- resolves terrain and movement issues; are Venice and Trieste invadable hexes; what is the terrain on Eniwetok Island; can you move a fleet from Port Said directly into the Red Sea or must you move into the Eastern Mediterranean first, is Batavia a port on both the South China Sea and the East Indian Ocean?
- handles supply paths; no accidental mis-counting of hexes, forgetting a desert hex counts as two hexes for supply purposes, failure to notice the weather line.
- regulates resource trasportation; no more "there was a CP there, someone must have bumped or moved it".
- regulating game mechanics; returning air missions are turned face down, rebased ships are turned face down, etc.
- control production and prevent errors; for some reason I have developed an annoying habit of placing my produced motorized and mechanized units four turns ahead on the production / re-inforcement wheel instead of three.

However, several aspects of face to face play are abdicated.
- fellowship and camaraderie
- the psychological impact of body language and dice rolling
- the best breakfast in the county

That is why while I am as anxious as everyone else on the forum to get my boney fingers onto an hard copy of MWiF, it is mitigated by the desire to save enough money to buy two big-screen flat panel monitors onto which to launch the game. Then our wargame group can garner the advantages of a computer-based system without sacrificing the benefits of face to face play.

[JagWars]

After a cursory review of the new CS23, it appears that the Mech, Mot, Arm units form LiF has replaced the Mech, Mot, Arm units that were previously on CS23. Does that mean the units that are no longer on CS23 should be excised from the game?

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Jaguar

After a cursory review of the new CS23, it appears that the Mech, Mot, Arm units form LiF has replaced the Mech, Mot, Arm units that were previously on CS23. Does that mean the units that are no longer on CS23 should be excised from the game?

Yes.
Most of the players I know of already had trashed those old counters (designed in 1993 for WiF5, not WiF FE) out of WiF FE. They are not included in MWiF neither.

The best meat on CS23 are the new city based volunteers, especially for the Japanese IMO. Those ARM / MECH & MOT units that are from LiF are not new, they are already in MWiF.

[coregames]

I know this has been mentioned on the boards before, but might a future expasion include the option of playing at the variable scales of the board game? This would facilitate compatibilty with it, for trying out strategies and also for keeping track of over-the-board games, in case the pieces get knocked over, or so players can take a 'snapshot' of the game home with them between sessions.

I look forward to the unified scale, but an expansion with that additional feature would be welcomed I think.

[Sewerlobster]

Yet another vote for staying close to the board game in regards to how it plays.
 
I am less keen on unlimited divisions for 2 reasons:1) The scale is supposed to be corps/army and the original limited divisions and 2) much more importantly -- the AI will almost certainly suffer with unlimited divisions, literally it would almost certainly lean towards producing and using only divisions to the point of changing the flavor of the game. Even at 2 div per corps a human player would have an unmanageable(or less playable) number of units.

[fallgelb]

As a WIF Board Gamer for me MWIF could have three functions:
1) Playing WIF vs. the AI if no human player is avilable or to test new strategies in a "laboratorium".
2) Setting up "mikro-plans" and start some impulses to see what could happen.
3) To play via Internet or email vs. human players "far away".

For the first funtion I would need a good AI but for me thats the greatest problem in nearly all the computer games on the market. In most games on a higher difficulty level the AI only gets more production and plays not really better.
An idea (or a wish): on a higher difficulty level the AI could use some not common "evolved" strategies to surprise the human player. Example: the german AI could attack poland and parallel try to get france out of the game early; the allied AI could attack with france, cw and russia japan in MA40 simultanously; there could be some tactical actions too: french CAs in the Baltikum in SO39, cw landings early in the game with a div in OOS hexes.
In the contrary the AI should be able to identify not only the common "poland-france-barbarossa" strategy but also most of the other possibilities. Not an easy task i'm sure...
I don't know if some kind of "scripts" could be the right answer at least for the active aspects of an evolved AI.

The second function I would like to have some kind of "editor" to create your own scenarios and to set up all the units you like. Then you could test some of your plans on the machine from any starting point.

The third function needs a support of some multiplayer usability.
In the "field" it could be of importance to be able to "overtake" resigned allies if someone drops out for whatever reasons.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: fallgelb
As a WIF Board Gamer for me MWIF could have three functions:
1) Playing WIF vs. the AI if no human player is avilable or to test new strategies in a "laboratorium".
2) Setting up "mikro-plans" and start some impulses to see what could happen.
3) To play via Internet or email vs. human players "far away".

For the first funtion I would need a good AI but for me thats the greatest problem in nearly all the computer games on the market. In most games on a higher difficulty level the AI only gets more production and plays not really better.
An idea (or a wish): on a higher difficulty level the AI could use some not common "evolved" strategies to surprise the human player. Example: the german AI could attack poland and parallel try to get france out of the game early; the allied AI could attack with france, cw and russia japan in MA40 simultanously; there could be some tactical actions too: french CAs in the Baltikum in SO39, cw landings early in the game with a div in OOS hexes.
In the contrary the AI should be able to identify not only the common "poland-france-barbarossa" strategy but also most of the other possibilities. Not an easy task i'm sure...
I don't know if some kind of "scripts" could be the right answer at least for the active aspects of an evolved AI.

The second function I would like to have some kind of "editor" to create your own scenarios and to set up all the units you like. Then you could test some of your plans on the machine from any starting point.

The third function needs a support of some multiplayer usability.
In the "field" it could be of importance to be able to "overtake" resigned allies if someone drops out for whatever reasons.

1 - Probably not. Writing the AIO to play well is complex and I do not want to limit what I code to a design style that someone not intimately familiar with that code could modify.

2 - Not in MWIF product I. I made this decision before I agreed to program MWIF. I am coding the game, not a game design kit.

3 - Yes. This is a major concern of mine too, and there will be provisions for the Axis & Allied "team leaders" to reassign who is playing which major powers.

[borner]

I would like to see the game stay as close to WiF as possible, with a good AI. The ability to add or delete "extras" such as leaders in flames, and/Or any others would be outstanding

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: borner

I would like to see the game stay as close to WiF as possible, with a good AI. The ability to add or delete "extras" such as leaders in flames, and/Or any others would be outstanding

There is an entire thread (12 pages) on the optional rules for MWIF.

For an overview, see post #23 of this thread:

tm.asp?m=1082338

That is pretty accurate, though as development proceeds, tweaking has been occurring to specific rules based on discussions in this forum.

[willycube]

I have not played the board game World In Flames, must be a great board game. I played Third Reich for many years and enjoyed it. One gentleman stated he did not care if the AI was implemented or not as he played by mail all of the time. My feeling is follow the board game as best you can, if possible. If you attempt to do an AI, DO IT RIGHT OR NOT AT ALL! I don't have time for e-mail or whatever, if there is no AI I would never buy the game period. I have grave doubts about an AI in any computer war game, sorry to be pessimistic about this but after the debacle of implementing an AI in the conversion of Third Reich from a board game to the computer. Also you need very good playtesters to make a good AI, people who look hard for mistakes. The playtesters stunk in the making of Third Reich, if they had done their jobs right the game would have never came to market before it should have. I wasted my money on the game as many others did also.
Most of us gamers trust you Matrix please don't let us down.

thank you

Willycube

[Jeffrey H.]

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

I'm a longtime wargame collector and student (not really a "gamer" - I'm into learning and experimenting with history). I've actually owned the boardgame for years and year, but never managed to actually "play it" due to lack of space, lack of time etc etc. I have a copy of the original pre-alpha demo version and managed to play a few rounds with it back in 2002. So.. I don't pretend to be a real expert on the game.

I do have a personal development technique that I would like to share based on my experience as a business software developer of a product that was based on AI.

My entire product was driven by dozens of database tables that allowed us to configure the product to meet different state regulatory requirements by changing tables, not reprogramming. Even the menu options and screen headers were all from a database, not hard coded into the program. This provided a LOT of flexibility.

Now, I am thinking in wargame terms of developing an AI system that would be driven by accessible database tables to allow users to develop AI Mods exploring different strategies and objectives. I've never seen a computer wargame yet where the AI wasn't hidden away in the code somewhere and completely out of reach (a "trust me" situation).

Examples: A table of objective cities with value points. Change Moscow to a very high value and the German AI will tend to drive on Moscow without splitting forces to seize the southern oilfields and so forth. Want a traditional German AI, then equalize the points encouraging the split... and so forth.

Something similar for tactical preferences such as concentration of armor vs distribution in a supporting role and so forth. Table values for types of weapons production to steer the AI into LRB production vs U-boats and so forth.

These are all decisions commonly built into AI systems, but always out of sight and untouchable. Break some new ground and get an AI system that is accessible and completely customizable. Give us more options than "Easy - Historical - Hard".

It would be like finding a new opponent for each game with fresh challenges and new strategies.

Yes, this is very much needed and would break new ground. This would also allow players to develop their own AI styles for each nation and then pit them against each other in full AI vs. AI tournaments.

Talk about your alternate historical variants ! This would really open things up.

[coregames]

Steve
From what I've seen in the various AIO posts, you're using conditional strategies, triggered by certain concrete situations that occur during typical WiF games. Wouldn't the AIO get stronger subsequent to release if users could refine the conditions that trigger such strategic decisions? Perhaps an editor could be provided in a future release, if not right away.

[brian brian]

going way back to the CX Merchant Raiders, I have seen other proposals to limit them from combat results. One of the strengths of WiF is that it allows for the flukes of war. Maybe a CW CL/CV task force stops an unidentified merchant ship on the high seas; at the last minute the Germans run up the colors and launch those hidden torpedoes but then at the last minute the CL right in front of it swings it's stern just enough for the torpedo to miss, sending it straight at the CV a few hundred yards further along. Never happened of course, but could it?

What needs to be in WiF? Whatever has made it to cardboard so far. But in general all that and nothing else that would slow it down. A great consensus has developed on that idea and that is why I have never opened this thread that I can recall.

A brief history of the game with some pictures of the old components might be some nice bonus material for the DVD version, or a replay with director's commentary from Harry would be pretty cool. Deleted counters from the past too? An easter egg of a barbershop quartet singing Lili Marlene? An easter egg of the Nimitz counter playing the double-CV plane option with F-14's and A-6's?[X(]

[pbt]

Will it be possible to choose between different languages in the game and in the helpfile? I'm thinking of danish, german, french etc.

[bredsjomagnus]

Yes. And swedish would be nice too [:)]
 
 
/Magnus

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: pbt

Will it be possible to choose between different languages in the game and in the helpfile? I'm thinking of danish, german, french etc.

The code has been set up to support that but the files would have to be created. The way Delphi (the program development system I am using) handles this is that all text for messages (e.g., not on counters and not map labels) is placed in a "resource strings" file. All that is needed is a substitute/replacement file were each string has been written in another language; no other programming change is necessary.

Don't hold your breath though. To create the replacement file would take some work and without a doubt, Matrix will want to see some nice sales numbers before paying for that to be done. [You certainly do not want me doing the translations!]

[Ballista]

"My hovercraft is full of eels...."