Comparision

[joe_canadian]

Im currently playing GGAWD, but am looking for another WWII grand stratigy game.

How does this game compare?

I havent played this game before but from some of the suggestions it sounds like it could be excellent. Just wondering if it will be worth buying considering i already have a good grand stratigy game?

[delatbabel]

It will probably be worth buying but it isn't available yet.

If you enjoy GGAWD and think that's a really good game, you won't enjoy WiF. I am a keen WiF player (boardgame) but I hated the WaW/AWD series because they lacked realism and detail.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

It will probably be worth buying but it isn't available yet.

If you enjoy GGAWD and think that's a really good game, you won't enjoy WiF. I am a keen WiF player (boardgame) but I hated the WaW/AWD series because they lacked realism and detail.

What is GGAWD ?
I suppose that WaW is World at War.
And what is AWD ?

[panzers]

It is impossible to even think about comparing the two.
To put it in perspective, it's like comparing risk to GGWAWAWD. There is no comparison. This is going to be a game that will literlly set a complete new standard in all the computer gaming industry. When it gets released, it will be by far the most complex video game ever prodiced. If you know anything about world in flames, you would know exactly what I'm talking about. What I suggest to you if you are sincerely thinking about buying the game is to go to the ADG website and read the 5th edition rules and the add on Final Edition rules. Be prepared to spend several hours reading them because they are very tedious and very complex. Depending on where you are in Canada, there is going to be a convention in Lansing Michigan entirely for WiF. If you are close by the metro Deroit area, you might want to consider going for a day or two to this event to get a feel for what you are up against. The convention runs from August 8th through August 17th.

[panzers]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

It will probably be worth buying but it isn't available yet.

If you enjoy GGAWD and think that's a really good game, you won't enjoy WiF. I am a keen WiF player (boardgame) but I hated the WaW/AWD series because they lacked realism and detail.

What is GGAWD ?
I suppose that WaW is World at War.
And what is AWD ?

Gary Grigsby's world at war, a world divided. It is a more political version of his previous title

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: joe_canadian

Im currently playing GGAWD, but am looking for another WWII grand stratigy game.

How does this game compare?

I havent played this game before but from some of the suggestions it sounds like it could be excellent. Just wondering if it will be worth buying considering i already have a good grand stratigy game?

MWiF is more complex than Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided. MWiF will take longer time to play. And if they get the AI to a decent level of competence it will by far be more fun to play against the computer. If they don't it will still be an awesome game but you need to play it against human opponents (NetPlay will make that easier).

MWiF will be the best WWII grand strategy game (when it is released) for a very long time. I strongly recommend it. But be prepared to spend some time to learn the complex rules (The game will have several features to help you).

-Orm

[joe_canadian]

I am looking for something more complex, I'll have to look into the rules as suggested.  To buy it, it would need to have an alright ai, simple becasue i have dial up so playing online can be quiet difficult.

[lomyrin]

The game will also be setup for PBEM play in a foolproof manner.
 
Lars
 
 

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: joe_canadian

I am looking for something more complex, I'll have to look into the rules as suggested. To buy it, it would need to have an alright ai, simple becasue i have dial up so playing online can be quiet difficult.

Rather than checking out the rules, which are a bit dry and for the boardgame (the CPU will take care of much of them anyway, look at the tutorials here. They've got pictures and everything!

The AI is likely to be better than alright. My guess is "strong".

Cheers, Neilster

[panzers]

I think for someone who has never played the game it can't hurt to read both the paper version and computer version. You have to remember, those are tutorials, and where they may be quite informative, we still don't have the actual rules of the game. I, myself have never played the final edition, so I'm taking a crash course reading them before I head out to WiFcon

[brian brian]

ORIGINAL: joe_canadian

I am looking for something more complex, I'll have to look into the rules as suggested.  To buy it, it would need to have an alright ai, simple becasue i have dial up so playing online can be quiet difficult.

Although I think it might be possible with how the NetPlay will work, for the most part WiF isn't played in 'real-time' like some computer wargames, so I think it shouldn't be all that difficult to play it over the Net even with a slow connection. ?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

ORIGINAL: joe_canadian

I am looking for something more complex, I'll have to look into the rules as suggested.  To buy it, it would need to have an alright ai, simple becasue i have dial up so playing online can be quiet difficult.

Although I think it might be possible with how the NetPlay will work, for the most part WiF isn't played in 'real-time' like some computer wargames, so I think it shouldn't be all that difficult to play it over the Net even with a slow connection. ?

Maybe. But then I am from the world where a slow connection is 110 baud.[:D]

The message transfers are going to be short strings most of the time. The only place where we have been worrying about needing to send a lot of data at once is for players who disconnect from a game in progress (or arrive late to a session) and need to be brought up to date on what has transpired in their absence. I still think this is not a lot of data (even at 9600 baud).

This is not so far fetched a scenario as might first be supposed, since the NetPlay design enables one side to play while the other isn't present. For instance, if it is time for the Axis to make all their land moves in the middle of the summer of 1942, the Allied players might just say "see you next time", instead of waiting for the hour or so for all those decisions to be made. When the game resumes (a week later?), the Allied players would receive Game Record Logs containing all the Axis players' moves.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Maybe. But then I am from the world where a slow connection is 110 baud.[:D]

The message transfers are going to be short strings most of the time. The only place where we have been worrying about needing to send a lot of data at once is for players who disconnect from a game in progress (or arrive late to a session) and need to be brought up to date on what has transpired in their absence. I still think this is not a lot of data (even at 9600 baud).

This is not so far fetched a scenario as might first be supposed, since the NetPlay design enables one side to play while the other isn't present. For instance, if it is time for the Axis to make all their land moves in the middle of the summer of 1942, the Allied players might just say "see you next time", instead of waiting for the hour or so for all those decisions to be made. When the game resumes (a week later?), the Allied players would receive Game Record Logs containing all the Axis players' moves.

It is awesome that you are taking this into acoount in the design. This is exactly how I'd like to see NetPlay work.

Kudos to you and the NetPlay team.

[Sewerlobster]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
The message transfers are going to be short strings most of the time. The only place where we have been worrying about needing to send a lot of data at once is for players who disconnect from a game in progress (or arrive late to a session) and need to be brought up to date on what has transpired in their absence. I still think this is not a lot of data (even at 9600 baud).

This is not so far fetched a scenario as might first be supposed, since the NetPlay design enables one side to play while the other isn't present. For instance, if it is time for the Axis to make all their land moves in the middle of the summer of 1942, the Allied players might just say "see you next time", instead of waiting for the hour or so for all those decisions to be made. When the game resumes (a week later?), the Allied players would receive Game Record Logs containing all the Axis players' moves.

Great point, connectivity could be an issue. I'd hate hours of game play to be lost because a player lost his connection for whatever reason. Heck even losing a big chunk of a turn could change quite a few things.

This brings to mind a question: Civilization IV has an option that "locks" the random numbers so that a player playing the AI can not restart and replay an event to get a better combat result; how will MWiF's random number generator behave on multiple loads of the same situation. I ask, because if it is locked that would require a player to follow the exact same sequence should some event crash a net play game and the players need to restart from a previous load. I presume the PBM will prevent knowledge of the result of a roll until the other player has seen it --so that shouldn't be an issue there. And who really cares if a player chooses to cheat the AI on a solitaire game. [:-]

It's just computers can be quirky, they crash [perhaps as a programmer you didn't know [;)]] and thus there will be problems with continuity when one goes BSOD during a game.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
The message transfers are going to be short strings most of the time. The only place where we have been worrying about needing to send a lot of data at once is for players who disconnect from a game in progress (or arrive late to a session) and need to be brought up to date on what has transpired in their absence. I still think this is not a lot of data (even at 9600 baud).

This is not so far fetched a scenario as might first be supposed, since the NetPlay design enables one side to play while the other isn't present. For instance, if it is time for the Axis to make all their land moves in the middle of the summer of 1942, the Allied players might just say "see you next time", instead of waiting for the hour or so for all those decisions to be made. When the game resumes (a week later?), the Allied players would receive Game Record Logs containing all the Axis players' moves.

Great point, connectivity could be an issue. I'd hate hours of game play to be lost because a player lost his connection for whatever reason. Heck even losing a big chunk of a turn could change quite a few things.

This brings to mind a question: Civilization IV has an option that "locks" the random numbers so that a player playing the AI can not restart and replay an event to get a better combat result; how will MWiF's random number generator behave on multiple loads of the same situation. I ask, because if it is locked that would require a player to follow the exact same sequence should some event crash a net play game and the players need to restart from a previous load. I presume the PBM will prevent knowledge of the result of a roll until the other player has seen it --so that shouldn't be an issue there. And who really cares if a player chooses to cheat the AI on a solitaire game. [:-]

It's just computers can be quirky, they crash [perhaps as a programmer you didn't know [;)]] and thus there will be problems with continuity when one goes BSOD during a game.

The program assigns the Team Leader of the Allied side as Master MWIF. Usually this is the Commonwealth, unless the CW is not in the game. In reality the players aren't really aware of this; it is just how the program knows which computer rolls the dice (i.e., draws random numbers). When the sequence of play requires the program to affect the simulated game world (e.g., draw a random number, advance to the next phase of the game), only the Master MWIF computer does so. It then passes that information to all the other computers/players as Game Record Log events.

I don't know of any way to circumvent the player just going back to a previously saved game without involving a second computer. So, before Master MWIF will do anything that affects the simulated world, the Team Leader for the Axis has to be connected. This way, when the GRL event occurs it can be immediately transmitted to the players on the other side. Then the Team Leaders' computers transmit the GRLs to the other players in the game.

To get back to the example I gave in a previous post, if the Axis players are making their moves while the Allied players are off-line, then all the Axis moves are sent as GRL entries to the Axis Team Leader, who both accumulates them and distributres them to the players on his side. That way allies can coordinate what they are doing. But the Axis player can not "advance to the next phase" until the Allied Team Leader is on-line. Once the Team Leader computers are connected, the Axis Team Leader's computer will transmit all the Axis moves to Master MWIF (Allied Team Leader), including his command to "end the phase". At that point Master MWIF will advance to the next phase.

Clear as mud?