Play Till You Want?

[OzHawkeye2]

In the UI design thread Shannon created (tm.asp?m=915054) the options for new games mentioned included the following:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Start of Game
Choose Scenarios...................choose scenarios, remote, watchers, free set up, extended game
Choose Options......................set optional rules on/off
Add Players............................add players to game
Bid..........................................current bids, bidding, countries available
Choose Sides..........................set who plays what
Password................................request player’s password
Setup......................................primary screen for setting up units

I've bolded the "extended game" option, because this would imply the ability to play past 1945 I think.

I've looked for the answer through that thread and can't find it, so I guess my question is, in MWiF will I be able to play for as long as I happen to want to, even if that extends beyond the historical end-date for the war?

I ask, because I really hate it when games come to end even if the players in hand didn't want it to.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: OzHawkeye

In the UI design thread Shannon created (tm.asp?m=915054) the options for new games mentioned included the following:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Start of Game
Choose Scenarios...................choose scenarios, remote, watchers, free set up, extended game
Choose Options......................set optional rules on/off
Add Players............................add players to game
Bid..........................................current bids, bidding, countries available
Choose Sides..........................set who plays what
Password................................request player’s password
Setup......................................primary screen for setting up units

I've bolded the "extended game" option, because this would imply the ability to play past 1945 I think.

I've looked for the answer through that thread and can't find it, so I guess my question is, in MWiF will I be able to play for as long as I happen to want to, even if that extends beyond the historical end-date for the war?

I ask, because I really hate it when games come to end even if the players in hand didn't want it to.

This is easy to do, and is currently coded to extend the game 3 years (to 1948).

I want to make this more dynamic, but haven't been able to figure out what to do exactly. [&:]

- Can this be done while the game is in progress, or only at the start of the game (which is how all the others optional rules work)?
- If the former, should all the players have to agree?
- How close to the currently scheduled end of the game can the end point be changed? As the end of the game approaches, production planning changes; for instance, ship building stops more than 2 years before the end of the game.
- Can it be changed more than once?
- Should there be an absolute maximum?

... and perhaps other issues (it's late, and I am not as alert as I am earlier in the day).

[Froonp]

Maybe, 2 years from the predicted end of game turn, the game could ask the players if they want to extend the game 1 year (6 turns) ?
And maybe, when the final turn is finished, may the game let the players play an extra turn. Hence they could play potentially infinitely.

[Froonp]

Problem is that, since we did not add the PatiF & AiF units that could be added to the WiF FE force pools for regular WiF FE games, there will be very few new units to build in 1946 and later.

[Mad Russian]

We've never had a game go to a full conclusion in 1945 yet. I can't see where games beyond that have much of a chance of occurring. Maybe we just don't play conservatively enough......[&:]

Good Hunting.

MR

[gridley]

We played many games till the end. If memory serves these games were usually just playing out the race to Berlin. Axis Victory Games were often ended early.

I can't think of any situation where the Axis would not be on the defensive by the end. Would the Axis be given some sort of "compensation" for extending the game? Or is it more of a thing were Victory is calculated then you can just keep playing for fun.

[composer99]

Hopefully victory is calculated at the end of the July/August 1945 turn and then you play out the rest of the game for fun. 3 years of America blasting away at the Axis with 2-3 o-chits a turn sounds pretty horrific (although the US player can 'live the dream' and get his class-7 carriers out on the board).

[OzHawkeye2]

I don't mind if the game's "scoring" ends post 1945, or it's technology tree, new units, etc etc. I'm the sort of player that played out EU1 games and conquered every last province (all 1400 of 'em or however many of them there were). I play Making History games with 100% conquer on and will go to the degree of invading all the tiny speck-in-the-ocean islands to meet those criteria.

More relevantly though I guess, is that I'd hate to play a game where there's still unresolved campaigns, things on my "to do" list as it were, and find that suddenly I'm being told by the computer that "Nope, you're done."

Particularly for solo-games, I can't think of a reason for ever preventing the sole player in the game from continuing onwards if they chose. For multi-player games, sure, I can understand that some sort of hard end-date (or an end-date that can be advanced only by all players agreeing) would make sense, but not for single-player games.

[OzHawkeye2]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
This is easy to do, and is currently coded to extend the game 3 years (to 1948).

I want to make this more dynamic, but haven't been able to figure out what to do exactly. [&:]

- Can this be done while the game is in progress, or only at the start of the game (which is how all the others optional rules work)?
- If the former, should all the players have to agree?
- How close to the currently scheduled end of the game can the end point be changed? As the end of the game approaches, production planning changes; for instance, ship building stops more than 2 years before the end of the game.
- Can it be changed more than once?
- Should there be an absolute maximum?

... and perhaps other issues (it's late, and I am not as alert as I am earlier in the day).

If I could offer my own humble opinions and answer those questions they'd be:

1. Yes, if it's possible to program easily, otherwise make the end-date a setup option at the start of each game.
2. Yes, all human players should have to agree on the end-date or any extensions mid-game to it.
3. Greatest flexability would suggest changes to end-dates could occur at any point (assuming 1 and 2 were met)*
4. Yes, if that can be programmed in easily.
5. No, if the game isn't going to actually cause the PC to explode, and (somehow) a game was continuing into the 60's, 70's whatever (though I can't imagine how) why stop it? Indeed, it'd make for a fun AAR for someone to post a game that (somehow! lol) managed to go for so long.

* This one interests me where you said ship building ends 2 years prior to the games end. Forgive my WiF-ignorance, but I'm not sure what you meant by that. Surely I can continue to build ships right up until the point the game actually stops (which I hope only occurs by player consent). Late Edit: unless of course you mean that it takes 2 years to build the ship, therefore effective ship production ceases 2 years prior to the games scheduled end-date.

[composer99]

What he means is players usually stop building new ships in late '42 (aside, perhaps, from submarines, sealift, and convoys) because any that appear on the map in '45 are not going to be used much, if at all.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: composer99

What he means is players usually stop building new ships in late '42 (aside, perhaps, from submarines, sealift, and convoys) because any that appear on the map in '45 are not going to be used much, if at all.

New ship construction (e.g., a new carrier or battleship) requires 2 years to complete. So starting a new ship 2 years before the end of the game means it will arrive on the map just in time for the end-of-game victory celebrations. As Christopher says, it is pretty pointless to start a new ship even 30 months out from the end of the game because after it arrives, it has to move out to a theater of operations before it can really participate in any meaningful activity. Since new ships cost a lot of build points, it is very wasteful to build them if you are not going to use them.

Repairing damaged ships is much faster and cheaper, so that is what most players do once the middle of the war arrives (~1943).

And by the way, this models historical reality fairly well. A lot of naval counters in the game never got off the drawing board historically, and even more only made it to the stage of being assigned hull numbers (no names).

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: OzHawkeye

More relevantly though I guess, is that I'd hate to play a game where there's still unresolved campaigns, things on my "to do" list as it were, and find that suddenly I'm being told by the computer that "Nope, you're done."

You mean like the real Allied Generals were.

Good Hunting.

MR

[OzHawkeye2]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

ORIGINAL: OzHawkeye

More relevantly though I guess, is that I'd hate to play a game where there's still unresolved campaigns, things on my "to do" list as it were, and find that suddenly I'm being told by the computer that "Nope, you're done."

You mean like the real Allied Generals were.

Good Hunting.

MR

Actually I'd argue that a known end-date is far less realistic. The actual commanders of the day didn't know two years out, or even six months out, when the war was going to end. Indeed, it's one of my principle criticisms of some people who complain about Allied actions during the war, assuming that somehow for example Harris knew the war only had 6 weeks to run when executing the Dresden bombing raid for example.

Be that as it may, this being a game, the human player is the one that should always be in control. If the human player wants the game to continue, and the game is physically able to do so, then the game should respond by continuing, indefinitely if needs be.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: OzHawkeye

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

ORIGINAL: OzHawkeye

More relevantly though I guess, is that I'd hate to play a game where there's still unresolved campaigns, things on my "to do" list as it were, and find that suddenly I'm being told by the computer that "Nope, you're done."

You mean like the real Allied Generals were.

Good Hunting.

MR

Actually I'd argue that a known end-date is far less realistic. The actual commanders of the day didn't know two years out, or even six months out, when the war was going to end. Indeed, it's one of my principle criticisms of some people who complain about Allied actions during the war, assuming that somehow for example Harris knew the war only had 6 weeks to run when executing the Dresden bombing raid for example.

Be that as it may, this being a game, the human player is the one that should always be in control. If the human player wants the game to continue, and the game is physically able to do so, then the game should respond by continuing, indefinitely if needs be.

Sorry, I can't agree with the "human player should always be in control". The game/simulation is a set of rules. Without rules, there is no game. For example, during development, the beta testers can arbitrarily place new units on the map where ever they want to: ooo, look at all the panzers in Washington D.C.! This ability is essential for creating and testing situations that might arise in game play, but this god-like power makes 'playing' the game meaningless.
---
But I liked your answers to my set of open questions on how the end-of-game optional rule should work. Do you want to read through the posts in this thread and put forth a 'formal' proposal for this optional rule? Then we could see if there is a consensus.

[OzHawkeye2]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Sorry, I can't agree with the "human player should always be in control". The game/simulation is a set of rules. Without rules, there is no game. For example, during development, the beta testers can arbitrarily place new units on the map where ever they want to: ooo, look at all the panzers in Washington D.C.! This ability is essential for creating and testing situations that might arise in game play, but this god-like power makes 'playing' the game meaningless.

I guess we have a difference of philosophy there. If a player chose to short-circuit the game by having some Tiger Tanks rumble down Pennsylvania Avenue in 1941, then that's their choice. Obviously they'll have skipped a lot of fun gameplay in between, to their own loss, but I don't believe in telling someone else how to spend their play time (in saying that, I do understand that as a game designer you'll have a necessarily different view point to that stance).

I would suggest perhaps though, that the more open, the more moddable the game is, the more successful it's likely to be.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
---
But I liked your answers to my set of open questions on how the end-of-game optional rule should work. Do you want to read through the posts in this thread and put forth a 'formal' proposal for this optional rule? Then we could see if there is a consensus.

Happy to do so. I'll work something up over the next couple of days.

[Mad Russian]

I don't have a problem with the game going past the original end date. That was something that could have happened. It could have also ended much earlier.

My response was to this comment of yours:

ORIGINAL: OzHawkeye

More relevantly though I guess, is that I'd hate to play a game where there's still unresolved campaigns, things on my "to do" list as it were, and find that suddenly I'm being told by the computer that "Nope, you're done."

That doesn't say anything about the natural flow of events. It says YOU weren't finished yet. My point was then and still is, the Allied Generals, and some politicians as well, that felt the same way in some instances. Because the war ended and there were still some things they wanted to accomplish.

Good Hunting.

MR

[wworld7]

ORIGINAL: OzHawkeye

I would suggest perhaps though, that the more open, the more moddable the game is, the more successful it's likely to be.

While I would agree with your above statement in regards to many other games. In this instance, I most definately disagree. I believe MWiF, as an adaptation of a existing board game, will be more successful if the core game works well "out of the box".

Down the road if resources permit mod away "if possible". But if the core isn't solid (it looks to me to be on the right path) anything else is pointless.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: OzHawkeye

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Sorry, I can't agree with the "human player should always be in control". The game/simulation is a set of rules. Without rules, there is no game. For example, during development, the beta testers can arbitrarily place new units on the map where ever they want to: ooo, look at all the panzers in Washington D.C.! This ability is essential for creating and testing situations that might arise in game play, but this god-like power makes 'playing' the game meaningless.

I guess we have a difference of philosophy there. If a player chose to short-circuit the game by having some Tiger Tanks rumble down Pennsylvania Avenue in 1941, then that's their choice. Obviously they'll have skipped a lot of fun gameplay in between, to their own loss, but I don't believe in telling someone else how to spend their play time (in saying that, I do understand that as a game designer you'll have a necessarily different view point to that stance).

I would suggest perhaps though, that the more open, the more moddable the game is, the more successful it's likely to be.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
---
But I liked your answers to my set of open questions on how the end-of-game optional rule should work. Do you want to read through the posts in this thread and put forth a 'formal' proposal for this optional rule? Then we could see if there is a consensus.

Happy to do so. I'll work something up over the next couple of days.

Thanks. I prefer to offload work whenever I get the opportunity[:)].

[OzHawkeye2]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

That doesn't say anything about the natural flow of events. It says YOU weren't finished yet. My point was then and still is, the Allied Generals, and some politicians as well, that felt the same way in some instances. Because the war ended and there were still some things they wanted to accomplish.

Good Hunting.

MR

Yes definitely I'd agree with that, Churchill in particular was unhappy, indeed downright morose over certain aspects of the final end of the war in Europe. However, this is one aspect where I feel gameplay should trump, and that it should be the player, not that game that clicks on the "end" button.

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

While I would agree with your above statement in regards to many other games. In this instance, I most definately disagree. I believe MWiF, as an adaptation of a existing board game, will be more successful if the core game works well "out of the box".

Down the road if resources permit mod away "if possible". But if the core isn't solid (it looks to me to be on the right path) anything else is pointless.

As a relative outsider to MWiF, I would be especially concerned that my viewpoints didn't impede on a faithful boardgame to PC conversion. However, is there something inherent to the Wif Ruleset that would make post-1945 gameplay broken in some way?

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Thanks. I prefer to offload work whenever I get the opportunity[:)].

A strategy I employ effectively and repeatedly as part of my own work-ethic [;)]

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: OzHawkeye

As a relative outsider to MWiF, I would be especially concerned that my viewpoints didn't impede on a faithful boardgame to PC conversion. However, is there something inherent to the Wif Ruleset that would make post-1945 gameplay broken in some way?

I would say not at all. The only thing of impact is that there are so few 1946 units to build. I think there are a couple versions of continuing the game to consider. One is when you've played the whole campaign and the Axis squeezes out a narrow victory and everyone wants to see how many more turns it would take to defeat them. Perhaps a good time to introduce a gentlemen's wager into the session?

Second is planning way ahead of time to play the game for another year or two of game time. That way, players would be considering their build and build-ahead strategies.

I think MWIF should be made just like the board game in this facet - if you get to JA45 and want to play until ND45, you just keep going.