distance from port and time at sea

[gwgardner]

Doomtrader has confirmed that the patch will include distance from port and time at sea penalties, as in Time of Fury.

Here's the way those work, default:

If a regular fleet stays at sea beyond 10 turns, it incurs a 50% penalty in chance to spot enemy fleets, and in chance to hit enemy fleets.

if a regular fleet goes more than 1 sea zone from port, it incurs a 10% penalty in those factors for each sea zone beyond 1.

I'm excited about this. This does a lot to take the game out of 'sandbox' mode and into a more historical feel. Those parameters may need to be adjusted. I personally want to see the penalties more severe, and will make a mod for that.

What do the rest of you think about these new features?

[Magpius]

Parking an armada in a sea zone indefintely was far too 'gamey'.
Any improvements, or increased flexibility to tweak game balance is most welcome.
(I'm most pleased about bombardment calculations)
It is also good to see a game recieving continued support, particularly once it has moved from the high profile new release section of the site into the obscurity of 'period categories'.

[ilovestrategy]

Really doesn't make too much difference to me. I usually take damage well before ten turns and end up coming back to port anyways for repairs.

[gwgardner]

True, but I think the intent is to keep a player from doing ridiculous things, like parking a carrier fleet off the coast of the US forever, or near Sydney forever.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner
True, but I think the intent is to keep a player from doing ridiculous things, like parking a carrier fleet off the coast of the US forever, or near Sydney forever.

Yes, a very useful addition. [:)]

[bo]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

True, but I think the intent is to keep a player from doing ridiculous things, like parking a carrier fleet off the coast of the US forever, or near Sydney forever.

The only thing ridiculous around here is you waiting for that patch [:D] In July you will be all agog over MWIF and you dont have to worry about rules because
the computer wont allow you to make mistakes, get ready to play a real game not a patched up mess like this one is.

Bo

[gwgardner]

patch is here, Bo. I'm playing with it now. Join me.

[doomtrader]

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

True, but I think the intent is to keep a player from doing ridiculous things, like parking a carrier fleet off the coast of the US forever, or near Sydney forever.

The only thing ridiculous around here is you waiting for that patch [:D] In July you will be all agog over MWIF and you dont have to worry about rules because
the computer wont allow you to make mistakes, get ready to play a real game not a patched up mess like this one is.

Bo

What is MWIF?


And of course the patch is released

[gwgardner]

World in Flames. Don't know what the 'm' is for.

Bo is convinced that computer World in Flames is going to be the sine qua non of all wargames. Flawless, bugless, no need to read the rules or understand them.

[Grimnirsson]

World in Flames. Don't know what the 'm' is for.

I suppose the 'M' stands for Matrix (World in Flames)

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner
World in Flames. Don't know what the 'm' is for.

Bo is convinced that computer World in Flames is going to be the sine qua non of all wargames. Flawless, bugless, no need to read the rules or understand them.

I hope he is right, even half right would be good, not because it replaces any other game, but there is always room for another good title.[:)]

[gwgardner]

We can hope. However, I've played War In Flames boardgame, and it is probably the most complex rules package ever written. I can't imagine some of that complexity not being present in the computer version, and something that has to be clearly understood by the player.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

patch is here, Bo. I'm playing with it now. Join me.

Are you referring to a beta patch or the real patch I personally dont understand. Notice no smiley faces.

Bo

[bo]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

We can hope. However, I've played War In Flames boardgame, and it is probably the most complex rules package ever written. I can't imagine some of that complexity not being present in the computer version, and something that has to be clearly understood by the player.

Did not know you played the board game. The complexity is there and that is what is taking so long. I have always been a beer and pretzel player, quick fast paced games such as 3rd Reich which was a bomb when playing the AI, SOP when it worked which was rarely. Strategic command series etc. This is new to me but have read every post ever made on this game and I have CWIF from ADG. No AI with CWIF so it is diffucult to play yourself. This game if done right, and it will be done right by Steve could be the biggest selling war game in cyber war history. The problem with this game for the programmer Steve is that everyone who has the board game knows how the game will be done or should be done to make it an accurate replica of the board game and it's rules. The rules are what makes this game head and heels over every other game ever made. Don't you gamers get tired of the same old same old gaming of blasting through Poland, France, the boring Steppes of Russia and marshes with nothing to stop the vaunted Werhmacht HUH! Not saying you don't face that again but the mechanics are much better than many games that were made before. Don't know much about an AI yet, pbem might be a little difficult with all the phases in this game, net play might be the best way to play if you can get players in the same time zones to play.

Bo

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

ORIGINAL: gwgardner
World in Flames. Don't know what the 'm' is for.

Bo is convinced that computer World in Flames is going to be the sine qua non of all wargames. Flawless, bugless, no need to read the rules or understand them.

I hope he is right, even half right would be good, not because it replaces any other game, but there is always room for another good title.[:)]

I hope I am a little more than half right Rasputitsa [:)] I feel that GW is being slightly nasty to me with that comment but I can handle it [:@] It would be smart to read the rules but the computer will not allow you to bend a rule or break a rule, There will be introductory films on how to play the game, films on land movement, production and the more complicated naval moves and air moves. The counters are well done and really look good as does the most important part pf a game the interface. If you really wan't to get a feel for the game read Red Prince's AAR's of the game. And believe me there is always room for another good title [&o] Flawless and bugless where is that playing at?

Bo

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Grimnirsson

World in Flames. Don't know what the 'm' is for.

I suppose the 'M' stands for Matrix (World in Flames)

Not supposing but you are right, it stand for Matrix World In Flames.

Bo

[gwgardner]

Not being really mean with you Bo, just condescending ... no! What I mean is that having played WiF, it's hard! I mean every time I wanted to do something, I had to go through the rules, find the exceptions, etc. I know it will be guided, as a computer game, but still think a mastery of the rules will be necessary in order to play successfully.

I swear, after playing 4 scenarios of WiF, I still do not understand the naval rules. The boxes, where to put the ships in the boxes, what were the advantages of one box over another, and so on.

It should indeed be a big seller. To have sustained interest through all the years of development speaks for itself.

I just hope they don't price it out of my reach. I can't get WitE. Too darned expensive.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

Not being really mean with you Bo, just condescending ... no! What I mean is that having played WiF, it's hard! I mean every time I wanted to do something, I had to go through the rules, find the exceptions, etc. I know it will be guided, as a computer game, but still think a mastery of the rules will be necessary in order to play successfully.

I swear, after playing 4 scenarios of WiF, I still do not understand the naval rules. The boxes, where to put the ships in the boxes, what were the advantages of one box over another, and so on.

It should indeed be a big seller. To have sustained interest through all the years of development speaks for itself.

I just hope they don't price it out of my reach. I can't get WitE. Too darned expensive.

Good because you and I have always been considerate of each others views even though we have disagreed with each other. I still have a hard time with the sea boxes but I feel the movie clips will be a big help to everyone. As far as price who knows? A lot of frustration waiting for the game that is for sure. I still believe that Steve should have got more help from Matrix but I am not privy to his contract with him and Matrix and I will never go down that dark negative road again. Never!

Bo

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: bo
I hope I am a little more than half right Rasputitsa [:)] I feel that GW is being slightly nasty to me with that comment but I can handle it [:@] It would be smart to read the rules but the computer will not allow you to bend a rule or break a rule, There will be introductory films on how to play the game, films on land movement, production and the more complicated naval moves and air moves. The counters are well done and really look good as does the most important part pf a game the interface. If you really wan't to get a feel for the game read Red Prince's AAR's of the game. And believe me there is always room for another good title [&o] Flawless and bugless where is that playing at?

Bo

I am dipping into the WiF forum from time to time and, although I never played the board game, I think I will be in the queue on release. [:)]

[doomtrader]

So as we are already off topic, is there going to be AI in WIF implemented?