Development of the AI

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

Thanks Bo, I� didn't know the status of Fascist Tide.� I thought it might be longer off than it is apparently.

I'm more optimistic about the technical resolution of data exchange.� If you can play hotseat or solitaire or against the AI, then you should be able to exchange data files via TCP/IP, NetPlay or pbem.� The real limitations are frequency of data exchange for complex interactive actions and how well real players will tolerate delays and turn-arounds.� I suppose there are many die-hard veteran players willing and able to sit for hours and play this monster realtime on NetPlay when its done, but I'm not one of them!� But I won't begrudge those who want to do that.� I will wait for a computer opponent.

The rules for simulating naval combats which are done on the other part of the world have still to be coded for the half map scenario's. This isn't going to be done soon.
The order of battle regarding MWIF is solitair bugs first, netplay second. And than we could be talking about a long time, since progress is slow, due to the complexity of the game and the enormous amount of code Steve has to work on.
Putting in the half map scenario's isn't anywhere at the top of the lists of things to do at this moment, I'm afraid...

While this obviously is not true for others here, if I want to play on only half the map, I have a lot of other games to chose from so I am not that interested in playing WiF with just part of the game.

This is because when games only use the PTO or the ETO, someone losses out in being able to react. For example in WitP if Japan runs amok and does much better than historical, the Allies are stuck with the historical timeline of units. Even if Pearl is invaded as an extreme example.

The same is true in War in the East. Russia can be doing much better but Germany in this case is stuck with the historical timeline of units. Of course there is a limit amount of what they could do, but still, the player should be alble to make some adjustments.

Only by playing a complete world war which includes all the theaters of operations can this artificial constraints be eliminated. I remember the first time I played War in the West and a certain amount of Germany's production had to allocated to the 'East', if less the Russians 'advanced' faster, more 'slower'. Of course since I was palying in the West, I used more resources there since it was a lot more fun and the Russians eventually came calling early [:(]

So I would much rather be able to adjust everything to adjust to the circumstances versus some type of rule set. But again, that is just me [:)]

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
...when games only use the PTO or the ETO, someone losses out in being able to react.

Who loses out? Both sides are playing a game with defined conditions. It's a game. Play it. Win it or lose it. Rinse and repeat...

So, you can't play ETO because it doesn't account for other global results. Then you can't play a Russian Front game because it doesn't account for other Western Front and Mediterranean Front results. Then you can't play a Battle of the Bulge game because it doesn't account for other Western Front results. Etc. Etc. You shouldn't be able to play WiF either unless you start at 1936 or something so you can properly account for pre-war results. C'mon, this makes no sense.

ORIGINAL: Centuur
The order of battle regarding MWIF is solitair bugs first, netplay second... Putting in the half map scenario's isn't anywhere at the top of the lists of things to do at this moment, I'm afraid...

Fair enough. It is a very challenging computer programming project any way you look at it. Most of us realize that and can wait for Steve to eventually resolve all these issues. Sooner or later... [8D]

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
...when games only use the PTO or the ETO, someone losses out in being able to react.

Who loses out? Both sides are playing a game with defined conditions. It's a game. Play it. Win it or lose it. Rinse and repeat...

So, you can't play ETO because it doesn't account for other global results. Then you can't play a Russian Front game because it doesn't account for other Western Front and Mediterranean Front results. Then you can't play a Battle of the Bulge game because it doesn't account for other Western Front results. Etc. Etc. You shouldn't be able to play WiF either unless you start at 1936 or something so you can properly account for pre-war results. C'mon, this makes no sense.

Of course I can play those games and I do. The point I was making is that I have no issue with games where BOTH sides have the same constraints. If both the Russians AND the Germans got historical reinforcements regardless of what was occuring in the game, I would have no issue with that. But when only one side can modify things based on what occurs in the game and the other side is stuck, that is where I have an issue.

In a game like WiF, the game was designed around a global conflict. So by cutting it in half, you have to have some arbitrary rules to cover the fact that only half the game is being used. Again, just my viewpoint, I mainly got WiF to play the entire war. If I wanted to only play the PTO for example, I would play WitP, not WiF PTO's version.

While it is not fair to compare those two games as they are so different, this is the point I was trying to make. If I am going to play a PTO/ETO only game, I'd much rather play one that was designed to just play in those specific theaters, not play a game designed to play the entire world and have it chopped in half. But as I said, that is just me [:)]