Love the game but

[Numdydar]

hate the setup [:@].

I know, I have heard all the arguments about understanding the units, where they need to go, yadda yadda yadda. If it was not for the setup process to have some automation for this using the Restore Setup for the various countries, I would probably never play the game at all. [:(]

Many people, including me, are used to games where there is either no setup or one that takes 5 mins or less before play starts. To try and play a GW scenario, just getting to start playing can take an hour or two depending on optional rules used. I think this is a huge drawback for the game.

Some suggestions for this would be to

1. Have a 'fast start' GW scenario setup and ready to go. There could be one for each of the default optional rules selections, yes the units would not be randomized each time, but most games do not have this feature and it would just be something so that player could actually start playing right away. Versus tying to figure out and work through a complete setup right from the start.
2. If you want random units, then you could take a 'standard' setup (like the above) and then just have the computer randomize the units in place. While this may lead to sub optimal unit placement, it would just be another way for new (and old) actually start playing the game right away.

I realize that there are a lot of other things that need to be done with the game, but setting up an entire GW game for all sides is sefinately not something that is 'fun' for me. Especially since I never played the game before and am still learning how to play it. It is almost like the game wants you to know all the ins and outs of playing before you actually do. Seems very backwards to me. It is not like we are sitting around a table and having more experienced players suggesting where what units should go where and why. I just don't see why we could not just have a 'default' GW scenario all setup for us and ready to go to represent what a RL group of players would do at the table.

[AlbertN]

There is a Fast Start scenario setup - but that is with the very basic rules.
It has already the units, picked and placed. Frankly, it's nothing I advice as to me part of the game is to choose who to open up with my warplans instead of ... let's get started quickly.

The setup itself (and the joys or sorrows of unlucky unit picks! Especially in planes!) is integrant part of the game.

Edit: If you want the Quick Start you are to "Load" a game, it's pratically a save with the units in place already.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

hate the setup [:@].

I know, I have heard all the arguments about understanding the units, where they need to go, yadda yadda yadda. If it was not for the setup process to have some automation for this using the Restore Setup for the various countries, I would probably never play the game at all. [:(]

Many people, including me, are used to games where there is either no setup or one that takes 5 mins or less before play starts. To try and play a GW scenario, just getting to start playing can take an hour or two depending on optional rules used. I think this is a huge drawback for the game.

Some suggestions for this would be to

1. Have a 'fast start' GW scenario setup and ready to go. There could be one for each of the default optional rules selections, yes the units would not be randomized each time, but most games do not have this feature and it would just be something so that player could actually start playing right away. Versus tying to figure out and work through a complete setup right from the start.
2. If you want random units, then you could take a 'standard' setup (like the above) and then just have the computer randomize the units in place. While this may lead to sub optimal unit placement, it would just be another way for new (and old) actually start playing the game right away.

I realize that there are a lot of other things that need to be done with the game, but setting up an entire GW game for all sides is sefinately not something that is 'fun' for me. Especially since I never played the game before and am still learning how to play it. It is almost like the game wants you to know all the ins and outs of playing before you actually do. Seems very backwards to me. It is not like we are sitting around a table and having more experienced players suggesting where what units should go where and why. I just don't see why we could not just have a 'default' GW scenario all setup for us and ready to go to represent what a RL group of players would do at the table.

It sounds like that yadda yadda yadda is directed at my post and if it is Nummy I think I will have more to say about this post, as we have a few more problems to solve then what your suggesting. But who knows, maybe Steve will do setups, several years from now. [:(]

Bo

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Cohen

There is a Fast Start scenario setup - but that is with the very basic rules.
It has already the units, picked and placed. Frankly, it's nothing I advice as to me part of the game is to choose who to open up with my warplans instead of ... let's get started quickly.

The setup itself (and the joys or sorrows of unlucky unit picks! Especially in planes!) is integrant part of the game.

Edit: If you want the Quick Start you are to "Load" a game, it's pratically a save with the units in place already.

Your right quick start is not real good but it was designed by someone in Matrix so that players could start the minute they opened their new game box, you know there is people around like that [;)] Some people who shall remain nameless [&:] must be doing a new setup every night, I would think that one setup would last, hmmm maybe a week[:D] or possibly a lot longer depending on the time you can spare too play this game.

Bo

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

hate the setup [:@].

I know, I have heard all the arguments about understanding the units, where they need to go, yadda yadda yadda. If it was not for the setup process to have some automation for this using the Restore Setup for the various countries, I would probably never play the game at all. [:(]

Many people, including me, are used to games where there is either no setup or one that takes 5 mins or less before play starts. To try and play a GW scenario, just getting to start playing can take an hour or two depending on optional rules used. I think this is a huge drawback for the game.

Some suggestions for this would be to

1. Have a 'fast start' GW scenario setup and ready to go. There could be one for each of the default optional rules selections, yes the units would not be randomized each time, but most games do not have this feature and it would just be something so that player could actually start playing right away. Versus tying to figure out and work through a complete setup right from the start.
2. If you want random units, then you could take a 'standard' setup (like the above) and then just have the computer randomize the units in place. While this may lead to sub optimal unit placement, it would just be another way for new (and old) actually start playing the game right away.

I realize that there are a lot of other things that need to be done with the game, but setting up an entire GW game for all sides is sefinately not something that is 'fun' for me. Especially since I never played the game before and am still learning how to play it. It is almost like the game wants you to know all the ins and outs of playing before you actually do. Seems very backwards to me. It is not like we are sitting around a table and having more experienced players suggesting where what units should go where and why. I just don't see why we could not just have a 'default' GW scenario all setup for us and ready to go to represent what a RL group of players would do at the table.

It sounds like that yadda yadda yadda is directed at my post and if it is Nummy I think I will have more to say about this post, as we have a few more problems to solve then what your suggesting. But who knows, maybe Steve will do setups, several years from now. [:(]

Bo

Not directed specifically to you my friend Bo, but to others as well that have expressed that view.

I actually start a lot of games which is why I posted this. I tend to restart a game with every beta release to make sure if I run into issues I know that I have started from a 'clean' slate. So the issue(s), if any, will not be from any residual problems from an old save game [:)]

[composer99]

While, as far as I can see, there is little that can officially be done about changing the length of set up, beyond the rather basic fast-start setups, I empathise with the OP. It takes a long time to do setup, and if you don't enjoy it, it's getting you off to a bad start to what, at the end of the day, is supposed to be fun. (Even if, given how long it takes to play WiF, the fun is more to be had in the journey than in the destination.)

It's all well and good to say that the play experience of WiF is sufficiently good/fun to justify the set-up time, compared to similar games, or that set-up is often a critical component of play, due to its much more open-ended nature, but (a) overall I think the goal should be to reduce gate-keeping structures that attenuate or delay the enjoyment of playing games such as WiF - and the game set-up constitutes gate-keeping - and (b) it's an open question as to whether the WiF play experience is so much greater compared to similar games as to discount or dismiss complaints about set-up time.

A possible unofficial solution the compilation of a series of "fast-start" saved games compiled in a forum thread, perhaps in The War Room subforum here, with a variety of optional rules and strategies implemented. But such a compilation will necessarily be unwieldy. (Think of the amount of information a contributor would have to provide in order for potential users of the fast-start game to sensibly decide if that is the game for them, especially for any scenario beyond Global War, which is probably the 4th or 5th easiest scenario to set up in WiF:FE (*).)

(*) Fascist Tide is definitely easier, being a truncated version of Global War; Day of Infamy probably isn't easier, given it's later start date and detailed implementation required upfront on the part of the Japanese player. (Of course, IIRC these scenarios remain to be implemented in MWiF.)

[Numdydar]

Thanks composer as you captured the essence of what I was trying to say better than I did [:)]

[Numdydar]

Also, the collection of saves would be great. I suggested the same thing in a different thread [:)]

I do not think it would be a difficult as you think. If the saves were just based off the 3 'standard' optional rules setups, Basic, Normal, Advanced. Of course if someone wanted to use something different, then they would have a lot more explaining to do [:(] So a save could look something like this.

Global War 1939 start, Solitaire, Advanced default settings, version 1.3.1.05

Seems pretty easy to me. What other information would you need?

[Centuur]

Well, we could put in saved games at the end of the last set up Major Power in a special topic in the war room. If a lot of people would put their saved game in there, a library would build up, of which everyone could take out a game of their liking.

But I still think that to get accross the intentions of a certain setup is very difficult...

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Thanks composer as you captured the essence of what I was trying to say better than I did [:)]

Nummy why couldn't you say it like composer just did, now I understand perfectly [:D] sort of [:(]

I did not realize you started games over and over and I should have realized that because I do it all the time. Look Global war is a bear I admit that, actually I did new game global war once, but I only play Fascist Tide which I know no one has yet. I just happen to like to set up units, I really enjoy it and I am not talking as a beta tester now, but a player.

I also set up Guadalcanal new game with different rules just to test the game with different rules, and what effect it has on the game.

[Numdydar]

I figured why not start with a small step and example since I just started a new game [:)] So in the war room I started this thread http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3778997

Hopefully this will start things going and help people get started playing right away [:)]

[alexvand]

Interesting.

I like the fact that setup takes a while. That's one of the things that makes this game re-playable. Each time you play the various powers can setup and try something different.

I think this requires a mental shift. Setting up is playing the game.

[Numdydar]

I agree to a point. But when you tend to not to completely finish games (the furthest I have gotten is 'start of '42) setting up over and over again as I pointed out above can get tedious.

Plus I know a lot of people would really like to just start pushing counters around versus wading through an advanced setup of GW. Even the most detailed wargames that are out, War in the Pacific AE, War in the West/East etc. all can have the player start playing a GC (for better or worse [:D]) right out of the box with no setup needed. So this is just my feeble attempt to provide something along those lines [:)]

[brian brian]

One thing to always keep in mind about World in Flames is that it is designed as a multi-player game. So normally, you set up just one Major Power, and that is a lot easier.

[joshuamnave]

For me, it's the convoy setup. The rest of the set up is fairly quick, but setting up the convoys is tedious, time consuming, and rarely varies much. Being able to load a predone convoy setup would be fantastic... and yes, there are different setups possible but they all pretty much fall into 3 or 4 "types" of setups, so providing 3 or 4 options would cover 95% of all games.

Actually what would be even better would be a modification to the resource planning form so that convoys could be placed from within that form. And hey, while you're at it, maybe resources could be point and click routed through the convoys that we just placed from within the form instead of letting the computer find the longest least convenient route for them? That change alone would save me 30 to 40 minutes in setting up a GW game.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: alex_van_d

Interesting.

I like the fact that setup takes a while. That's one of the things that makes this game re-playable. Each time you play the various powers can setup and try something different.

I think this requires a mental shift. Setting up is playing the game.

warspite1

+ 1

Don't get me wrong Numdydar I don't expect to change your view or expect this to help, but speaking personally I think there are three things (some of which have been mentioned by others) that make set up important:

1. Setting up is fun! Convoys are probably the only downer - I preferred the easier (but far less realistic) 5th Edition.
2. I dislike games where all (or a great many) pieces are set up and you have to go through and understand what you've got and where. With Global War the pieces are manageable at start and as the player adds so he knows where and why
3. Really key is the replayability factor. Each side does not know what the other will do and where the weight of their units will be placed e.g. Chinese vs Japan, USSR vs Minors or Japan, French and CW vs Germany, Germany vs Poland.

As brian brian points out - it will get better when there is an AI or multiplayer as you won't need to set up everyone's units.

[Numdydar]

True points. If I only had one side or even just one country then this would not be an issue. But until that day comes [:)] this will at least allow people to start play and figuring out the mechanics so they have a better understanding of why this unit should go here versus there. Expecting someone that just buys the game and read the manual (and everyone does that [:'(] ) and figure out how to scrap units, lend lease, etc, before they ever move a unit seems like it makes the learning curve a lot higher than it should be.

The only reason I actually read the manuals completely when the game came out was because I had to write an article for the Wargamer about the game http://www.wargamer.com/article/3478/How-to-get-started-with-Matrix-Games-World-in-Flames so I figured I should at least read the manuals before I wrote it [:)]

[michaelbaldur]

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: Cohen

There is a Fast Start scenario setup - but that is with the very basic rules.
It has already the units, picked and placed. Frankly, it's nothing I advice as to me part of the game is to choose who to open up with my warplans instead of ... let's get started quickly.

The setup itself (and the joys or sorrows of unlucky unit picks! Especially in planes!) is integrant part of the game.

Edit: If you want the Quick Start you are to "Load" a game, it's pratically a save with the units in place already.

Your right quick start is not real good but it was designed by someone in Matrix so that players could start the minute they opened their new game box, you know there is people around like that [;)] Some people who shall remain nameless [&:] must be doing a new setup every night, I would think that one setup would last, hmmm maybe a week[:D] or possibly a lot longer depending on the time you can spare too play this game.

Bo

the setup and scrap quick starts were done by me.. they were meant to be universal. so you are right they don´t fit every strategy .

making save games after setup is almost impossible because of the million option combinations.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: Cohen

There is a Fast Start scenario setup - but that is with the very basic rules.
It has already the units, picked and placed. Frankly, it's nothing I advice as to me part of the game is to choose who to open up with my warplans instead of ... let's get started quickly.

The setup itself (and the joys or sorrows of unlucky unit picks! Especially in planes!) is integrant part of the game.

Edit: If you want the Quick Start you are to "Load" a game, it's pratically a save with the units in place already.

Your right quick start is not real good but it was designed by someone in Matrix so that players could start the minute they opened their new game box, you know there is people around like that [;)] Some people who shall remain nameless [&:] must be doing a new setup every night, I would think that one setup would last, hmmm maybe a week[:D] or possibly a lot longer depending on the time you can spare too play this game.

Bo

the setup and scrap quick starts were done by me.. they were meant to be universal. so you are right they don´t fit every strategy .

making save games after setup is almost impossible because of the million option combinations.

Sorry michael was not being that critical and they are good to have, I just cant handle the carriers turning into planes but that is not your fault as I know you had to use basic rules for newbies, my apologies for my bad comment.

Bo

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

True points. If I only had one side or even just one country then this would not be an issue. But until that day comes [:)] this will at least allow people to start play and figuring out the mechanics so they have a better understanding of why this unit should go here versus there. Expecting someone that just buys the game and read the manual (and everyone does that [:'(] ) and figure out how to scrap units, lend lease, etc, before they ever move a unit seems like it makes the learning curve a lot higher than it should be.

The only reason I actually read the manuals completely when the game came out was because I had to write an article for the Wargamer about the game http://www.wargamer.com/article/3478/How-to-get-started-with-Matrix-Games-World-in-Flames so I figured I should at least read the manuals before I wrote it [:)]

Wow Nummy well done, enjoyed your article how did you get that gig?

Bo