What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game

[Mziln]

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

Instead of “rules” we should say “features”

[:D] Features are a known exploits that has been reported but not fixed. [:D]

Such as in Civilization (original version) where you could assign a task (raod, irigation, fort, railroad, etc.) to a Settler click on the Settler a second, third, etc. tome and complete the task on the same turn.

[X(] It's not a Bug its a Feature. [X(]

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead

Compare the AH games 'Squad Leader' and 'Advanced Squad Leader.' SL had programmed rules that worked like a tutorial. You could play the first scenario 20 minutes after punching out the counters. With each additional scenario you learned new concepts and rules. This tutorial approach made a complicated game very easy to learn.

[:)] We had a tendency to skip the scenarios dump the box and figure out the rules as we played. [:)]

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Squad Leader will likely always remain a good example of a great game, that was made more accurate at the expense of just making it more all encompassing of forces represented.

In the first box you got Russian Germans and Yanks. I personally think it would have sufficed to just add British Italians French Japanese etc with no additional complexity.
It would have been sufficient to add the additional boards and scenarios no more complicated than the first batch too.

But wargamers are never statisfied. We are our own worst enemy there heheh.

The first manual was proof positive a great game does not have to be complicated to be great. But complexity and revision are par for the course for all great games it seems.

Can anyone actually think of any great game that has been released, and never ruined by over fiddling with? They are not easy to recall in my opinion.

I want an all inclusive WiF, and odds are its a disease and affliction too

[petracelli]

Hi

Have been playing WIF since the fourth edition and the current final one is by far and away the best. Would just like to see it put as it is on the computer.

I don;t agree with the suggestion about the possibility of Days of Decision as the third version of that is only about to be released and no doubt adding it to CWIF will simply slow up production.

It seems from how popular your site is that you make good quality computer wargames and the creation of computer WIF seems to be in safe hands. As a regular WIF player though simply want to play it as is via e-mail or online.

Look forward to you releasing it and EIA.

regards

Phil

[Greyshaft]

In the absence of a social life and in deference to the School of Random Thoughts I came up with the following idea:

Could players have an option that converts a proportion of their initial setup to Production Points and allows them to spend it as desired prior to the start of the game? So Germany could start the war with a Navy to rival the UK, but at the cost of having no Panzers or Air Force. OK...so that's a bit extreme. Maybe allow them to convert (say) 20% of their setup to Production Points. When this is combined with Fog of War then the tension level should go through the roof [X(]

[lexxan]

An "Intelligent" AI is (obviously) the key. I'm "A little skeptic" abt that because there are too many variables also for the state-of-art PCs so I would consider to make the game in 3 modes/options (all together in the game):
1st: No AI (just for the on-line and similar gaming)
2nd: With AI (even if the game would be too easy)

3rd: With AI/Campaigns (maybe branched) made by linked scenarios (with eventually a, i.e., bonus gained for the next scenario depending on the level of victory/defeat achieved). Reducing the number of units and turns it is more likely to have a challenging AI.
Abt all the other aspects of the game (starting date, unit size, ecc....)I would say: put as many options as possible to match the taste of as many players as possible (of course).

A last thing, Don't underestimate the graphic! Not for the real fans of strategic games but because of pure and simple marketing (if Matrix makes money, Matrix would make more games, We would have more fun [:D] !).

[Caranorn]

I used to play Squad Leader with only the rules up to Cross of Iron (box two) but all the SL scenarios and all the maps (including ASL ones). I never needed the added complexity, or used small parts of later rule sections as optional rules. ASL on the other hand I never got very far, like many others it seems. I don't think I ever played a game of ASL though I own most of the early games (my brotehr bought them and I inherited his collection 6 years ago).

In general I like complex rules, but tend to play simple versions. WiF is probably one of the few games that I ever played with all add-ons and such. Though I remember I gradually retired some modules the last few games (Mech in Flames for instance) as it seemed to add further inbalances etc. and was no longer really needed in FE.

Marc aka Caran...

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

Squad Leader will likely always remain a good example of a great game, that was made more accurate at the expense of just making it more all encompassing of forces represented.

In the first box you got Russian Germans and Yanks. I personally think it would have sufficed to just add British Italians French Japanese etc with no additional complexity.
It would have been sufficient to add the additional boards and scenarios no more complicated than the first batch too.

But wargamers are never statisfied. We are our own worst enemy there heheh.

[Caranorn]

You should be able to do that in the editor. But don't expect me to ever play that kind of scenario;-) Well at least not I you have Germany field several Graf Spees, Bismarks and upgraded Bismarks:-) Germany simply had no capacity to field a larger navy by 1939. The only option I expect would have been buying ships abroad. And there I expect only Italy would have been an option, or maybe the Soviet build program. As it is, WiF already gives non naval powers too much leeway right now. Naval industries simply aren't that flexible andyou definitelly can't build a battleship in a tank factory.

But the fact that I would not play that kind of game does not mean I'd be in any way opposed to others playing such fantasy games.

Marc aka Caran...

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

In the absence of a social life and in deference to the School of Random Thoughts I came up with the following idea:

Could players have an option that converts a proportion of their initial setup to Production Points and allows them to spend it as desired prior to the start of the game? So Germany could start the war with a Navy to rival the UK, but at the cost of having no Panzers or Air Force. OK...so that's a bit extreme. Maybe allow them to convert (say) 20% of their setup to Production Points. When this is combined with Fog of War then the tension level should go through the roof [X(]

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

PBEM can be played with or without a computer game so why spend the extra money on a computer game when you can just use CyberBoard for free and do the EXACT SAME THING.

Cyberboard is great for simple games but it doesn't provide:

* Hidden movement
* any form of calculation or controls for movement / combat / production gearing limits / anything at all
* combat resolution
* enforcing sequence of play ie reminding you that its now time for the Water Distribution Phase (or whatever)
* multiplayer complications... house rules might help but better if the game does it eg limits on transferring resource points between countries.

I'm not knocking Cyberboard but I think its out of its class here.

All of this is true, but consider this: CYBERBOARD IS FREE!! So with very little extra effort on your part, you can play WiF PBEM for free, or you can pay what is probably going to be about $60 to do the EXACT SAME THING, but just be lazy doing it.

My point: LAN and INTERNET PLAY is vital. Real Time play is so much more complex, interesting, exciting, and down right MUCH MORE FUN.

[Mziln]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

In the absence of a social life and in deference to the School of Random Thoughts I came up with the following idea:

Could players have an option that converts a proportion of their initial setup to Production Points and allows them to spend it as desired prior to the start of the game? So Germany could start the war with a Navy to rival the UK, but at the cost of having no Panzers or Air Force. OK...so that's a bit extreme. Maybe allow them to convert (say) 20% of their setup to Production Points. When this is combined with Fog of War then the tension level should go through the roof [X(]

IMO this would require a pre-war campaign scenario (given the number of treaties that would be violated). It could not take place until the WW I armistice had been scrapped. This would give the other powers a option to also change their production. Yes, "the tension level should go through the roof [X(]"

ORIGINAL: lexxan

3rd: With AI/Campaigns (maybe branched) made by linked scenarios (with eventually a, i.e., bonus gained for the next scenario depending on the level of victory/defeat achieved). Reducing the number of units and turns it is more likely to have a challenging AI.
Abt all the other aspects of the game (starting date, unit size, ecc....)I would say: put as many options as possible to match the taste of as many players as possible (of course).

Only if one is of the scenarios covers the full war from Germany's invasion of Poland in September 1939 until the atomic bombs of August 1945. with the extended game option.

I don't care for linked scenarios.

[macgregor]

I agree the computer version can save quite a bit of calculation time by displaying available air/sea/art units for support.To the person who suggested retaining the boardgame maps with the 3 different scales: I'm afraid they've already been done away with them,and good riddance if you ask me.If but for the simple fact that you cant make accurate units for one scale and then expect it to some how transcend to the other.That's bush league! ADG broke ground by finding creative ways to increase the accuracy of the portrayal in as succinct a way as possible and it seems they've consistently maintained that as their goal.It seems that matrix is getting all the right people."With every man a genius...how can we lose?"To the guys all feklempt over the fact that they might not release it right away with an AI:Always with the negative threads! It's a mother beautiful AI,and it's gonna be there.With thousands of people on the internet,surely more adept at simulating a human player than a computer looking for opponents,and you still prefer to sit alone with your computer playing a game for 6 months that no one else cares about,and yet you are more sociable with people on this post than I.It does appear inconsistent.To each his own I guess.You buy...therefor you are.

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: macgregor
might not release it right away with an AI:Always with the negative threads! It's a mother beautiful AI,and it's gonna be there.With thousands of people on the internet,surely more adept at simulating a human player than a computer looking for opponents,and you still prefer to sit alone with your computer playing a game for 6 months that no one else cares about...

Not exactly.

The problem is that my gaming time is quite random. I can predict 'x' hours of gaming per week but not always on a predicatable schedule.
Honey, can you take out the garbage?
Honey, your Boss called and wants you to ring into the office for a conference call with the UK.
Honey, I missed you... hmmmm.... that's nice...

So agreeing to log on at 6pm every Thursday isn't always achievable. Besides all that, CWiF is asychronous. I have my go while you sit around doing nothing (apart from air/naval intercepts) then you have your go while I sit around doing nothing. Boring! Much better to get in an hour of fighting against the AI which will probably take a shorter time to finish its move than a Wetware player.

PBEM is also promising.

[Diamond]

One feature I would like to see in a game is a war history log - tracking all events/turns so that the game can be reviewed etc. Great for learning, analysing games, writing game reports as well as for PBEM.

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: Diamond

One feature I would like to see in a game is a war history log - tracking all events/turns so that the game can be reviewed etc. Great for learning, analysing games, writing game reports as well as for PBEM.

...especially if it's graphical. The black shadow of the Nazis spreading across Europe with little stars (blue for air and green for land?) showing where attacks occured. If this is combined side-by-side with a constantly updated graph showing relative strengths for each nation then it would show where the turning points were in the war.

[amwild]

ORIGINAL: Diamond

One feature I would like to see in a game is a war history log - tracking all events/turns so that the game can be reviewed etc. Great for learning, analysing games, writing game reports as well as for PBEM.

I recall something like this in the original Civilization, where the entire campaign could be replayed, and statistics were kept for a number of factors such as population, military strength and technological advancement.

I suggested full game logging earlier in this thread: this should be a relatively easily implemented use of such data. However, for PBEM, the entire log may be a bit big; only the data required for the player's move in the current turn need be sent, and added to the local logs if desired, in order to keep down the size of the e-mails.

[pasternakski]

.

[Greyshaft]

What is the color of the sky on your world?

uh... blue... why do you ask?

[macgregor]

A warlog history sounds like a good idea.I have an idea.Since making a pbem version will undoubtedly require some AI, (air/nav combat res) perhaps some thought could be given to Leaders in Flames in which each leader not only brings special die roll modifications, but AI movement as well.They'll each have distinct ways of handling air/nav combat res. Leaders could be given objectives to attack or defend.Notwithstanding placement (and construction)of reinforcements(which could probably be scripted),it might make for an interesting AI.AI is not for me though.I don't want sit there helplessly watching a replay of the air/nav combat res watching a bad call by my AI leader.

[EricLarsen]

David,
I'd like to see computer WiF be as close to the original boardgame as possible, including the Ships & Planes and any other add ons built in to give the game more historical flavor rather than generic designations. The only thing I'd like to see changed is the player movement/combat so that it is not IGO-UGO, but WEGO where both players plot their moves and then the computer shakes out the results for us. I just won't buy a game that is IGO-UGO anymore as that system always lead to unrealistic play. While IGO-UGO was necessary for boardgames, computer games make that system obsolete since they can handle WEGO so well.
Eric

[amwild]

ORIGINAL: EricLarsen

David,
I'd like to see computer WiF be as close to the original boardgame as possible, including the Ships & Planes and any other add ons built in to give the game more historical flavor rather than generic designations. The only thing I'd like to see changed is the player movement/combat so that it is not IGO-UGO, but WEGO where both players plot their moves and then the computer shakes out the results for us. I just won't buy a game that is IGO-UGO anymore as that system always lead to unrealistic play. While IGO-UGO was necessary for boardgames, computer games make that system obsolete since they can handle WEGO so well.
Eric

I recall from the (admittedly few) times I have played WiF that the IGO-UGO system is an integral part of the game, and in fact is part of the initiative system - the player that gets to move first whenever the question of initiative rolls arises effectively limits the actions that the opponent can take by the zones of control exerted by their pieces on the board. That is what initiative means: reacting to the enemy or making the enemy react to you. What is unrealistic about that?

Admittedly, some aspects of the game could be automated if the players choose, but if CWiF is made into a WEGO game, it just isn't WiF any more.

[pasternakski]

.