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

[amwild]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

I prefer new designs that apply new technology. "Ports" of boardgames seldom seem to be all that satisfying, and, besides, if you want to play that game, pull 'er out and set 'em up.

I am interested in CWiF mainly due to the space and time issues involved in setting up and playing the game - I don't have much of either. I literally have nowhere I can set up a game that is going to take hours to days to play, and could take hours to simply set up. The last time I played WiF, I was at a friend's house from which all the furniture had been removed, and even then there was a shortage of space. OTOH, I have plenty of hard drive space on my three PCs and a home network, so that and CWiF would solve the issue of space. Proper computerised bookkeeping would go a long way toward solving the time problem of moving pieces and checking rules, and the seemingly inevitable "Did I move that piece already?" problems.

I never purchased WiF for myself due to all these space and time problems. I would purchase CWiF as long as it handles all the rules properly, even without an AI (though I would prefer that one exists) for the sake of the saving in space and bookkeeping.

I just hope CWiF will be readily available in Australia - I haven't seen many Matrix Games products on the shelves here.

[Mziln]

A friend of mine built a wall in a spare beadroom covered it with cork. Then we pinned the map and the stacks of units to the wall. It made the board game much easier.

But he was single and a computer tech. With the time, space, and money to do this.

ORIGINAL: amwild

I just hope CWiF will be readily available in Australia

[:D] Check the E-store at the top of the screen. [:D]

[terje439]

I would like the game to be true to the boardgame. If houserules are to be included, theese should be possible to chose away.

[terje439]

Most of all, IT SHOULD BE WIF! not the-ultimate-cover-it-all-ww2-game-of-all-times.....

[IronManBeta]

Yes, once a game designer gets rolling it is very hard to resist legitimate requests to add this or that pet feature. Games never finish when you start doing that! Make WIF and release it and then worry about all the addons and extensions....

Cheers, Rob.

[Cheesehead]

To those of you who want Matrix to make an absolute carbon copy of the board game, does this mean that you:

1. Don't want to have a Fog of War option?

2 Want different sized maps scales?

I haven't played the game enough to have a worthy opinion about either of these features. But I'm curious how the rest of you feel about this.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead

To those of you who want Matrix to make an absolute carbon copy of the board game, does this mean that you:

1. Don't want to have a Fog of War option?

2 Want different sized maps scales?

I haven't played the game enough to have a worthy opinion about either of these features. But I'm curious how the rest of you feel about this.

I feel that a straight port of WiF would be great. That's how I feel. I don't really care if FoW is in it or not, it seems to me that most of the people who are always begging to have FoW put in a ported game have never played the original boardgame. The same discussion about FoW has already happened over at the EiA forum, and the only people who think it's a good idea are the ones who have never or rarely played the boardgame EiA.

FoW as an option doesn't bother me, simply because, it's an option and not a standard, however, if Matrix was to implement it as a standard I don't think I would enjoy the game as much.

What Matrix and Everyone has to remember about these old boardgames is this:

- The devout followers of these games include people who not only love to play the game, but also have a
sense of nostalgia about the game. I for one haven't played either in awhile seeing as how all my old
gaming partners have grown up and moved away. I attempted to participate in PBEM games, however
most of them became very cumbersome on my time and space. So being able to play EiA or WiF at my
leisure on my computer is certainly raising my excitement level and bringing back good times,
nostalgically speaking.

This is just my opinion.

[ravinhood]

Well here's what sells me on a game:

Quality AI feature, ahistorical outcomes by the AI do not bother me and if cheats must be programmed to make it challenging then so beit. I'd rather deal with cheats on the hardest level, than to be able to defeat it easily.

Personally I like "random" games, every game. I like ahistorical events, things that happen that did not happen just exactly so during the time period or war. We already know the history of the actual war, we know the outcome. I see no reason to play the same repeat of the same war. The setup situation is all that needs to be historical, from there the player and the events lead to what happens. HOI C.O.R.E does this almost to perfection now. I have computer Third Reich and I find it boring, because it is so repetitive with pretty much the same actions, and the same outcome every game.

I like turn based/hex based wargames.

I also like lots of units, so I go with the divisional unit sizes, but, would accept an option for this, but, I have a feeling that might be too much programming to make two games in one. One for divisional and one for corp. play. Low priority here.

Research can be simple or complicated as per the HOI game. I can adapt to either one. I prefer the complex, but, it's not a major.

Unit models would be my preference, detailed unit models even better.

I like sometimes playing minors, but, have no idea how this game works with minors or even if minors are allowed as a playable possibility. A request, not a necessity.

My play style is solo or hotseat or PBEM. MP over the internet is not necessary for me.

I'm not familar with the '33 scenario, am more used to starting in '36. But, I will try/learn anything necessary as long as there are some ahistorical elements involved.

Depending on how many players can play at one time. I would like to see an AI for each of these spots. Many times playing Third Reich I wish I didn't have to play all the allies or all the Axis sides.

I also would like the option to continue the game after the finish date for whatever you decide should be a normal finish date for this war/era. Reason being, I always wanted to play out the whatif USA/Russian war had begun after the finish of Germany. Plus to continue to try to invade mainland Japan, instead of dropping the bomb. I imagine that would take some serious thought for a whatif situation, should the US decide to continue the war, having to create an ahistorical AI for each playable country, but, it would be interesting to see what you could do. It might be fun to see the allies turn upon one another as the US declines to accept peace and gives the world the impression they are continuing their own conquest of the world.

Well that's my 2 cents. I'm sure not all things are acceptable, but, you asked for ideas and suggestions and those are my own.

[amwild]

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead

To those of you who want Matrix to make an absolute carbon copy of the board game, does this mean that you:

1. Don't want to have a Fog of War option?

2 Want different sized maps scales?

I haven't played the game enough to have a worthy opinion about either of these features. But I'm curious how the rest of you feel about this.

In the games of WiF that I have played, fog of war has been implemented by a rule that only a perticular side's player may examine the units in a stack of counters (other than the top counter) until it becomes necessary to do so due to some event, such as combat. At that point, you would find out (for example) if you had just tried to jump an unescorted convoy of a dozen transports or a battlegroup of 11 warships that just happened to be in convoy with a single transport (which was visible at the top of the stack).

Enabling an option to show the player only the top counter and the stack size is plenty foggy enough. Your opponent can know one of what you have got, and how many other things are there, but not necessarily what they are.

Also, the sea-boxes concept automatically implements naval fog of war - even when two fleets are in the same sea-box, there is only a certain probability of them finding each-other, depending upon their movement state.

I have not played enough WiF to have an opinion on the map scales. I suppose if the board game was designed that way, the computer game should implement the maps the same way, otherwise it would not really be WiF.

[fhbgamer]

Keep the scale to the board game, I.e. Don't expand Asia and America
beyond the america in flames map scale.
You can always sell the expanded map version module later for those that want it. But I want a game I can mirror on my game table.
Love the game don't have the space!
Fred

[Caranorn]

ORIGINAL: fhbgamer

Keep the scale to the board game, I.e. Don't expand Asia and America
beyond the america in flames map scale.
You can always sell the expanded map version module later for those that want it. But I want a game I can mirror on my game table.
Love the game don't have the space!
Fred

The change of scale has been planned from the start by ADG. I really can't see a reason not to do it. The only reason why WiF had three different map scales is that in the original versions the Asian map was exactly the same size as the European one. Later on additional maps were created (Scandinavia and Africa iirc) who also used the Asian scale. Then finally with WiF FE all the maps were reworked, but the scales for auxiliary theaters of operations were maintained at the old Asian scale as few players would have enough space to set up a single scale world wide game. This problem simply disapears in a computer version of WiF, there I no need to use different scales or off map areas. Everything can be portrayed at the same scale, and a true global map created at teh same time (I don't expect you wish to play on a flat world).

Marc aka Caran...

[macgregor]

One thing nice about having wif as a computer game is that everything can be(or should be capable of being) edited! As long as there's some acceptable criteria to creating the unit values, virtually any conflict could be represented. In some ways it's maybe not as detailed as say toaw( I find the beancounting is superflous and often the OOBs inaccurate), in many more ways wif is even more realistic(at least in the way planes ,ships and subs work -besides it's a comprehensive picture of how the world works ,or worked). It's all about getting the unit values right. Even modern warfare could be easily represented in the framework of wif. The concept of the suicide unit can be used to represent everything from long range missiles to...suicide units. To me, to be able to view the globe somewhat militarily correct would be of great value.

[pasternakski]

.

[macgregor]

Well excuse me for thinking outside of your box.Your wrong by the way -I absolutely could make it work. Your interest appears to be primarily the subject of wif (WW2) and not the beauty of the game mechanics. Fair enough. I don't play fantasy games -including ones that give out fantasy titles and medals. If you can't see the value of a world military/industrial (albeit simplified) model using wif as a template then I guess your imagination simply wont allow it. Your loss. Perhaps you'll just have to wait 'til some REAL game designer does it -or don't. I'll tell you what: you play wif your way and if my previous request gets answered - I'll play wif my way. How's that Mr. acronym.

[MJM2]

If at all possible would very much like to see 2 or 3 players on a LAN be able to cooperatively play against AI.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jon Mishcon

[YohanTM2]

ORIGINAL: Caranorn

ORIGINAL: fhbgamer

Keep the scale to the board game, I.e. Don't expand Asia and America
beyond the america in flames map scale.
You can always sell the expanded map version module later for those that want it. But I want a game I can mirror on my game table.
Love the game don't have the space!
Fred

The change of scale has been planned from the start by ADG. I really can't see a reason not to do it. The only reason why WiF had three different map scales is that in the original versions the Asian map was exactly the same size as the European one. Later on additional maps were created (Scandinavia and Africa iirc) who also used the Asian scale. Then finally with WiF FE all the maps were reworked, but the scales for auxiliary theaters of operations were maintained at the old Asian scale as few players would have enough space to set up a single scale world wide game. This problem simply disapears in a computer version of WiF, there I no need to use different scales or off map areas. Everything can be portrayed at the same scale, and a true global map created at teh same time (I don't expect you wish to play on a flat world).

Marc aka Caran...

I agree that I would prefer everything on one scale but this also means units will need to change for the Asian Theatre as terrain has now doubled. This means play balance could be negatively affected. It will be interesting to see how this works out.

[stewart_king]

The cWIF I Asian campaign played really differently than the board game because of the different scale. The China campaign was really wide open. I played several games of cWiF and every time there was a whole lot of movement in China. Either the Chinese and Russians combined to re-conquer the mainland from Japan (more or less totally screwing the Axis) or the Japanese pushed the Chinese back to Urumchi (a somewhat less serious blow to the Allies but still pretty bad news as all those ground troops were then available to invade India, Australia, etc.). This has only happened once in a board game of WiF and then only because we were playing DoDIII and the Japanese and Chinese Nationalists allied against the Chinese Communists and USSR and stomped 'em big time. Japan won that game.

There needs to be something done to slow down operations in that theater. Chinese attack weakness is artificial in my opinion and I don't use it. I'd like to see maybe expanded zones of control (exerted by divisions, maybe?) or perhaps supply constraints (which could also apply to Siberia, sub-Saharan Africa, South America, etc.) to reflect the relative absence of roads, bridges, etc. found in more developed areas.

Stewart King

[Mziln]

ORIGINAL: stewart_king

The cWIF I Asian campaign played really differently than the board game because of the different scale. The China campaign was really wide open. I played several games of cWiF and every time there was a whole lot of movement in China.

[:)] What demo version were you using? I liked to do an ampibious sweep arround the southern flank of China. [:)]

[justanAVGwifplayer]

well after reading what a bunch of people had to say,,, i say that CARANORN's 1st post hits it on the head of what i would like to see in CWIF,,
as for AI i doudt ill use it,,
i just wanna know, WHEN(will it come out),WHERE(can i buy it) an HOWMUCH(will it cost)
8).


justanAVGwifplayer.

[justanAVGwifplayer]

also ive been waiting for this game to come out since 96,when it was 1st mentioned in a yearly wif mag,,, so its been a LONG wait,, when CHRIS M started the CWIF i nearly burst a bubble.(even if it was buggy like hell)[:)],,sadly now its back to waiting[:(],,hope i dont pass on,[>:] by the time this game ever makes it to pc in a final ver.[;)]


justanAVGwifplayer.

btw this is not a reply to AMWILD.