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

[Mziln]

Pass on? As in die? [X(] ACK!!!! [X(]

Surely it won't take that long to release the game!

Just to let you know somone read your post [;)]

[justanAVGwifplayer]

[:D] CHEERS.!! [:D]

[Colonel Warden]

The computer version should preserve the look and feel of the board game. But this needn't be a slavish copy as that's impossible - there are innumerable versions and editions of WiF as it is.

Good support for multiplayer play is a must. I had a lot of fun playing the board game WiF with real people and have recently been enjoying multiplayer HoI too.

And the Days of Decision module should be included as this will provide lots of replay value.

Andrew

[Mziln]

ORIGINAL: Colonel Warden

(1) The computer version should preserve the look and feel of the board game. But this needn't be a slavish copy as that's impossible - there are innumerable versions and editions of WiF as it is.

(2) Good support for multiplayer play is a must. I had a lot of fun playing the board game WiF with real people and have recently been enjoying multiplayer HoI too.

(3) And the Days of Decision module should be included as this will provide lots of replay value.

Andrew

(1) I was wondering if a zoom (+, -) mode could be used for the map instead of the multi-window maps as in the demo. If this would decrease performance or slow the release of the game forget I even mentioned it!

(2) I agree customer support is very importaint. Lack of support caused me return my copy of HoI.

(3) The Days of Decision? What did this module contain? Sorry, the group that I played the board WiF went on to other games and I am not current on all the upgrades.

[doctormm]

Try to keep the game reasonably "true to its roots" -

Hex based
Corps level (mostly)
Alternate play (not RTS)
Primarily about the 1939-1945 historical situation.

That being said, there are places that the computer medium can allow improvement over the original -

Unit experience (especially pilots). German soldiers in 1942 were better than American soldiers. The same cannot be so easily stated of the situation in 1945. SOME German troops were still better Americans, but some American units were quite good. Similarly, bad pilots are targets, no matter what they're flying.

Improvement over the basic "gearing" concept of WiF. Switching production lines turning out Bf109s over to producing He111s is not an easy task. Grigsby's Pacific War handled this very nicely. Plants would suffer from reduced efficiency for a period after they switched to a new production target.

Unit upgrades over time. Ground units got newer equipment. Naval units got new AA batteries.

More things can be tracked in the computer version - location of ships being built/refit/repaired being a good example. One of the oddities of Board WiF was the abstract location of the repair and construction pools. Had the Japanese followed up the air raid on Pearl with a successful landing (unlikely, bit humor me for the moment), the ships in the mud at Pearl would have been lost to the US. But they were instead (in some cases) raised from the mud, moved to shipyards on the west coast, and rebuilt.

Fog of War - on the operational and strategic level. During the North Africa campaign, the US kept several divisions in Morocco because they thought it was possible that either the Germans would move through Spain, or Spain would join the war on the Axis side. Maybe the game should make things like this extremely unlikely, but possible. Similarly, it should not be a given that the turn Germany attacks Russia, the Rumanians, Bulgarians, Hungarians, et al will join the Axis.

Step losses. Pretty obvious that whole corps generally didn't get wiped out, while others remained untouched.

Just a few things that I feel would help make the computer version of the best board wargame ever the best computer wargame ever.

[herwin]

1. Be able to turn off the Pact rules. They destroy the game balance.
2. Fix the resource routing algorithm. It's broken.
3. Fix the bug associated with trying to save BPs in Dakar for the Free French.
4. Fix the random number generator. It flunks the randomness tests in Knuth.

[herwin]

If you're thinking about realism, have some limited intelligence rules. This is particularly important for naval operations, which really revolve around intelligence and search.

[Mziln]

Version 0.7.66 (Debug)

In land combat the game somtimes locks up durring removal of losses. This occurs when the attacker takes multiple losses and the defender must take a loss.

ORIGINAL: herwin

4. Fix the random number generator. It flunks the randomness tests in Knuth.

[:D] You can always use the option that allows you to enter the die roll you want [:D]

I'm Just Kidding, but the option does exist. I would like a more random number also.

[Count Bobby]

To answer the original question:

1) A strong Ai.
2) No changes from the boardgame; not leaving any small things/special rules out. A decade of experience went into the boardgame. I´d prefer a 1:1 conversion without any 'improvements'.
3) Fat, printed manual with strategy tips and gameplay excamples.

[SeaMonkey]

The only mode in which the AI may be a viable opponent, is if it (AI) is not subject to FoW, while the human player(s) is/are.

[stewart_king]

Just so things don't get too dull...I think the corps/single capital ship/air division scale is just fine. I too would like there to be more possibilities in the political realm. I have played DoD III twice now and found it really adds to the experience of playing the larger game. Especially if you play with countries having the ability to change factions .

China won the last game we played by switching to fascist and declaring war on the USSR. Using the supply unit rule (and some loaned supply units from their cooperating ally, Japan), the Mao headquarters (don't ask me how he became a fascist but deleted units return to the force pool after a while when you change sides -- maybe it's his evil twin) and a bunch of pretty good units schlepped across the border from Urumchi into Kazakstan and conquered most of Siberia. The Russians were holding on to eastern Siberia, but lost Vladivostok to repeated attacks from Stilwell (easier to believe him as a fascist...) with air support from US lend-lease planes the Chinese got while they were still Democrats. Since the Russian oil was located west of the point where the Chinese cut the trans-Siberian rail line, the USSR air units in the far east couldn't re-organize.

Talk about the worm turning...this is a (admittedly far-fetched) example of the alternative histories you can get with a political add-on. Beats the heck out of deciding if you're going to launch Barbarossa in 1941 or 1942.

Stewart

[Mziln]

So basically you’re saying...

The great and wise Chairman Mao sensing the deep ideological differences between Maoism and Stalinism. Chose to temporarily forge a bond of friendship and cooperation with the Axis powers. In order to promote World Communism as defined by Karl Marks and Friedrich Engles, as interpreted by Chairman Mao. This freed the oppressed downtrodden eastern masses of the Soviet Socialist Republics from the oppressive yoke of Stalinism. And reclaimed the rich eastern resources of the people that were being squandered by the counter revolutionary Stalinist clique.

While the Peoples Republic of China only received minimal assistance from the Imperialist lackys of the west. In the form of supplies of "Radio tubes". The Western Powers still angered by the repulsion of their invasion of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in World War I provided some minor support units.

[:D]

[stewart_king]

One problem with DoD III is that the US and China are played by the same player. This guy was _not_ into "winning" the game so much as having fun [:D] So he lendleased all the planes he could to China, and they were flying B-24's, P-47's, A-20's, etc. He also sent them oil galore. Then, China switched sides (and he _did_ give control of them to the German player, me), beat the commies in the civil war (thanks to all that air support) and turned on the USSR. The Japs had made a peace treaty with the USSR but this didn't preclude them from letting Chinese units transit Manchuria (with a level III alliance) and loaning supply units. The CW was tearing his hair because of course the really important result of this was that Japan had all its resources free for a Pacific war instead of fighting a stalemate in China. As a result, Japan conquered India and New Guinea and was threatening Australia. The American fleet was strong but Japanese defences held on through 1945 in the Central Pacific (at which point the western democracies conceded to the Axis). The Japanese player had lots more objectives than China, but they had also bid high for Japan. China had the most points after bids were deducted.

Stewart

[Windfire]

A good AI, not one that has to artificially build more or modify its rolls to be competative
Interface that is easy to use
Ability to PBEM

[paladin4me]

I have played WiF since the first edition (still have some of the original issues). I have played CWiF once the original alphas/betas became available. I want the issued CWiF to be as per the desktop game. The options currently available are all there to be selected or not as the case may be. DOD III inclusion would be great but nbot essential - DOD can have a very large impact on WiF - some good, some bad - overall I liked it. As for playability, PC hosting over LAN and/or WWW would be absolutely great. Play anyone from anywhere. PBEM is a bit of a misnomer, I know some guys who use the original beta, the phasing player generally makes the decisions for all sides. PBEM has the potential to cause angst this way, but to perform a phase, write it up and send to the next in line and so on and so on would potentially take weeks just to do one sides turn. AI - who cares, the game is meant to be played by two or more people; besides people have more variability and bleeding cunning moves. There also needs to be a "chat" feature so that players of same side can converse plans, etc - and to also chat with the opposition. The chat feature would need to be closed (secret talks) or open (sent to all). Just my 2 bobs worth.

[BurntFingers]

Here's my idea of the best computer version of WIF;-

1) The game mechanics to be true to the ADG board game. It's been tested over many years - it works. No sense in trying to do a new version that may or may not work.

2) The interface to be as user friendly and click free as possible. Board WIF relies on 1,000s of cardboard counters being moved - that needs to replaced with something a lot less cumbersome.

3) The avatars for the AI players need to be developed along the lines of Sid Meir's Civilisation avatars - each with their own distinctive personality.

4) Not putting AI in there is a non-starter. The reviewers will rubbish it, they are the gateway through which a game takes off or not. I'm sure Matrix games have suffered from this before.

5) There is no 5.

[Arnir]

I would like the game to be as close to the boardgame as possible (with an AI, of course). Somethings may have to be changed for the computer, but I agree with the poster who said that if one doesn't want to make WiF then don't buy the name. Go make WWII the MegaCool version or whatever.

I would also like to see a comprehensive editor to allow the player to create his/her own scenarios or situations. (Like if B. Mitchell would have had his way in the US, etc.) From reading the WitP boards, it looks like the editor in that game will be used quite heavily.

The more historical detail the better. Having my 8-4 take Paris is not the same as having a named unit do it.

I loved that the CW was more than just the British.

I like production so that players can choose their own strategies, not just those dictated by the OOB. On the flip side, a player should be able to play out a historical version of the game.

Allow smaller scale units (divisions). Nothing I hate worse than not being able to do XYZ simply because I have to use a whole corps.

Make lots of things optional. For those who grow red with fury at the thought of someone invading Normany 3 days early, they can feel that the rest of the world uses their dictated options. The rest of us won't tell them what we are really doing. [:D] (Make corps only an option, for example)

One of the reasons I look forward to this game is that I really really really want a global scale WWII era game that lets me set global strategies. Let me decide if that squadron (or whatever) should go west or east.

[Mziln]

ORIGINAL: Arnir

The more historical detail the better. Having my 8-4 take Paris is not the same as having a named unit do it.

(1) Allow smaller scale units (divisions). Nothing I hate worse than not being able to do XYZ simply because I have to use a whole corps.

(2) Make lots of things optional.

(3) One of the reasons I look forward to this game is that I really really really want a global scale WWII era game that lets me set global strategies.

(1) Building Divisions was an opion in the beta version (see: Additional Units). Especialy Marines and paratroopers.

(2) Opions in the beta version there were options for: Additional Units, Land Rules, Air Rules, Naval Rules, Supply Rules, Production Rules, and Other Rules.

(3) "One of the reasons I look forward to this game is that I really really really want a global scale WWII era game that lets me set global strategies. " This is exactly my feelings on WiF [:D]



[&:]
(Q) I was wondering would it be possable to combine the Weather Display Option with the Movement Map? i.e. instead of a "rain drop" icon or a "NT" the hex could be Shaded Gray to denote storms etc (this would work well on land hexes and sea zones). I realizes this may not be practical with the many diferent weather conditions.

[paladin4me]

A thought on how to "automate" some of the opposing player moves during an impulse. Most of these interactions are aircraft related - CAP, Intercept, Escort, ground support. THe other interaction is (if the option is selected) shore bombardment to support units being attacked. Each player in their impulse "tags" fighters, bombers, NAVs, ships, etc as being usable during the opposing sides impulse - sort of like on 5 minute take off alert for example. While I cannot speak for other players of the boardgame, not one person in our little group of WiF gamers uses CAP; basically as it is too wasteful of an aircraft capability. The removal of CAP from CWiF means that the tagged stuff can then automatically be used if required. The tagging may also need to state how many can be used per hex. Eg a number of fighters and tactical aircraft are tagged and rules established/stated that only one ftr is used per interception attempt and (say) up to 2 ftrs and 3 tactical can be used for ground support missions. This scheme has the potential to free up the PBEM workings of the game - it would not be required for LAN/WAN or solo games though as the player(s) are all hotseat.

[meyerg]

i disagree. i do not like a prohibition against using good strategy (like concentration of force) to make PBEM easier.
i do agree PBEM is essential, and some compromises have to be made, but this is too much (limiting airpower).