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

[meyerg]

Lets talk Fog of War. As long as we are starting with a blank sheet of paper, can we have a Fog of War? It would be even neat to have units produced be untried units until combat (a la Panzergruppe Guderian) when they would flip over to their tried strength.
A good example of Fog of War is the Aide de Camp version of War in Europe. You can find out where enemy units are in theatre, but the exact disposition of the troops "out of sight" is unknown.

[MButtazoni]

As long as we are starting with a blank sheet of paper

who said that?

[meyerg]

i guess i assumed any game that hasn't really been started is "starting with a blank piece of paper". no has even said if Chris' legacy code is being used as a starting place.
i guess i worry a faithful adaption of the deluxe boardgame will neglect many opportunities to improve on the original and take too long to develop (and neglect PBEM too).
i worry we can't follow the same path as Empire in Arms (complete, faithful boardgame adaption) and have many compromises to make. If major changes are necessary, shouldn't we look at things from the ground up?

[coregames]

I have played the Marrinaci computer beta as well as several campaign scenarios of various versions of WiF; I thought the beta take on CWiF was pretty good, but I didn't like the unified scale of the whole map for the purposes of this game. WiF has variable scale, and this is for a reason. The European maps emphasize a war of land maneuvering, whereas the Asian maps emphasize a war of naval maneuvering. India, Vladivostok, and even China when it comes down to it, are strategic sidelines for the Japanese, and do not require European scale. Moreover, the counter mix of WiF has so much playtesting behind it so that it works with the variable scales provided. China and Japan would need changes to the counter mix to reflect the European scale, and substantial additional playtesting would be required.

I believe that what the Matrix version should provide is a very faithful computer version of WiFFE. Users should be allowed to play with only the basic maps, or use anything up to America in Flames for additional maps. Similarly, counter mixes to be used should mirror the expansions and options chosen, to effectively simulate the board-gaming experience and increase the customizability. A VERY hot feature that the beta lacked would be a pivot view option, so you could see the board from an angle (really enhance the boardgame feel). DoD3 could either be included, or (for marketing purposes) be released as part of a scenario editor expansion (and I would buy it).

[coregames]

As far as A.I., I realize that the game will need this feature to please critics and have as wide and appeal as possible. The game is so complex that the task of programming a strong opponent seems unattainable, but a respectable A.I. is not unthinkable if you model certain subroutines and build strategies on the behavior of strong WiF players. This might not help against unorthodox players, but in standard strategic directions (e.g., Barbarossa, Sea-Lion, Southern Strategy), the computer could be effective. One thing is for sure, Matrix has its hands full here.

[Tharkun]

Hm...I've never played the game World In Flames but I think that if it correctly handled the rules and did a lot of the things most people don't want to do in such a game then it should be a good game to play.

I think you should put out a demo with screenshots and include multiplayer into the game so each major power can be played by a human opponent.

[Mziln]

In CWiF has anyone tried:

Rule

9.5 - Neutrality pacts.

13.7.3 - Mutual peace - especialy Option 50 (USSR-Japan compulsory peace).


[&:]

[Froonp]

If I remember correctly, 9.5 was no completely implemented, and 13.7.3 was not at all.
Patrice

[meyerg]

I didn't like the unified scale of the whole map for the purposes of this game. WiF has variable scale, and this is for a reason. The European maps emphasize a war of land maneuvering, whereas the Asian maps emphasize a war of naval maneuvering. India, Vladivostok, and even China when it comes down to it, are strategic sidelines for the Japanese, and do not require European scale. Moreover, the counter mix of WiF has so much playtesting behind it so that it works with the variable scales provided. China and Japan would need changes to the counter mix to reflect the European scale, and substantial additional playtesting would be required.

Couldn't have said this better. Another way to prove this point: if you change all of Russia to Pacific scale, would it significantly change the game? Of course it would. Japan's superior movement and the fact that they have the initiative would make defending China much more difficult. Finally, the old style offmap boxes weren't a bad thing. Good players never really fought in them much, and if a bad player was getting stomped, it gave him a chance to at least hold an off-map box.
greg

[sirgrognard]

IMO, there HAS to be a version of the game that is faithful to the existing maps. I know that in early development, the map is all on "European" scale... which will be a different and interesting game. That said, given the existing board game owners and players, Matrix needs to include a duplicate of the existing game maps. -Groggy

[macgregor]

In short, I disagree. To save game space, Harry Rowland made some brilliant compromises which allowed him to change mapscales while maintaining most of the historical accuracy. However,I feel these are better represented by universal terrain effects not based on mapscale. An unlimited no. of units can be broken down to protect the now longer and more vulnerable supply lines (personally, I think HQs should be able to break off their organic unit to become like the old HQs.) Though this I feel is more historically accurate. ADG has never shied away from what could be important detail, and for that I commend them.

[YohanTM2]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

In short, I disagree. To save game space, Harry Rowland made some brilliant compromises which allowed him to change mapscales while maintaining most of the historical accuracy. However,I feel these are better represented by universal terrain effects not based on mapscale. An unlimited no. of units can be broken down to protect the now longer and more vulnerable supply lines (personally, I think HQs should be able to break off their organic unit to become like the old HQs.) Though this I feel is more historically accurate. ADG has never shied away from what could be important detail, and for that I commend them.

I'm on the fence on this issue. I will buy the game no matter what but hope the one size map does not skew what was the most balanced game I have ever played.

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: Yohan

I'm on the fence on this issue. I will buy the game no matter what but hope the one size map does not skew what was the most balanced game I have ever played.

A single scale, spherical map. Mwahahahahahahaha. I want to conquer the globe![:'(]

Cheers, Neilster

[vonpaul]

the pacific is a big theatre for not many units, old wiffers will have to adjust. Might be a whole new ball game in the pacific

[Cheesehead]

IMO, there HAS to be a version of the game that is faithful to the existing maps. I know that in early development, the map is all on "European" scale... which will be a different and interesting game. That said, given the existing board game owners and players, Matrix needs to include a duplicate of the existing game maps. -Groggy

My preference is for a single (European) scale, but I'm not too concerned if they stay true to the boardgame scales, either. That said, I would be terribly concerned if they released different versions with different scales in order to make eveyone happy. Lets be consistent.

[stewart_king]

I think the single scale is fine. In the CM version of the game, the action in China was faster but I didn't note any seriously ahistorical outcomes. Certainly, out-and-out conquest of China by Japan was still tough. The reverse was more likely if the Japanese got into a serious fight with the USSR, but most likely was a stalemate. I never got into a serious land battle in India. In the board game, I have seen India conquered by Japan.

I never liked the off-map boxes in the older versions of the board game. I thought they were a messy compromise. I always used the extra boards (Scandinavian extension, Africa in Flames, Asia Aflame, America in Flames) as available. The area movement concept works great for naval battles but not for land.

Stewart King

[macgregor]

Here's an idea (shouldn't be too tough). How's about naming the SUB pieces so I can learn a little more about subs. I've figured each piece's values have been calculated to pertain to a particular class of submarine. If you title them, I can know which class.

[macgregor]

Well if no one else is going to post I guess I'll keep going. I'm sitting here checking out the Marinacci demo and all I can say is: what an absolutely fabulous game! If only I could play it by email with my friends. The learning curve for wiffers (which my friends and I are) is next to nothing. If I could get a debugged, PBEM version now I'd gladly pay the full price for the final matrix version. So would my friends. Of course even the thought will send the AI control freaks into a tantrum of threats and predictions of doom for WiF, Matrix, and probably the programmers themselves. Email me. We'll talk. Fifteen years of promises I've been waiting. My money is ready to go. From what I can see, so is this game.

[Cheesehead]

Hey Macgregor
I have not seen CWiF in any form yet...are you saying that there is a pbem method already worked out? I would love to see an early release w/o AI, but only if we can pbem. If this is so, could you explain how this is supposed to work. How are they going to work in all the steps that require opponent feedback (Interception, blitz or assault, air ops., etc.). I've been curious as to how they are going to handle this. Any insight you could provide in this regard would be appreciated. I haven't been waiting 15 years...but I'd give up my left nut for a well-functioning computer version of WiF.

[Greyshaft]

All of the steps that require opponent feedback (Interception, blitz or assault, air ops., etc) are in the current CWiF.

Every last one of them...

I think we worked out that the current CWIF had over 100 interactions in every IMPULSE even without counting naval interceptions or resolution of air battles to determine aborts/kills. Multiply that by 6-8 impulses per turn and 36 turns and you'd be starting a game that your grandchildren will finish.

Don't go there [>:]