Fundamental Question for PBEM play of WiF

[Murat]

From a play standpoint, I would lean towards B -v- A. Speed of play is critical. People may spend a few days or even weeks playing, but YEARS? No way, only Evercrack gets that commitment. I tried to play this game once and it took so long just to get started that it fell apart mid Turn 1. I like Greyshaft's proposal, but I think the devs really were asking if we want faster play or perfect reconstruction of the board game. Most people seem willing to sacrifice perfect accuracy for faster game play.

[Froonp]

Hello,

The boardgame is very long to finish (I speak about the 1939 - 1945 campaign) It should take 100 hours to finish, but our group generaly mak it in 150 hours. My opinion about the boardgame is that it can be as long as it wants, if I enjoy it. And it is the case, I enjoy WiFFing, and the more official optionnal extension I can throw in the game is thrown.

On the other hand the computer game CWiF of Chris Marinacci was much much much more quicker to finish, and it was a straight adaptation of the boardgame. I did a complete 1939 - 1946 campaign that lasted for a couple of weeks.

That said, I'm playing WiF since 13 years, it helps having a better grasp at the rules and quicken the play on a computer that handles all the administrative tasks and the rules.

My point was : WiF is a game with a steep learning curve, but with enormous rewards in enjoyment playing it, and it is long to play, it is normal, we like it this way.

I would hate to play a WiF Lite on my computer, but would appreciate a WiF Lite option anyway.

Cheers !

[Froonp]

Hello,

Generaly, Greyshaft has done IMO a good job at shrinking the interactions between the players, but there are a few things that you must be careful with.
Generaly, the idea I like the best is to regroup a lot of the Air Phases at the same moment.

* Allies nominate Air units to provide defensive Ground support …Air units are placed on standby but actual hexes are not nominated.

This kind of thing is ok, as long as the side nominating his air units to defensive ground support has the ability to say : I'll throw those planes at hex A if attacked, but would throw nothing at the adjacent hex if attacked. This player must also give an estimation of the Air to Air Combat ratio he wants to achieve for fighters being thrown into the battle.

DEFENDER (Allied) GROUND PHASE
<Allies see results of Air/Naval/Ground combats from previous phases>
* Allies retreat/remove units as required by Combat results

In the normal game units are retreated by the attacking player, so it would be the Axis player who retreats the Allied units. The process of "cleaning" the sequence of play to make it more suited to PBEM cannot IMO have the result of changing key elements of the game, and this is one.

So let's be careful when modifying the Sequence of Play, and be sure that we know perfectly the original one so that the original game rules are not changed. I'm saying this because it would be too bad if this newsgroup introduced errors in MWiF.

Cheers !

[peskpesk]

Guys, of course there is away to make WIF manageable with PBEM. The many interactions make it very hard to do a normal PBEM solution but there is another way.
For the non phasing player is most interactions about commit airplanes, try to intercept fleets, start naval combat or carry out HQ defensive support, etc.
All of this is very limited and perfect for a AI to handle. Think about it! The phasing player would need a minimum of email going back and forth with this solution.

How would it work?
Lets sat you have three AIs Land, Sea and Air. All these can be set to different options for each nation.

For the AIR AI the options could be

• Numbers of planes to commit
-Conserve air fleet (Use few planes, save for later impulses)
-Normal
-Spend air fleet(Save few planes, for later impulses)

•Equality (What odds are you ready to fly at)
-9 to +9

•CV usage
-Offensively
-Defensively

•Protect priority order
-Capital
-Fleet
-Airbase
-Army
-Factories
-Sea area
-Allied countries
-Specific hexes

•Airbase
-Return to starting hex
-Forward airbase
-Rear airbase

•Naval target priority
-Transports
-CVs
-Battleships
-Subs

[Froonp]

Yes Pesk Pesk, I think that your points are all good, and it would be good to be able to tune the AI so that you can input your own level of priority for each of those points.

It would be great to come up with similar points for Land AI and Naval AI.

Cheers !