WiF on the computer

[Hortlund]

Phasing player moves his airunits from base to target in intervals of 4 hexes, at each "stop" the defending player may initiate aircombat by intercepting those airunits.

[SamuraiProgrmmr]

*OUCH*

That would be rough.

I still hope that any changes implemented for the sake of PBEM are optional so purists can still play the full game when playing solitaire or TCP/IP.

The amount of time spent gathered to play TCP/IP or LAN will still be shorter than the time spent playing Face To Face.

Dean

[Cheesehead]

Calling David Heath...any comments on the ideas you fellows may have had regarding starting from scratch with a new game modeled after WiF, but simplified for PBEM purposes?

[MButtazoni]

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead

Calling David Heath...any comments on the ideas you fellows may have had regarding starting from scratch with a new game modeled after WiF, but simplified for PBEM purposes?

there's always GG's World at War.

World in Flames is a great board game and we want to create a "faithful adaptation" of it. as seen from the above posts no matter which decisions we make this "adaptation" can not make everyone happy as there are many opinions on how it should be designed.

There is much design work to be done yet on MWiF. i am a strong believer in the 80% design / 20% development process.

[MButtazoni]

IMO: here are the major hurdles to overcome in the design process:

1. Multiplayer capability

2. AI - both strategic and tactical (IBM has spent millions of dollars on a chess AI; Chess has 1 page of rules, WiF has 60+ ...)

3. WiF's Optional Rules and Add-On Games - (which also horribly permutate the AI programming/scripting)

and to a lesser extent:

4. Map Hexes vs. Map Boxes - and their impact on play balance. (It's interesting that some of the same ppl calling for exact adaptation of the game are also wanting hexes throughout the world instead of Map boxes)

5. New player indoctrination - this is a complex game that should still be playable by ppl that have never played the boardgame.

[SamuraiProgrmmr]

This is probably intuitively obvious to a casual observer, but...

As for indoctrinating new players, it could be accomplished by a series of mini-games that
start out with very limited pieces and objectives. These mini-scenarios could start with a subset of the sequence of play that is built upon in successive tutorials. The first ones would perhaps last only one impulse.

It is likely that these could be presented in chapters, each containing several training missions.

A. Ground movement and combat (without air or naval)

B. Air movement and combat (without ground or naval)

C. Combined ground and air movement and combat (without naval)

D. Naval movement and combat (without air or ground)

E. Naval and Air movement and combat (without ground)

F. Combined Naval, Air, and Ground (perhaps a mini D-Day)

G. Events outside of the impulses. For the early production tutorials, it might be a good idea for the student to manage only the production and let the AI play the turns quickly so the student can get a feel for the delayed effect of production decisions.

H. Miscellaneous -- such as Lend-Lease, US Entry, and anything not already covered.

The sequence of training might not have to be carved in stone, however it is likely a good idea to make certain lessons a prerequisite to others.

The current scenarios like Barbarossa could be inserted into the training schedule as 'exams' with grades given. I think that something along the lines of a % score would be better than Decisive, Undecisive, Draw, etc.

The important thing is to not overwhelm the new player with all of the rules at once while at the same time giving him/her a sense of accomplishment. The relative level of the challenge will be a key factor in the success of the tutorial (and ultimately, the game).

If there are differening levels of complexity for certain functions (such as allowances for PBEM), those 'stairsteps' of complexity would lend themselves to this method.

In fact, there may be people who will be forever content to play with whatever simplifications are arranged for ease of PBEM.

Feel free to comment on, expand, or change the proposed outline.

Dean

[amwild]

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer

Let's take it one step further.

Has anyone considered the possibility of allowing a mixture of PBEM and TCP/IP Connection in the same game? Players could plan their turns at leisure and connect for the air combat phase (and the naval equivalents). I realize this may make life difficult for the programming team, but it should be considered as a possible solution.

If done, this would soften any outcry against the inevitable changes to interception (both Air and Naval) for a pure PBEM game.

In some situations direct TCP/IP connections may not be possible, such as when behind a firewall, but this has given me an idea...

Considering that most e-mails are delivered in quite a short period of time, and most e-mail servers use standardised interfaces, it may be possible for MWiF to substitute inbuilt POP/SMTP/IMAP interfaces for direct TCP/IP by sending the PBEM e-mails directly to recipient players mailboxes via its own SMTP interface, and the recipients querying the player's mailbox via its own POP/IMAP/MAPI interface, looking for specially formatted MWiF e-mails and grabbing them from the server or the e-mail client app as soon as they appear.

Since WiF is a turn-based game, there are no latency issues to worry about other than the patience of the players.

This system would allow a rapid exchange of e-mails without the delays for attaching and mailing that would otherwise occur, as long as both players were logged on at the same time. By including "Player X has logged off" and "Player X has logged on" messages, players would be able to tell when to and when not to stay at the computer waiting for another e-mail. Finally, by building a limited e-mail capability into MWiF itself, messages can be automatically compressed, and long stock messages such as the aforementioned examples could be reduced to a simple message code number, greatly reducing the size of e-mails.

[SamuraiProgrmmr]

That is a great idea!

One of the games I played by e-mail, Space Empires IV, had a community sponsored web application that handled the exchange of e-mails using a java application. You started the java application and chose the game you wanted to particpate in. After that, the game would open itself, the appropriate file, let you play and upon ending the turn, it would close and send the appropriate file back to the server.

If the players were all playing at the same time, you could just stay connected and when the file was available, the program would start up ready to begin playing.

I played many games this way. It was exceptionally great during the quick turns early in the game.

As a developer, I have recently had many problems with WinXP's SP2 firewall interfering with FTP traffic when the user was behind a router. I have been seriously considering an embedded e-mail suite to bypass that problem.

On the downside, anything short of TCP/IP will not allow the other users to watch as someone moves their units, or chat with each other.

Dean

[Fred98]

ORIGINAL: amwild

as long as both players were logged on at the same time.

Sorry, this does not interest me.

If the game is faithful to the original, then the grog players are happy to play the whole game PBEM in its original form. It will take a long time to complete a game but the grog players will be happy.

I would like to see it succeed. But the great weakness of the game is that it is still a cardboard and counters game. It is not a computer game.

I don’t know how the table top version works. But the solution might be to make it highly structured just like 3R Within any one turn there are various sub-phases. And they are carried out in a strict sequence. EG:

Air interception is done once, right across the map all in one go.

Amphibious assault is done once, right across the map all in one go.

etc etc

It will be up to the game designers to arrange a sequence.

Or, instead of a strict sequence ( I am not familair with the game ) instead you get a check list. Within any one turn you get a check list of things that need to be done and you do them one at a time, in any sequence, and check them off as you go.

[SamuraiProgrmmr]

Joe 98,

In reading what I wrote, I realize that some of this might seem harsh. Please don't take it that way. Many things are softened by tone of voice and mannerism. These things are not always conveyed by emoticons. [:)] Please take all of this in a friendly context. It is certainly how it is offered.

ORIGINAL: Joe 98
I don’t know how the table top version works.

If you would like to know more, visit http://www.a-d-g.com.au/ and go to the downloads section. There are many things to look at including complete rules sets.

ORIGINAL: Joe 98
But the solution might be to make it highly structured just like 3R Within any one turn there are various sub-phases. And they are carried out in a strict sequence.

That is exactly how the game is laid out. In fact, it is one of the most detailed sequences of plays I have seen. There are just many cycles of the sequences to make up the turn.

ORIGINAL: Joe 98
Air interception is done once, right across the map all in one go.

Amphibious assault is done once, right across the map all in one go.

etc etc

Unfortunately that would change the game more than you might imagine. It is true that this is one of the possible solutions, but I (along with others) would rather turn the decisions over to a scripted AI that we have loose control over than make this particular concession.

ORIGINAL: Joe 98
It will be up to the game designers to arrange a sequence.

He did. His name is Harry Rowland. He has been working on this game for 20 years.

ORIGINAL: Joe 98
But the great weakness of the game is that it is still a cardboard and counters game. It is not a computer game.

Some of us feel that that is its strength. There are several WWII computer games already. These games have been judged inferior for one reason or another. Maybe what we need is a failthful adaptation of a 'cardboard and counters game'.

ORIGINAL: Joe 98
Sorry, this does not interest me.

I am sorry to hear that. Have you played many large 'cardboard and counters' games? If not, you might do some research. Look at the prices of the game on the website mentioned above and think about what they imply as to the quality of game. Could a merely average game command those prices? The thing that has many of us excited is that this is one of the very BEST.

Maybe the upcoming World At War is more your style. Maybe what you are looking for is somewhere in the middle.

It is clear that some compromises will have to be made in order for WiF to be appealing as a PBEM game. Perhaps these will make it more palatable to you. But the changes have to be made without destroying what makes this game special. Please familiarize yourself with this game before trying to change it.

In friendship,

Dean

[MButtazoni]

If the game is faithful to the original, then the grog players are happy to play the whole game PBEM in its original form. It will take a long time to complete a game but the grog players will be happy.

nothing could be further from the truth. you're making an uniformed decision on a game you have never played.

no one will waste their time playing a game that requires you to recieve a pbem file, start the game, load the pbem file, abort a bomber, save the pbem file, exit the game, send the game back to where it came, wait...

be careful what you ask for.

[Fred98]

I am a wargamer and I have played a few “table top cardboard and counters” games.

They were great but I was very relieved when computer wargaming came along.

With a computer wargame I can save an incomplete game and it doesn’t occupy a vital table in the living room. Unfortunately you lose the “standing around the table” social side of it.

But in playing Close Combat, I have formed friendships that are more than “virtual”

And with a computer game, you can add numerous variables that would be near impossible to keep a track of manually in a table top game. UV and BIN are recent examples.

WiF has a good name.

If it stays as is the grogs would be happy. But people such as myself would not have the time to play. Fewer sales.

If you assign tasks to the AI, you need to be very precise or the AI will fail. Please refer to some of the tasks assigned to the AI in Uncommon Valour

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer

Maybe the upcoming World At War is more your style.

Not at all. As a former 3R player, W@W interested me at first. The concept is to break the map into sectors rather than hexes. Excellent idea! Unfortunately it looks childish and so it’s not to my taste.

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer

Maybe what you are looking for is somewhere in the middle.

Actually I am currently snowed under in wargames. If none were released for another 5 years, I would still be in wargame nirvana for the whole period.

There are 2 wargames missing from the pack: A global game and a squad level game ( you control only 8 or 10 infantry men through a series of normal infantry missions – like the old Ambush! board game)

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer

It is clear that some compromises will have to be made in order for WiF to be appealing as a PBEM game

That’s the whole purpose of this thread. But I cannot tell whether the compromises are to satisfy the hard core WiF fans or to satisfy the rest of us. I suppose that’s my ultimate point.

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer

In friendship,
Dean

Me too. We are all fellow wargamers [:)]

[meyerg]

While it may be true that a faithful adaptation and PBEM are not compatible ideas, it is clear to that only a drastic alteration would make it substantially more suitable to PBEM.

I think eliminating some of the air jujitsu and combining some phases is not the "drastic" alteration you make it out to be. This is a strategic game and you want more of a tactical control over your units?

There was a turn-based computer game that had nebulous rules, an AI that tried to handle default decisions, and let you micromanage to the level you were comfortable. Unfortunately it was horrible (Alan Emerick, if you are reading this please send me $50 or a copy of Totaller Krieg to compensate me for my purchase of Masters of Orion 3). Maybe CWiF can learn from these mistakes and have an umbrella AI fill in the blanks from a set of player defined preferences during the air phase.

If you want CWiF to have all the expansions, have European map hexes for the entire world, and have network play only, you will risk shrinking a fan base that is already dangerously small.

The points raised in this thread must be addressed before this project can start as PJ Hortlund has pointed out. Please do not limit computer programmers to a boardgame paradigm when they are trying to make the best computer game. We don't want to have the program prompt each player to roll their own dice and type the results in, do we?

These views are mine alone (support is appreciated), greg

[SamuraiProgrmmr]

Greg,

I don't want tactical control, but rather the ability to preserve part of the air corps if the first round of air combat goes badly.

My point was not to have only network play only, but to be careful in adapting to PBEM.

For the record, I am for PBEM. I am interested in helping to find the right blend of change and consistency to make it work. However, I would like to see the game as written available for single player or network play.

Do you feel that whatever compromises are made for PBEM, that the Rules As Written should be implemented for network play and single player (for those who are interested)? There could be an option for RaW vs Streamlined for those who want the simplified rules for those modes of play.

Thinking about air to air combat..

My personal preferences for change for PBEM ONLY (in order of most agreeable to least agreeable) are:

1) Scripted AI giving player control over aborting, air combats in one step but consecutively in order chosen by attacker. (Scripting can allow for how well other air to air combats went).

2) Air combats performed concurrently, but a cycle of e-mails exist each round allowing both players to make abort decisions. (As a loose estimate, I think this would make air combat take an average of 3 cycles of e-mails.)

3) Air combats performed concurrently with AI control over aborting based on one or a few radio button choices or sliders (This would take 1 cycle of e-mail for the actual combat).

4) AI control without player interaction


In preparing this post, I pulled my rule book out and dusted it off. After looking at the air combat rules, I realized that I need to spend some quality time getting reaquainted with them. In fact, my opinion on these things may change some. For example, I have less opposition to doing the air combats concurrently than in losing control over the abort process.

I am mostly ambivalent about the use of hexes or off map boxes. I slightly prefer the entire world as one scale of hex. I always thought the off-map boxes were a very good compromise. However, I don't see that adding hexes will make things that much worse for PBEM or development time. In fact, an argument can be made that a uniform hex size and no off-map boxes may shorten development time.

It is getting late and the alarm clock will ring early tomorrow.

Thanks for reading

Dean

[SamuraiProgrmmr]

ORIGINAL: Joe 98
Me too. We are all fellow wargamers [:)]

Glad to hear it!

So many times, a forum can deteriorate into flame wars. Hopefully this will never become Forums in Flames. [:'(]

[vonpaul]

I get scared when people talk of trying to design CWIF to be more mainstream. There are ALOT of ww2 games and quite a few ww2 strategy games currently in develeopment. I sure hope they dont change WIF fundamentely to make it PBEM or more main stream, having an AI take over to speed the game up is fine in my book as long as you can customise that AI.

[coregames]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

Phasing player moves his airunits from base to target in intervals of 4 hexes, at each "stop" the defending player may initiate aircombat by intercepting those airunits.

In the most recent RAW from ADG, interception opportunities every four hexes is an optional rule, that slows the board game down considerably. The WiF group I play with generally don't choose rules that slow play that much. Another example is the bounce combat... an option we've never chosen. Not every optional rule will be missed equally if not included.

[coregames]

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead

Calling David Heath...any comments on the ideas you fellows may have had regarding starting from scratch with a new game modeled after WiF, but simplified for PBEM purposes?

That is what I hope is the course chosen... one pricey game that has a fairly faithful setting, and another setting that uses the same map and units, but is PBEM suitable. This would please the existing fan base and allow newcomers to play a simpler game as well as working with email.

ORIGINAL: meyerg

I think eliminating some of the air jujitsu and combining some phases is not the "drastic" alteration you make it out to be. This is a strategic game and you want more of a tactical control over your units?

There is so much "air jujitsu" during the course of an impulse, as well as many other choices to be made by the defending side, that eliminating or combining some of it might not have that big of an impact. Only a fairly drastic revision would not require extensive contingency scripts or AI management. To overstate my point, imagine only having one air combat phase during an impulse (perhaps at the end of fly air resupply phase). Anyone who has played WiF knows that would not be anything like it.

Several others in this forum, and even in this thread, seem to like the idea of including both a more faithful setting and a more PBEM-friendly setting. Is this unrealistic? I'd be interested to hear how much harder that would be than just one or the other.

On another note, I am encouraged to see the Matrix elite taking such an active interest in this now! This accelerated feedback is reassuring me that a good thing is in the making.

[MButtazoni]

Several others in this forum, and even in this thread, seem to like the idea of including both a more faithful setting and a more PBEM-friendly setting. Is this unrealistic? I'd be interested to hear how much harder that would be than just one or the other.

yes it would be harder, there seems to be 3 ways to play this (or any other wargame):

1. Asynchronous Multiplayer (PBEM, hot seat)
2. Synchronous Multiplayer (online play, peer-to-peer, client/server)
3. Singleplayer (vs. an AI)

each of these have different requirements on play experience (and enemy-activity feedback) to make them successful. i think the game has to be streamlined as we move from #3 down to #1.

When making these decisions we have to ask ourselves (and you should ask yourself too) "when do we want the game to ship?"

BTW, i am not proposing solutions MWiF here (yet) just discussing design options.

[SamuraiProgrmmr]

Maurice,

It is great to have you involved in these discussions! Some of the things I say here will be explained more fully than needed for the benefit of non technical people in the discussion. Please don't feel that I think you are ignorant of the programming terms I will define.

ORIGINAL: MButtazoni

there seems to be 3 ways to play this (or any other wargame):

1. Asynchronous Multiplayer (PBEM, hot seat)
2. Synchronous Multiplayer (online play, peer-to-peer, client/server)
3. Singleplayer (vs. an AI)

I would add another one for consideration:

1.5. Bisynchronous Multiplayer (Same game switchable between PBEM /online)


At first blush, this may seem to be a drastic complication for the programming team. However, if the different facets of the project (game engine, user interface, communications mode) are encapsulated appropriately, it will work. Think of an interface as a segregated portion of the computer program that can only exchange information with other portions by handing data back and forth, rather than changing data that 'belongs' to the others.

For example, the game engine needs to know whether a plane will abort. It simply asks the question of the player interface. The player interface knows whether that plane is controlled by a human at this computer (calling the windows interface), the AI (calling the AI routines), a human online (calling the synchronous interface), or a human via e-mail (calling the asyncronous interface).

The player interface, having been passed the game status data passes the appropriate information to the other interfaces

The game engine does not have to care who answers its question, only that the question gets answered. If the program closes before the game engine gets its answer, as it saves itself, it also saves what question should have an answer waiting or be asked when reopened.

This may sound like a lot of agony, but in reality this is the standard for well written programs. Also, this encapsulation makes debugging and adding new features easier.

Some of the people in this forum have said that they will not sit at their computer waiting for the other player to make their move. I can easily envision situations where it would be acceptable to plan the bulk of turns independently and then arranging a online or hotseat session to do combats. In my opinion, this is also a compromise that is useful. (Please don't think that I am saying that it is the ONLY compromise to be made.)

With the proper design decisions early in the process, this kind of flexibility should not be difficult to achieve.

ORIGINAL: MButtazoni

When making these decisions we have to ask ourselves (and you should ask yourself too) "when do we want the game to ship?"

I want the game Yesterday [:-]

But...

I would rather wait longer and pay a bit more in order to have the best game possible.

It would be a tragedy for this project to fail, for it is likely the only chance we (WiFfers) have to see this game on a PC platform.

Maurice, if I am 'meddling in your kitchen' more than you are comfortable, please don't hesitate to tell me. It is your project, after all.

Dean