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

[Irish Guards]

One thing I always thought was that damaged fleet units that attempt to retreat to a port from a sea area after combat, should be at a disadvantage, which means they are easier to intercept, especially by subs in same sea area and adjacent subs that can go to combat.

I bring this up from the point of view that as a victor in a major sea battle who kills opponent, watches all damaged units just get away, especially when some times they go 2 or 3 areas to a safe port, under air umbrella w impunity, these units who are horribly disabled are sitting ducks.

Irish Guards[&:]

[vonpaul]

I found old CWIF(beta) incredibely annoying personally. Its currently only playable solitare and I would often forget about a particular unit hidden on some forgotten front. grrrrrrr!!!!!! reload time AGAIN!!!!

[macgregor]

Undoubtedly good points all ! 100 transactions per impulse , yes. However, we're talking emails here. Whatever time it takes to finish the boardgame, I'm much more adept with a mouse than tweezers, it's got to take less time( as long as both parties have dsl or better) than that. I don't know about you, but I can email a move as fast as I can announce it. Plus I've got 2 broken ankles right now. That alone could hold up a boardgame. Of course the bugs have to be worked out of it and it has to play all the way through without locking up. I believe there is a PBEM version of the beta. Either it still has significant bugs and isn't worth releasing, or the bugs are worked out and it's just a matter of makeup and marketing, which I was hoping to bypass with my desperate plea.

[vonpaul]

2 broken legs??? How'd you manage that?

[Mziln]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Plus I've got 2 broken ankles right now.

Broken ankles are worse than broken legs. You have my deepest and sincerest sympathies.

[8|] Especialy since I have just recovered from 2 gashed ankles myself (a work related accident). Learning to walk again in shoes that have heels is an interesting experence. [8|]

[:)] Hang in there! Each day you get better. [:)]

[rhondabrwn]

I'm a longtime wargame collector and student (not really a "gamer" - I'm into learning and experimenting with history). I've actually owned the boardgame for years and year, but never managed to actually "play it" due to lack of space, lack of time etc etc. I have a copy of the original pre-alpha demo version and managed to play a few rounds with it back in 2002. So.. I don't pretend to be a real expert on the game.

I do have a personal development technique that I would like to share based on my experience as a business software developer of a product that was based on AI.

My entire product was driven by dozens of database tables that allowed us to configure the product to meet different state regulatory requirements by changing tables, not reprogramming. Even the menu options and screen headers were all from a database, not hard coded into the program. This provided a LOT of flexibility.

Now, I am thinking in wargame terms of developing an AI system that would be driven by accessible database tables to allow users to develop AI Mods exploring different strategies and objectives. I've never seen a computer wargame yet where the AI wasn't hidden away in the code somewhere and completely out of reach (a "trust me" situation).

Examples: A table of objective cities with value points. Change Moscow to a very high value and the German AI will tend to drive on Moscow without splitting forces to seize the southern oilfields and so forth. Want a traditional German AI, then equalize the points encouraging the split... and so forth.

Something similar for tactical preferences such as concentration of armor vs distribution in a supporting role and so forth. Table values for types of weapons production to steer the AI into LRB production vs U-boats and so forth.

These are all decisions commonly built into AI systems, but always out of sight and untouchable. Break some new ground and get an AI system that is accessible and completely customizable. Give us more options than "Easy - Historical - Hard".

It would be like finding a new opponent for each game with fresh challenges and new strategies.

[Cheesehead]

Excellent idea, rhondabrwn. I hope to hear more from you on this forum.

[macgregor]

Thank you all for your concern. I was actually hit headon by a drunk driver driving on the wrong side of a divided highway. I'm very lucky to be alive. It could've been so much worse. In addition, my car was completely totalled. I'm able to hobble on two very stiff,sore feet for short distances. The worst is over ,thank god.
My WiF buds and I are still in touch. Only I live in florida now. My one friend lives in hawaii. The other two are back in Philly. I miss playing with those guys. An interesting thing is that until WiF came along, I couldn't get most of these guys to even look at a wargame. WiF became a ritual for us. And now ...that's all gone. So, here I sit before you, impatiently waiting for the slightest bit of info. "It's been a lo-o-o-ong time.A long time coming. But this game's gonna come."

[sewelldave]

I noted at least one person questioning the sense of trying to build and market this game. I played the original board game with one of my mates about 10 years ago and both of us would love to play it again, but we don't have the space or time for to set it up. Therefore, we are both hoping this game gets made so we can play against each other and save campaigns without the hassle of the physical game taking up space, or play individually against a decent AI.

Keep in mind that neither of us has ever posted on a forum about this or got involved in any WiF organisations. We're just a couple of blokes that got interested and have then checked the ADG website year after year hoping the computer game will get made. There must be many more people like us out there.

For what it's worth, I would buy it for sure. I can't believe that there aren't more people out there that quietly hold an interest in WiF and who would buy the computer game.

Cheers,
Dave

[YohanTM2]

ORIGINAL: sewelldave

I noted at least one person questioning the sense of trying to build and market this game. I played the original board game with one of my mates about 10 years ago and both of us would love to play it again, but we don't have the space or time for to set it up. Therefore, we are both hoping this game gets made so we can play against each other and save campaigns without the hassle of the physical game taking up space, or play individually against a decent AI.

Keep in mind that neither of us has ever posted on a forum about this or got involved in any WiF organisations. We're just a couple of blokes that got interested and have then checked the ADG website year after year hoping the computer game will get made. There must be many more people like us out there.

For what it's worth, I would buy it for sure. I can't believe that there aren't more people out there that quietly hold an interest in WiF and who would buy the computer game.

Cheers,
Dave

I agree 100%

[vonpaul]

WIF already has a large fan base and you can be guaranteed that they will be buying the computer game.

[SamuraiProgrmmr]

Hello Everyone,

I have just found this forum and am enthralled by the encouraging news that WiF will be ported to a computer game WITH an AI.

I was part of the 'beta test' with Chris's CWiF a few years ago and kind of lost heart for reasons I will describe here.

I started playing WiF with Version 4. It was a wonderful game. I liked the way that each type of combat (land, air, and naval) had its own flavor and how each flavor seemed to capture the decisions that were important. I especially liked the sea area concept for naval combat that modeled the ability of a task force to have a more effective patrol when closer to port. PLEASE keep the sea boxes intact.

I liked the global aspect of the game and the ability to choose what types of units needed to be produced. This is certainly the best WWII grand strategic game I have ever played.

I was absolutely ecstatic about Days Of Decision. The way we played, we would start with DoD in 1936 and work our way to the war. This allowed for wonderful alternate histories. (Building the Maginot line all the way to the Channel made things a little more difficult for a Germany that did not like to throw an attack that was not at max or near max odds.)

I bought version 5 and like it as well. I bought version 6, but sadly have never played it. In fact, the counters may still be unpunched. Changes in jobs, marriage status, and priorities made it impossible to find time to play this wonderful game any more.

The version 6 rules were enough different that I found it hard to motivate to play solitaire, so I went on to other things.

I think it is crucial that there be an AI that is capable of at least teaching a beginner how to play well enough to learn from a good player later. Losing is inevitable (someone has to lose), but it is more acceptable when the player can learn from the loss and come back better.

As a programmer, I understand the complexity of writing an AI. Although I have never done it, I have done some reading on the subject. The concept of an AI for this game is daunting, to be sure, but it can be done. Just like any programming project it must be categorized and broken up into pieces that are not so daunting in themselves. Have faith, fellow grognards, we may have the holy grail in sight.

[&:]

I know you don't believe me.

I would make one suggestion, however, that might make you feel a little more hopeful for an AI that can, in fact, challenge the best of us and keep us on our toes. This suggestion could also have some bearing on the awful dilemma of "how much control do we give up to the AI when playing by e-mail?"

Now, open your minds very very wide.

Wider.

A little bit more......

Thats it...

What if the program were written in such a way that the Artificial Intelligence were, in fact, a module (in the form of a DLL) that accepted the state of affairs as a data object and returned the answer to specific questions when asked by the game engine? This is not too far of a reach since the game was originally designed to ask the user interface for all of those decisions.

Surely this would not be that hard to arrange. Think about the major benefit: Long after Matrix Games has moved on to another project and cannot monetarily justify improving the AI, the gaming community will have the ability to do so. Also, players that are so inclined can write their own sub modules that handle their interceptions (air and naval) to speed up PBEM without giving up control.

Just an idea.... think about it before you discard it.

Sincerely

Dean

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer
The concept of an AI for this game is daunting, to be sure, but it can be done. Just like any programming project it must be categorized and broken up into pieces that are not so daunting in themselves. Have faith, fellow grognards, we may have the holy grail in sight.

[&:]

I know you don't believe me.

I would make one suggestion, however, that might make you feel a little more hopeful for an AI that can, in fact, challenge the best of us and keep us on our toes. This suggestion could also have some bearing on the awful dilemma of "how much control do we give up to the AI when playing by e-mail?"

Now, open your minds very very wide.

Wider.

A little bit more......

Thats it...

What if the program were written in such a way that the Artificial Intelligence were, in fact, a module (in the form of a DLL) that accepted the state of affairs as a data object and returned the answer to specific questions when asked by the game engine? This is not too far of a reach since the game was originally designed to ask the user interface for all of those decisions.

Welcome Sam,

If you change the selection criteria for the Forum to "Show All Posts" I think you will be pleasantly surprised at the level of AI-centric discussion which has already flowed through this Forum in months past. We discussed the idea of module-based AI in an earlier post "Coding the Move on Suez" and I think you'll find most of the minds here are already wide open to considering new ideas. You should have no fear that your ideas will be rejected out of hand.

Keep those thoughts coming

[SamuraiProgrmmr]

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE make the game use all of the available display. I have some games that go into DirectX mode and strrreeetttccchhh the graphics on my wide screen laptop. It would be much better if the program used all of the pixels available (say 1280 x 768) rather than artificially widening pixels to fill the screen (1024 x 768).

[Mziln]

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE make the game use all of the available display. I have some games that go into DirectX mode and strrreeetttccchhh the graphics on my wide screen laptop. It would be much better if the program used all of the pixels available (say 1280 x 768) rather than artificially widening pixels to fill the screen (1024 x 768).

I just changed my display from 1024x768 down to 800x600 and loaded a saved CWiF game. The map size changed corresponding.

[:D] The units and hexes became realy BIG (I wasn't ready for that) [:D]

You can resize the window sizes in CWiF.

[SamuraiProgrmmr]

Glad to hear it!

Let's hope it continues as any improvements are made on the interface.

[milrevkommittee]

One of the main considerations of C-wif is the adapation of IM into the system. AI is very secondary because of the time and advancments in AI science that will be necessarty before a true AI opponent is even feasable.

Frank
SDCA

[coregames]

ORIGINAL: milrevkommittee

One of the main considerations of C-wif is the adapation of IM into the system. AI is very secondary because of the time and advancments in AI science that will be necessarty before a true AI opponent is even feasable.

Frank
SDCA

While it is true that an AI capable of competing at a high level in WiF is a long way off, I don't want to sell the staff at Matrix short. They stay conscious of the latest developments in the field, and have the skill and experience to bring some level of AI to the game. As far as text messages, IM is only one feature they need to consider; if the game is going to have a PBEM option, messages will need to be sent to other in-boxes along with the player's orders for the turn.

[milrevkommittee]

From a business point of view C-WIF needs better graphics and AI. The target market for a strategic/operational global war game will always be small but hard core. Although I would like to see a slight increase in the quality of the graphics, it is small thing. I have played the game well in to 1945 and have found some interesting insights, as I am sure any of the board game player have also noticed.
To market the game a rudimentary AI should be provided for the sake of advertisement. Any of the core gamers will know its no possible for a AI program to encompass the scope of the military/economic/political system and therefore fail. The game is to be played ideally by IM and/or TCP/IP. It can be played via email with a greater reduction in speed.
This is a long game that can not finished except by playing and playing and playing. It is defiantly worth the time as it is the best WWII game on the market (or, to be on the market at some time)

Frank
San Diego

[Nordic Twilight]

I played WiF with most of the add ons from the late 1980's to around 2000 ( when my excellent opponent, and good friend left to work overseas ), so I have'nt really played it since then.

Since CWiF was announced ( back in 96 I think ) I have been patiently waiting, looking over the beta version and fighting off mounting despair, at the way the game 'looked' and felt from the original. The game IMHO had a peculiar life of its own that all players I came across loved. So now I've found this thread. Hope springs eternal, and I wish Matrix every success with this project. What I would like to see is :-

1) Days of Decision incorporated into the game, with all the political ramifactions ironed out, so you can start the game in 1933/36/39/40/41
2) Economic system made more interesting.
3) Map boxes/Sea areas retained, as the UBoat/Commerce Raiding war was fascinating, and the system worked very well
4) Optional Div breakdown.
5) Fog of War
6) Naming units
7) Counter format retained but with 'better' graphics, perhaps more along the lines of UV/WitP
8) End the strange loopholes in the rules that game geeks would exploit 'ad nauseaum', infuriating normal decent players[:@]
9) As already mentioned the abitity of air units to gain 'ace' status.
10) A decent AI
11) One size fits all map if at all possible
12) Planes in Flames/Ships in Flames etc included in the games design
13) Ability to play solo/email/LAN/WAN
14) Time limits on turns, stopping the aforementioned geeks from endlessly recalculating odds ad infinitum till everyone playing has died around the table from boredom.[:@][>:]
15) Not to go where HOI went into fantasy land.[:@]

Just a few of my thought about this marvellous game[:D]