Pros and Cons...

[C3I2]

I used to play a lot of World in Flames (a board game) some years back, so I expected to like this game.

I assumed that you could make the rules more complex when you leave it to the computer to enforce.

Now after a few hours, I lounge for the large maps and the human interaction. The big physical maps give you an overview that you just don’t get on a screen (17’’ in my case) even if you could adapt the program so you had an overview (strategic) map on a part of the screen. This helps you remember what you actually want to do with your units.

Basically I find it simpler to remember all possible rules, than to have the computer remember it for me; IF I have to interact this ‘stiffly’ with the computer. I know that this is an old game (and in some sense better and closer to what I like than some new games (why must everything be real time these days?)) but the player interaction must be priority when you construct a game. A GUI (Graphical User Interface) must be intuitive and quick. The learning curve should be short, for actually moving and attacking with the units.

The GUI should help the player, distinguish units that he has given orders to and the units without orders, in an obvious and simple way. The objective must be to get close to actual co-ordination and leadership efforts. One of the benefits with a computer game is that you do not have so strictly distinct probabilistic outcomes; you don’t need the discrete outcomes of a simple combat table as its run by the computer. This also mean that you can get rid of the micro-management of getting that extra attack-strength point that makes your 3/1 odds attack a 4/1 instead. Now, you don’t want to get rid of one micro management variant to replace it with some other. One of the reasons I liked World Inflames was the strategic scope, you did not win on the battlefield only but by having a strategic vision and implementing it (at least in some editions of the game), in your choice of construction and in how you disposed said forces. Now after my first 24 h with this game, and after reading the manual, I’m not sure that I can find that here. So far the micro-management of your forces, seems to be the dominant theme.

Could I find this in a future computer game covering WWII, I might play it extensively even if I still would miss the meeting my friends for a weekend of heavy gaming. But I cant really expect a computer game to compete with that part of the experience, with the discussions, takeout food and lack of sleep those really exciting all-nighters often meant.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by C3I2:

Now after a few hours, I lounge for the large maps and the human interaction.

..snip..

But I cant really expect a computer game to compete with that part of the experience, with the discussions, takeout food and lack of sleep those really exciting all-nighters often meant.

a) This is a 7 year old computer game, you shouldn't expect a good interface; it was designed back in the days of the 640k memory limit, and when EGA was king.

b) There is some micromanagement in this game, but not too much, and in any event this does not speak for all other wargames. I'm thinking of something like SP without CC rules, or Clash of Steel. If you play the Germans most of the time, you can reduce a lot of the micromanagent by building a custom scenario where you organize the forces the way you prefer at the beginning, so you can immediately play the game without having to reorganize the forces in the middle of executing an offensive. For me, this reduces the tedium of the game a lot.

c) Well, if its human interaction you miss, why not try the game pbem or hot-seat with somebody?

d) Some people just like board games over computerized games. Not wrong or right, good or bad, its just personal preference.

[nittany]

Originally posted by C3I2:

The GUI should help the player, distinguish units that he has given orders to and the units without orders, in an obvious and simple way. The objective must be to get close to actual co-ordination and leadership efforts.
.

Do you think the German General Staff officers had computers to do their thinking. No insult intended. Have messed around briefly with WiR. Find it to be a fairly good game (yes the game is 7 years old). Having to remember what units did what, to me, simulates the fog of war very well. Give it another chance.

[C3I2]

That has absolutely nohing to do with fog of war.

Fog of war has to do with the uncertainity of the opponent actions and other random factors on the battle field (Friction with Clausewitz terminology), this combined with the lag in the distrobution of information and orders constitutes the fog of war.

This GUI faults has notingt to do with Fog of War in the same way disbling the mouse function would have noting to do with Fog of war.

However, computer games in general can be used to help in creating a simulation of Fog of war. The reason for this is that you can hide information from the player and still have a working game mecanic. Anyone that have played with different maps for different players, in a moderated wargame knows that this can be done with boardgames as well; but involves a lot more work of course.

[nittany]

All I'm saying is through no fault of the game, that fog of war is simulated by the simpleness (is that a word?) of the interface. Another words it doesn't do any of the tactical thinking for you or any of the C3 thinking. This forces as the simulated commanders to think in various dimensions, though not intended by the simple design. Did all that make sense?

[C3I2]

Well, after playing a bit more; I think the interface is a bit better than I first though.

Its not as intuitive as it could be of course, with lots of un-nesseary 'clicking' between menues, but you can get an ok overview, for a screen.

Any new game should be better made than this, in regards to the GUI. You dont need the glitz of some new games but a very simple and intuitve design is a must. The leap to start playing should be low, and I mean start playing not start playing good.

To construct a better GUI would take a lot less time than the game mecanics in a new game in this genre. Getting the game mecanics right is the most problematic (besides AI) I'd assume.

[C3I2]

The GUI can be improved, but apparenly you can select at what level you play.

Giving orders to armies instead of divisions etc. This makes for intresting play, as you can elect to play from another level altogether or just on cerain fronts.

I encountered that before on a small battle of Waterloo program as well, and that is indeed nice.

Of course to win, you'd force yourself to play each individual unit. But you dont always have to play optimally to have fun, in fact you'll use the leaders to make it more challanging after a while.

[ShaiHulud]

I was a playtester on WIR and WITP and when they were new they were the best! In their day the scope surpassed any competing games, by far.
If it still works, use "?" to find a list of commands. There is a overview screen there, I think.