positive feedback and ideas

[Zap]

I will begin by stating my complete unfamiliarity with this game. And thank you Coregames for introducing the thread.

To become more familiar with the game and to see how it might work over the internet I have been following(as spectator) a WiF Cyberboardgame in progress. I found out about it in these threads. The coordination of time and dedication is impressive in making their game work.

Just one point. In your discussions is their no need for improvement of the basic rules.? Or are they pretty much complete and functional?

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: Zap
Just one point. In your discussions is their no need for improvement of the basic rules.? Or are they pretty much complete and functional?

Those are two very different questions

The rules are very much complete and functional for cardboard WiF - no question there.
The current debate is whether the rules need to be tweaked and the Sequence of Play modified for production of computer WiF.

[coregames]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

I'm just saying that because that's the way it was originally done is not any form of mandatory design imperative. IMHO this applies to sequence of play, map design, counter layout, rules accessibility etc etc ad infinitum. The important part is *the player experience*... did they get the same level of buzz from the computer product that they got from when they played cardboard WiF? Note that I say "same level of buzz" rather than "the same buzz"

I don't believe that the player experience is the only issue, although it clearly is the most important one. Also important should be respect for the game's designers and the product of their years of toil and dedication, as well as the sentiment of WiF fans world-wide. Several people in this forum have said that, if the game needs to be completely redesigned to the needs of the modern computer wargamer (and not specifically WiF players), then it would be best to call it something else and not mislead thousands of fans who are assuredly going to be the bulk of the early market.

Perhaps nothing should be written in stone about this project, but those hundreds of thousands (perhaps even millions) of man/hours spent getting the boardgame to its current excellent state should not be ignored. Great caution should be taken before any departure is made from WiFFE in my opinion. It would not be fun to wait for hundreds of thousands more man/hours for them to hammer out drastic alterations and determine the implications to the game.

Another problem is relevence to the board game; I believe synergy between the two products should be encouraged, creating an integrated family of WiF games. MWiF should not attempt to replace WiF; it would be unethical in my opinion to agree to a faithful adaptation and then proceed to design a computer game that does not go hand-in-hand with the board game. This seems to have the effect of handicapping ADG. The less MWiF resembles ADG's game, the less I am likely to play it, because I am not going to stop playing the tabletop version.

None of this is intended to deter Matrix's development team from making adjustments to the game where they are absolutely needed... I just want them to be very sure such changes are indeed needed, and not just a matter of taste. I am only a purist as far as recommending caution and making only the smallest changes necessary.

Just one WiFer's opinion of course...

[coregames]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Just wanted to let you all know that we do read all posts and we are monitoring the discussions in this forum for your suggestions and feedback. We will take heed of those suggestions in planning the future of this project. Thanks again.

Regards,

- Erik

Thanks for the reassurance Erik.

[Mziln]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

Those are two very different questions [:)]

(1) The rules are very much complete and functional for cardboard WiF - no question there.

(2) The current debate is whether the rules need to be tweaked and the Sequence of Play modified for production of computer WiF.

(1) The MWiF (Matrix version of computer World in Flames) rules are supposed to be based on Link: World in Flames Rules Aug 2004. This is supposed to be the final eddition of the rules.

(2) This should read "current heated debate" [:)] There are several views ranging from the: "don't change a thing purists" to "game can't work within the board game guidelines"

(NOTE: This my view of this forum and is only my opinion).

[coregames]

ORIGINAL: Mziln
There are several views ranging from the: "don't change a thing purists" to "game can't work within the board game guidelines"

I hope that this tension will lead to a fantastic and innovative product, one that may surprise gamers on both sides of that issue.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

I have to agree with coregames that changes to the rules should be made very cautiously. The rules for the board game evolved over a decade and during that time changes were made to improve authenticity.

My background in board games goes back to the 60's and includes almost a complete collection of the games published by SPI (for those of you old enough). My board game playing experience includes tens of thousands of lost hours against live opponents over a period of 20 years. I have played WiF to completion against single opponents or with teams of 2 or 3 per side over 30 times and own at least 5 versions of the game from its original up to and including the deluxe version.

The balance between map scale, unit scale, and time scale is critical. Just a little tweak and things degenerate quickly. I remember one board game where the best strategy was to build fighters all the time because they were cheap and capable of destrying everything else on the board. The introduction of numerous divisional units (beyond what the board version of WiF permitted) strikes me as potentially dangerous in that it might upset the balance of units per hex. Now, I'm not against having more divisional units per se. I just am very leary of that solution to the problem of "defending Norway with a corps is excessive". Other solutions to that problem might be satisfactory without creating as large a disruption to the counter mix.

I really like the demo version's appearance and user interface. However, this is based on only a couple of hours of messing around with it and until I play a game/scenario all the way through I cannot judge its effectiveness/efficiency for PBEM or AI play.

As I see it the real problems with completing the game are handling the small decisions that the non-phasing player makes. These occur during sea movement, air combat, and land combat (retreats), to name but a few places. They are integral to the design! Discarding them, because they are difficult to implement smoothly for PBEM, is tempting, but could easily destroy the integrity of the combat system. The operative word here is 'smoothly'.

The AI is another large undertaking. Essentially, the programmer has to design an AI that will make all the decisions that a player makes and do so to handle every possible situation that might arise during play. That assumes that there is already code (software) in place the determines the possible moves and shortest path moves. Sequence of moves is a real problem especially since it requires coordinating air, sea, and land units. Which attack should be made first in a blitzkreig? So far I have only touched on the tactical considerations. There are also operational decisions for committing forces to different theaters and production schedules to support different planned operational objectives. The AI also has to deal with strategic concerns (declaring war and creating alliances) but by comparison the strategic decisions are few in number and much less difficult when compared to the tacticcal and operational decisions.

I speak from some experience here, having written and published 2 computer wargames in the 1980's (Atari 800 anyone?). The creation of the computer interface and sequence of play for PBEM is almost a pure design problem. It will require some cleverness and perhaps a stroke of genius but writing the code will be rather straightforward once the design is finalized. On the other hand, writing the AI will demand an intimate knowledge of the game: air, land, and sea tactics, the operational choices, and the strategic choices. How long did you play WiF before you could move the units around without doing somwthing really stupid? Was your first attempt at building units so brilliant that you still use it today? The learning curve for WiF is one of the steepest and longest for any board game I have played. The brilliance of its design and the extreme pleasure that comes from playing it lies in the intricate weave of its tapestry composed of the map, units, and rules. The AI opponent will have to understand the tapestry as well as the players it competes against or it will just be another "stupid AI".

This is my first post here. In case you didn't notice, I tend to be longwinded, and I thank you for your attention.

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
... On the other hand, writing the AI will demand an intimate knowledge of the game: air, land, and sea tactics, the operational choices, and the strategic choices. How long did you play WiF before you could move the units around without doing somwthing really stupid? Was your first attempt at building units so brilliant that you still use it today? The learning curve for WiF is one of the steepest and longest for any board game I have played. ...

I totally agree.

A post from August 2004 "Coding the move on Suez" explored the opportunity of creating a multi level AI where the computer handled all of the paperwork and strategic decisions but the EXECUTION of those decisions was drawn from a pool of operational plans prepared by the legions of WiF beta-testers. So the German AI might choose to invade England and then randomly selects from the 100+ "Perfect Plans" which were shipped with the product. If you contribute to the project you might end up fighting against an AI who you actually programmed

[macgregor]

The idea of playing World in Flames as a human vs. computer or asynch/pbem is appealing (IMHO) only if one wants to use it to 'brush up' their skills for either the boardgame or the synch TCP game. As an AI game to play alone, for me , it would require more statistical detail. I see WiF as more the grognards answer to bridge.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
The creation of the computer interface and sequence of play for PBEM is almost a pure design problem. It will require some cleverness and perhaps a stroke of genius but writing the code will be rather straightforward once the design is finalized.

I agree and if there is a good game with AI and asynch/pbem that could be augmented to the strategic WW2 level I think that would be far easier and ultimately produce a more enjoyable game than 'FrankenWiF'. Perhaps GGWaW didn't quite get there for wiffers though a global incarnation of 'War in the Pacific' might be the ticket. Even use the WiF map! As hard as the AI would be in that case at least it would be 'straightfoward' as the game sequence already includes it. I suppose I'm just saying the same old $#^*@ in a different way.

[coregames]

As some of you are suggesting, the AI for WiF could use programmed strategic ideas gleaned from the play of strong WiFers for short stretches of time, but as anyone who has played a Global War scenario knows, no two games are quite alike, and the farther you get from start, the more divergence there is likely to be. My personal hope is that the AI will be able to play Barbarossa and Guadalcanal fairly well, since they are both short enough scenarios to allow a standardized strategy to work. Longer scenarios will most likely create situations the AI will have problems adjusting to, and so I expect much less from the AI in those cases. Of course we all want a powerful AI that will give a good game over the course of 36 turns (or longer), but we should be realistic in our expectations.

Perhaps if they integrate AI options throughout a multi-mode approach, the AI could play fairly well even in synchronous play, provided the scenario was short enough. If the game is being played asynchronously, the reduced options should make programming a decent AI much easier, increasing the likelihood of getting a good game from it over a longer scenario. The question remains: would potential MWiF players be willing to accept an AI that was only a real challenge either for a short scenario or for PBEM? New players might still find it hard to beat a "goofball" AI in a longer (synchronous) scenario, especially if the AI could use standardized strategies to gain an advantage early in the game.

[coregames]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

The idea of playing World in Flames as a human vs. computer or asynch/pbem is appealing (IMHO) only if one wants to use it to 'brush up' their skills for either the boardgame or the synch TCP game. As an AI game to play alone, for me , it would require more statistical detail. I see WiF as more the grognards answer to bridge.

If someone assured you that, based on their solid market research and experience in the industry, MWiF needed PBEM suitability to be viable as a product, would you be more open to the possibility of that feature Mac? I strongly wish for a faithful mode of play, and if the feature of PBEM must be included so that I can get what I want, I am all for it. My concern is that, if too many "purists" lobby against PBEM even as an option, the powers-that-be at Matrix might let the project fade into vaporware, or just ignore those uncompromising voices entirely and develop the game for strictly asynchronous play.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Creating a PBEM separate from and in advance of adding the AI has possibilities.

Consider the situation that the PBEM is completed and available for sale (essentially no AI opponent though there may be 'advisors' at a player's beck and call). The development team could then work on the AI and test it against MWiF players in the PBEM form. In the beginning, the AI may only last a couple of moves before the developers concede that the AI's position is hopeless, or that its move choices are pitiful. However, the wonderfulness of programming is that you can learn from your mistakes and make improvments. Indeed, the developers would have a collection of moves made by all the opponents to date to test a new version against without having to seek out new/live opponents (a.k.a. beta testers).

I am sure there would be no lack of players eager to take on each newest AI version in an attempt to expose its weaknesses while demonstrating their own skill. Bragging rights alone would be motivation enough for a long queue to form. The developers would also get immediate feedback on how well the AI plays. Meanwhile the PBEM segment of the market would be deliriously happy (as would those who want to play both sides against their psychotic other selves) and Matrix would have some cash in hand as well. The only downside is that some of the players who want an AI opponent would probably be even noisier than now.

Reversing the sequence and doing the AI before the PBEM doesn't make much sense to me. The degree of difficulty between the two systems is at least an order of magnitude, if not 2 or 3 orders of magnitude.

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: coregames
As some of you are suggesting, the AI for WiF could use programmed strategic ideas gleaned from the play of strong WiFers for short stretches of time, but as anyone who has played a Global War scenario knows, no two games are quite alike, and the farther you get from start, the more divergence there is likely to be.

I envisaged the AI as handling the paperwork and production strategies while a seperate library of operational plans handled the individual campaigns. The campaigns (each a seperate file) would be written by the legions of WiF betatesters using the kit developed by Robert Crandall and would only cover 3-4 months of play. Therefore the AI would go through 10 to 15 different campaigns during the full war - each Campaign is self-contained with its own pre-requisites and victory conditions for the AI to evaluate.

So imagine the AI is playing as the Germans , Italians and Japanese while the Allies are all played by humans....

Turn One and since Germany is at war with Poland it must select a Polish Campaign. It is one of the (say) three files that comes standard with the game and since no-one has yet written an additional Polish campaign then each campaign has a 33% chance of being picked. This time its the "Bags of smoke and Up the Guts" module and so all German units drive straight for Warsaw. There are heavy losses but they take Warsaw within two impulses and the campaign ends.

During the end of turn sequence the AI does production... again randomly picking from the production shedule/priority lists generated by the WiF betatesters and shipped with the game. The schedule is "Z plan or Bust" submitted by coregames during the early alpha testing. Of course none of the people playing against the AI know what schedule the Germans are using right now, but when they see a BB and a CV laid down by Germany they might start to figure out what's happening.

For Turn 2 (Jan/Feb 1940) the AI has no active campaigns and a troop surplus beyond what is necessary for home defence so it must pick a campaign. They are at war with France and the CW so there is a 90% chance they will chose a campaign against one of those countries. The AI picks 'Aldertag' but on scanning its position it realises that it doesn't have the prerequisites for that Campaign (France conquered and at least three strategic bombers on the map) so it picks another campaign. This one is "Maginot Madness" and the Germans hurl themselves at the French fortresses but fail to break through. For the rest of the turn the AI decides they have insufficient troops to attack so it sits and does nothing except defend.

In Turn 3 the AI reviews its success with the "Maginot Madness" campaign and decides that losses were too heavy. It discards that Campaign and picks another. This time it selects "Rommel's Raid" and so begins to shuffle its troops through Italy and down to North Africa. This proceeds for a couple of impulses and the French start to move their troops and bombers to Africa also. When the AI realises that they can get a 3:1 atttack on a Maginot Line hex because of the French redeployments the AI changes gear and makes that attack. They take the hex and the French player is now caught between two Axis campaigns. Was the German move through Italy really the "Rommel's Raid" campaign he'd played against before or was it just a campaign the AI had never picked before?

Meanwhile over on the other side of the world the Japanese AI has picked the "Vladivostok Gambit" and is assembling forces in Manchuria. The Russian player reconsiders his planned attack on Finland.

On turn 4 the Italians load two INF onto transports and move them to the Eastern Med as part of the "Destination Cyprus" module written by Mziln after the release of MWiF and then downloaded by the players and installed in their MWIF\campaigns\Italian directory prior to the start of the game. The allies guess wrongly and garrison Palestine. Italy takes Cyprus and that Campaign is ended. At the start of the next turn Italy will examine its position and select another Campaign.

So my suggestion is that a single AI doesn't have to cover the whole War.


EDIT: Cyprus is in the Eastern Med...duh!

[coregames]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Creating a PBEM separate from and in advance of adding the AI has possibilities.

If Matrix allows a prepurchase of the game, a stage could arrive when the the game was relatively complete other than the AI. Then, as you suggest, the prepurchasers could be busily testing each new version of the AI as it was supplied by Matrix's programmers.

[coregames]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

I envisaged the AI as handling the paperwork and production strategies while a seperate library of operational plans handled the individual campaigns. The campaigns (each a seperate file) would be written by the legions of WiF betatesters using the kit developed by Robert Crandall and would only cover 3-4 months of play. Therefore the AI would go through 10 to 15 different campaigns during the full war - each Campaign is self-contained with its own pre-requisites and victory conditions for the AI to evaluate.

I can see having general plans as you suggest, to cover commonly recurring situations in the game, and the AI selects from these plans based on recognizable features of the position. Still, because the game has so many variables, there must be a generalized set of values that allow the AI to evaluate the strength of its position beyond these plans, to cover those (frequent) situations that don't fit neatly into a limited menu of situations.

Strong chess programs are increasingly dependent on positional parameters, still relying on brute-force look-ahead to see many variations to a great depth, but having a better idea of how to evaluate the position at the termination of each branch of their search. To play well, MWiF will need to have a strong meta-strategy component, so that the AI can not only select a plan from its library, but accomplish at least two other tasks concurrently:

1. Looking ahead to see what plans are not yet applicable, but may become viable soon. This will help guide the AI's builds and deployment of forces in preparation for a flexible set of potential plans.

2. Making adjustments that tailor a selected strategy to features of the position that don't quite match those from its library of plans. The game is far too complex to rely exclusively on a library approach, but many plans will be valid with only minor adjustments. These adjustments will also affect builds and deployment issues.

In other words, such a meta-strategy component of the AI would be tasked with creating a simplified tree of possible plans and adjusted plans to help guide the course of the game in advance. Such a tree would require tweaking every impulse, and could be revised completely just prior to each build step. This information is essential for a good build strategy, as well as for the proper advanced deployment of forces.

[macgregor]

If someone assured you that, based on their solid market research and experience in the industry, MWiF needed PBEM suitability to be viable as a product, would you be more open to the possibility of that feature Mac?

I take it that's what you (all) are doing. Well...I guess I've got my TOAW-aCoW(in which 2 scenarios can cover the globe). Perhaps you guys should try it. Forgive me if I'm just not interested in pbem WiF. It'll be too much like too many games that offer more detail than WiF. These other games also have the advantage of being designed as pbem games. I feel sorry for this game and anyone who shares my vision of it ( a quiet lot to be sure). I can't think of any more ways to say the same thing! First, they clip all the non-phasing decisions. Then they're back at square one. Wherever it goes from here doesn't matter -it's not WiF anymore. This game is an illogical choice for pbem play. Of course if you're tired of getting your butt kicked at this game -AI/pbem will be your salvation,as there will undoubtedly be more ways to compete. It'll also be alot harder to lose. I guess that's what you guys want. Well count me out.

[coregames]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

If someone assured you that, based on their solid market research and experience in the industry, MWiF needed PBEM suitability to be viable as a product, would you be more open to the possibility of that feature Mac?

I take it that's what you (all) are doing. Well...I guess I've got my TOAW-aCoW(in which 2 scenarios can cover the globe). Perhaps you guys should try it. Forgive me if I'm just not interested in pbem WiF. It'll be too much like too many games that offer more detail than WiF. These other games also have the advantage of being designed as pbem games. I feel sorry for this game and anyone who shares my vision of it ( a quiet lot to be sure). I can't think of any more ways to say the same thing! First, they clip all the non-phasing decisions. Then they're back at square one. Wherever it goes from here doesn't matter -it's not WiF anymore. This game is an illogical choice for pbem play.

So then, your answer to my question is "no". It sounds like you don't read posts thoroughly, since you still seem to be under the impression that I don't want a faithful adaptation as an option for play. Your vision of the game seems to be: don't include PBEM at all, even if faithful adaptation is an option. So, having the option of PBEM makes the game not WiF anymore. This assertion makes no sense to me. My vision is of a game that actually gets made, and that includes faithful play at least as an option.

[macgregor]

If it includes the option to play the game that I know and love I would say 'yes'. They'll call this the 'macgregor' option, since I'm the only one who seems to want it. I'm just curious, have you guys played all the different pbem strategy games out there? There are some brilliant designs.

-and I don't mean to sell you short coregames. I know you want this option as well. Perhaps you're more patient than I. The 'option' of pbem is ok. But Matrix will still find itself in the same quandry of practically starting from scratch when they try to add this option. All I know is that if they've inputted as much data in tha code as we have discussing the game I'd have the game I want right now. I feel like someone with a huge order has butted in line and now I have to wait . I'm not happy about that.

[coregames]

ORIGINAL: macgregor
All I know is that if they've inputted as much data in tha code as we have discussing the game I'd have the game I want right now.

English text is much more forgiving than is computer code. We can say whatever we want, but the computer only understands properly formulated code. This thread is for suggesting ideas for how to make MWiF the best game it can be. Other threads are much more appropriate for impatience and bitterness. If you have ideas and an open mind, as well as a willingness to stay positively focused, I'm sure we are all willing to listen to what you have to say Mac.

[ioticus]

I'm confused. Is the person that posts under the name "Coregames" a developer for computer WiF or is he a potential customer like the rest of us?