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

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: Nordic Twilight
8) End the strange loopholes in the rules that game geeks would exploit 'ad nauseaum', infuriating normal decent players[:@]

The only patch for wargames
which I think is fine
is where they close your loopholes
while leaving only mine

I'm sure all right-thinking normal decent players would agree with me

[:D][:D][:D]

On a serious note, there are always going to be situations which the rules cannot cover. Sometimes you just need to be careful in picking your opponents.

[Nordic Twilight]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

ORIGINAL: Nordic Twilight
8) End the strange loopholes in the rules that game geeks would exploit 'ad nauseaum', infuriating normal decent players[:@]

The only patch for wargames
which I think is fine
is where they close your loopholes
while leaving only mine

I'm sure all right-thinking normal decent players would agree with me

[:D][:D][:D]

On a serious note, there are always going to be situations which the rules cannot cover. Sometimes you just need to be careful in picking your opponents.

How very true!!![:)] I agree with your thoughts on this minor but extremely IRRITATING subject[;)]. House rules had to be introduced all over the place to cover 'bizarre' eventualities or completely unforeseen events that even the designers would'nt have thought of ( but as we all know to our cost, the geeks would always find a way of 'breaking' the system .

The good thing is with a company like Matrix there is LOTS of support and an excellent community on the Forums[&o]

[Tom Hunter]

For background I played the game quite often at MIT in the 1980s. We eventually stopped in part because one of our guys figured out that going though the med and hitting Russia from Poland and the Caucasus made Russia indefensible.

I don’t think the whole game plus expansion packs should be crammed into one release. It reduces the revenue potential of the product and increases the likelyhood of major bugs or an unplayable end game.

(Warning I am a pricing strategy consultant this paragraph reflects my biases) On the business side the developers have to eat that means a game that runs well at the start and sell expansion packs over time is a better way to go for both the developers and the players. Matrix needs a good pricing and development strategy for this franchise or they will forgo revenue and we (the players) will get an inferior product.

Things I would like to see in game:

A better system for logistics. In a board game its very difficult to show how small the tip of the spear gets when armies are fighting far from home. A computer can automate this nicely without adding to the player work load.

I am not sure about upgrades in one respect they are nice to have for units but in another respect players are unlikely to make the same stupid mistakes that were made in the war like keeping the Sherman as the main battle tank in 1944, building a 3 year supply of 2pdr ATGs in 1941 or building a separate land army for the Luftwaffe. Notice that everyone does bone headed stuff. Its probabley better to automate this.

Resist the temptation to explore the what if scenarios based on the idea that either side could have been a lot smarter. Questions like what if Hitler had said “build ME 262s to shoot down B17s” instead of ordering a bomber version and delaying the fighter production should be avoided. Why? Because we all know so much more than the real participants in the war and we won’t make those kind of mistakes. And where do you stop? If the Germans get their wonder weapons then the Americans should be building mile long pycrete Habbakuk carrying jet fighters and nuclear armed B-29s in 1945

Its true that either side could have been a lot smarter. But if they really had been smarter they would not have had a war that killed 50 million people, destroyed Europe and ended with nuclear bombs landing on Japan.

Add fog of war especially at sea where both sides often had inaccurate pictures of what was going on. In the real war the British hid the Suez Canal from German bombers and the Americans created entire false army groups. Again this was not possible in a board game but it is possible on the computer and it would add a lot to the game.

Name the ships its nice eye candy and doesn’t cost much.

If you can create a scoring system that allows players of PBEM games to compare how they are doing with other players it will help sales. People like to be on a board like that and it can drive up traffic and even player numbers. The systems can be (and likely will be) flawed but that does not really matter much. Even if its perfect people will still complain about it.

I have always thought that the Germans should get victory points for diverting resources to murdering people. I know it would not be popular but it might be a nice reminder of what the war was all about.

[Nordic Twilight]

I agree with all your points except the last one, as this would make the game too contentious. You would also have to include the Soviets rather forgotten slave labour camps, and would make the game a target for the PC lobby. ( I mean they still get excited about the flag for God's sake[&:] )

I was under the impression that the 'gear-ups' took things like that into consideration anyway, and rewarded the player with more production.

IMHO its best 'not to go there', and was not in the original game anyway.[;)]

[Tom Hunter]

I include the last suggestion mainly to make a point not because it really belongs in a game. Though it is true that if you included it you would get tens to hundreds of millions of dollars worth of public relations attention.

Spin would be very important but its an interesting question which is worse a game that does show the historical reality of Nazi genocide or one that ignores it?

Might be better to make Schindlers List the game that way we could play Schindler instead of Himmler.

[Cheesehead]

same stupid mistakes that were made in the war like keeping the Sherman as the main battle tank in 1944

Maybe the Sherman couldn't stand toe-to-toe with a panther or a tiger, but when you have 10,000 of them and your enemy can only muster a couple hundred of his "superior" tanks because they are so expensive to produce and they break down so often, you will win the war. The US did have an excellent tank design set to replace the Sherman. It was called the Pershing, I believe, but by the time it was set to go into full production, the war in Europe was pretty much a done deal.

[Tom Hunter]

True better to have 10,000 operational Shermans than a handful of unreilable tigers. But that is not the choice the USA had. We could have 10,000 Shermans with short barrel 75mm or 10,000 Shermans with the long 76 on our tank destroyers. We could have had more armor on them too. Or we could have put the Pershing into production sooner. Germany and Russia were both able to upgrade their tanks with smaller industrial bases than we were. Even the Brits did more upgrades but thier whole Cruiser/ I tank concept was wrong.

The reason we were using the Sherman from 42 to 45 was policy by the US army. That policy was foolish, cost the lives of a lot of American tankers and should have been changed earlier. US soldiers in the field responded to the increasingly powerful German tanks by making their own upgrades but that is not nearly as effective as upgrading the factory. Our choice was not 10,000 Shermans or a few Tigers it was 10,000 Shermans or 10,000 better tanks either improved Shermans or Pershings.

[macgregor]

Interesting points. I recall an armored commander from WW2 saying the failure to upgrade was a 'criminal' act by the war office.

-On a different note, I read an interesting article on warfare HQ in which David Heath makes some interesting comments. I share his abhorrence for 'gamey' loopholes that allow players to employ unrealistic tactics successfully. Please take all the time you need to eliminate them from CWiF (not that I recall there being any in the boardgame)

[stewart_king]

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

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).

Paradox Entertainment's Europa Universalis, Victoria, and Hearts of Iron use moddable AI files in which objectives, proportion of resources to be devoted to different objectives, and the like are easily available to users. Countries can change from one AI file to another as the result of events (i.e., IF European allied forces defeated AND USSR not a threat AND Italy not a member of Axis, THEN Germany switches to naval war AI and attempts to conquer UK).

I recommend purchase of Hearts of Iron II, a recent release. It has a very good political system. (full disclosure: I'm a Beta tester for HOI2).

Stewart King

[coregames]

ORIGINAL: stewart_king


Paradox Entertainment's Europa Universalis, Victoria, and Hearts of Iron use moddable AI files in which objectives, proportion of resources to be devoted to different objectives, and the like are easily available to users. Countries can change from one AI file to another as the result of events ...

Perhaps Matrix could use the idea of Leaders in Flames in conjunction with the idea of multiple AI personalities to allow players to tailor the AI for particular theatres of operation. If Yamamoto is running the show in the Pacific, then "he" could be the AI to decide on naval tactics and interceptions when the Japanese take a naval or combined.

[Zorachus99]

I've been playing several years with a house fog-of-war rule.

If you have a corps size unit adjacent to an enemy stack, the inherent recon ability of that corps size unit allows you to inspect the stacks adjacent to it. Yes corps size units have inherent recon capabilities, particularly for the local area. This is simply part of why ZOC exists. Recon prevents unimpeded advance.

If you are not adjacent to a stack, an air mission must be effectively made to that location to reveal the stack. No bombers getting through does not reveal the opponent.

Otherwise, only the top unit is displayed to your opponent, and he cannot investigate that stack.

Works great on the boardgame, and provides privacy of plans and a bit of fog-o-war. Very playable rule, easy to implement on the board.

[Mziln]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

I've been playing several years with a house fog-of-war rule.

If you have a corps size unit adjacent to an enemy stack, the inherent recon ability of that corps size unit allows you to inspect the stacks adjacent to it. Yes corps size units have inherent recon capabilities, particularly for the local area. This is simply part of why ZOC exists. Recon prevents unimpeded advance.

If you are not adjacent to a stack, an air mission must be effectively made to that location to reveal the stack. No bombers getting through does not reveal the opponent.

Otherwise, only the top unit is displayed to your opponent, and he cannot investigate that stack.

Works great on the boardgame, and provides privacy of plans and a bit of fog-o-war. Very playable rule, easy to implement on the board.

There was a Fog of War option in CWiF. This may be covered in the RaW (Rules as Written).

[hbrsvl]

Hi-I'm just getting into WIF. A few thoughts as to what to include, as well as what NOT to do, IMHO. Time- I think HOI had right time frame, but it should be 1936-1950. ISTM 2 weeks should the max time frame. I've played around with game turns in WITP & I always come back to a one day event. So much happens. Complexity-yes, yes, yes, as long as there is a convient way to keep track of everything. In WITP, I kept losing ships & had to search-they had a way to do so, but it wasn't complete-i.e. If I wanted to know where the Saratoga was(& coulndn't find the TF) You can scroll a list of ships, which tells you what TF she is in, but doesn't tell you where the TF is. When you scroll the list of TFs it tells you "on the way to Lunga" -thats a lot of ocean to search. Graphics-DO NOT DO what World at War did. I hate ships zipping from here to there & divisions running through several Zones. (If I knew a way to return WAW I would, I'm so dissapointed in it.) I also prefer the NATO divisonal, etc. unit usage. Combat resolution- have an option to view the combat or just a combat report. OK, enough for now. Thanks for letting let of some steam Hugh Browne

[Cheesehead]

I think HOI had right time frame, but it should be 1936-1950. ISTM 2 weeks should the max time frame.

There is companion game for WiF called 'Days of decision' that enable you to play 1936 to 46. It brings in all the political wrangling you're looking for. It also allows for the ahistorical scenarios that frequently occur in HoI.

When you consider the impulses within each 2 month turn, a typical "turn" probably averages out to around two weeks. For example, the July-August time-frame can easily run 14 impulses. Think of that as 7 "turns" within a 2 month time period. That come out to a little more than week long turns. Of course the winter months have fewer impulses, but it averages out to the time frame you're looking for.

WiF will never have the level of detail found in WitP or HoI. The platforms are totally different. Yet, it is still the best strategy WWII wargame out there IMO.

Welcome to the WiF community and check out the WiF discussion group at: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/wifdiscussion/

[Grotius]

hbrsvl, one note on WITP: you can locate a Task Force by right-clicking in the TF screen. (Er, I can't remember exactly what you right-click on, but I think it's the rightmost field.) The game will center on that TF for you. I think this also works for individual ships.

[hmsmystic]

Nice discussion- the original was something awesome to behold!

Any updates on timeframe please? This year??

[Vyshka]

DO NOT DO what World at War did. I hate ships zipping from here to there & divisions running through several Zones. (If I knew a way to return WAW I would, I'm so dissapointed in it.) I also prefer the NATO divisonal, etc. unit usage. Combat resolution- have an option to view the combat or just a combat report. OK, enough for now. Thanks for letting let of some steam Hugh Browne

You did know that WaW was supposed to be a lighter game akin to Axis and Allies and not along the lines of WiF, yes?

[Grotius]

I actually think WaW is a terrific game for what it is. I find it much more deep than A&A. Of course, it's nowhere near as complex as WiF or WITP.

Also, the supply model in WaW really limits "zipping" around with your ships. You really can't "zip" around if you're playing with Advanced Supply on. And the only land units that can move two provinces are armored units (and paratroopers via airdrop).

[BumMcFluff]

You should have the option to turn elements of the game on or off, not have things that must be rigidly adhered to because some people don't like them. This is a game for everyone, not a select few.

[Janet Reno]

Sealion is a must. And maybe "the bomb"