AI vs non-AI

[Hanal]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

I find you AI people most entertaining! What? Are you going to threaten a boycott if it comes without an AI? Blow up the matrix games facility perhaps? Just look at the amount of posts that amout to little more than "It better come out with an AI or....". Or what? You'll start crying? I get your message. I think David Heath has gotten your message. NOW STOP YOUR WHINING!! An AI will undoubtedly delay the release. So, to me that translates to all you people wanting to delay the release. I think you're more concerned with me not getting what I want than getting what you want. You must be republicans.

What planet are you from? No one in this thread is whining about the AI....the discussion is centered on whether or not Matrix would consider releasing an AI-less version of the game, before they went on to the more complex AI version....NO one here is whining but you, about something that did not even occur in this thread....go back to school and learn basic reading and comprehension skills so that you can stop making a fool of yourself...

[terje439]

What I would love here, is some input from the ppl at Matrix.
The question beeing will I be able to buy a nonAI game first, to
keep me going until I buy the AI version of the game some
(alot) of time later??

[Hanal]

And so the creator of this thread has thankfully brought us full circle back to what the original question was....hopefully someone from the design team will answer soon.....

[Mziln]

ORIGINAL: terje439

What I would love here, is some input from the ppl at Matrix.
The question beeing will I be able to buy a nonAI game first, to
keep me going until I buy the AI version of the game some
(alot) of time later??

There are some posts from Matrix staff:

David Heath (Administrator).

Robert Crandall (software developer "Flashpoint: Germany" and "World in Flames").

See:

[Computer Games From Matrix.] >> World in Flames >> It's a disgrace >> Page 2

Just FYI: The "It's a disgrace" thread changes to "Re: Cancon 2005" on Page 2.

[Luke]

Mzlin

To help you with your english language I would suggest that the jist of my post was that there are a lot of people making excuses, and inventing reasons with out the facts to back them up. That Matrixs has an obligation to its community to give it the facts and information. They are Big Boys now and should accept their responsibilities.

Luke

[Mziln]

Then you should be happy to read Robert Crandall's (software developer "Flashpoint: Germany" and "World in Flames") 7/1/2004 2:24:26 AM post. [:)]

[Computer Games From Matrix.] >> World in Flames >> It's a disgrace >> Page 2

The gist of which is he's still gathering information and serious work can't start on CWiF until after Matrix releases "Flashpoint: Germany" (hopefully this month).

[:)] This is relevant to this thread because he states...

ORIGINAL: RobertCrandall

My queries re doing the impulse system by email and AI levels and expectations met with all kinds of different answers and no one theme emerged. Darn, so much for easy short cuts.

[macgregor]

Look J P,let's not get hostile here.For your sake, I really hope it has an acceptable AI(believe me).If I'm the only one on this page that would like to get his hands on a pre-AI version while Matrix finishes the AI code (and as I see it, this should in no way delay the release of the AI equipped version) then perhaps I should let it go. You suggest that I was talking about everyone whining.That's not true.Only a couple,youself included.

"Aye but if it's trouble you be looking for........."

[Hanal]

You must be a Democrat.....

[Greyshaft]

Gentlemen,

I know a little about software development since I used my skills in that area to pay my rent for over a decade. While working as a betatester on Flashpoint Germany over the last few months I have been extremely impressed by Robert Crandall's skills with AI. IMHO the reason Matrix put him as the lead developer on CWiF is so he can add that AI-centric expertise to the game.

This is my opinion only.

[terje439]

I once again ask the people at Matrixgames to answer, will we have the option to but a earlier nonAI version of the game or not?

[macgregor]

Thanks ! That should satisfy some of these guys. I know squataa about game mechanics, interface, graphics, and already we're on the topic of AI.
Please don't get me wrong. I'm not aginst an AI ! But to me it's like learning to navigate without a ship. Don't we first have to build the ship?

[Mziln]

Link to Australian Design Group

For RaW (Rules as Written) select the DOWNLOADS button.

CWiF is supposed to use the the same rules as WiF.

Still waiting on a reply from matrix staff "Will there be a non-AI version?".

[IronManBeta]

I do not believe there will be a non-AI version. It will never have a killer AI, but it should have a sufficiently competent one to teach a newcomer some of the basics and to provide useful filler players in a multiplayer game if desired. Beyond that I cannot really say yet.

AI is the most fun part of any game project and I'm sure that there will be continual development over many years to come in the MWIF AI. At least some of it will be exposed so that interested parties can tweak weightings, etc. For version 1, our goals will be quite modest - honestly, there is no other way to do it!

Cheers, Rob.

ORIGINAL: Mziln

Link to Australian Design Group

For RaW (Rules as Written) select the DOWNLOADS button.

CWiF is supposed to use the the same rules as WiF.

Still waiting on a reply from matrix staff "Will there be a non-AI version?".

[IronManBeta]

The question phrased more generally was really 'will there be mutiple versions of the game over time' i.e. will be continue developing and releasing new versions or will it be a one-off deal? Our intent is to nurture and develop it indefinitely. That all depends of course on the support of the players but I have never seen a game with keener fans and so lack of interest is really the least of my worries. We will keep cranking out new versions as long as any one cares.

Cheers, Rob.

[meyerg]

Rob:
IMHO the Wif Rules set was in its prime during 5th edition Wif. Has there been any consideration to making computer Wif based on an earlier version? All the following additions were, in my opinion, unnecessary:
1) motorized and mechanized INF (didn't add much but complexity)
2) Leaders in Flames = highly unbalanced game
3) PIF = many more planes with many different ranges and abilities but no increase in offensive/rebase allowance during land and combined
4) territorials = many more cheap units for allies.
5) the new maps (remember the bright colors of the old paper maps instead of the grey look of the new plastic feeling maps)
I think it sure would be easier to make a game based on Wif5 rules than the latest Wif with all the expansions like cruisers in flames, propaganda in flames, beer halls in flames, feminism in flames and the much awaited for Lord of the Rings Return of the King in Flames
Greg

[MButtazoni]

ORIGINAL: meyerg

Rob:
IMHO the Wif Rules set was in its prime during 5th edition Wif. Has there been any consideration to making computer Wif based on an earlier version? All the following additions were, in my opinion, unnecessary:
1) motorized and mechanized INF (didn't add much but complexity)
2) Leaders in Flames = highly unbalanced game
3) PIF = many more planes with many different ranges and abilities but no increase in offensive/rebase allowance during land and combined
4) territorials = many more cheap units for allies.
5) the new maps (remember the bright colors of the old paper maps instead of the grey look of the new plastic feeling maps)
I think it sure would be easier to make a game based on Wif5 rules than the latest Wif with all the expansions like cruisers in flames, propaganda in flames, beer halls in flames, feminism in flames and the much awaited for Lord of the Rings Return of the King in Flames
Greg

holy crap! i thought i was only one that missed the GOLDEN DAYS of WiF. this is an incredibly good idea.

[meyerg]

Mbuttazoni:
You guys have a good thing going with your GGWAW. Sort of an Axis and Allies with research and supply. Hopefully we can keep WiF from adding rules and complexity without gaining SIGNIFICANT gameplay and LEARN from your Keep it Simple Stupid game that seems to have tons of strategy options and replayability.
Hopefully we can bring back the Golden Days of WiF (before they made headquarters a corps sized unit). So all fighters moved 4 and all subs were basically the same, the game sure played better than it does now. No need to assume the computer game needs all the bells and whistles. You will definitely not get the gamer who has never played Wif before if you start with all the expansions I detailed. Feminism in Flames alone really messes with all nations wartime economies!!!

[vonpaul]

I find it hard to believe Matrix would design CWIF on the old version of WIF, besides the CWIF designed so far is based on final edition and its been mentioned here that they are not scrapping the code.
I agree that 5th edition was much quicker to play and in some ways is the better board game because of that fact, however Final Edition is much more suited to computer adaptation and is the World in Flames of today.
It would be nice if it is designed in such a way that people could tweak the game to their own ends something like paradox or infogames does, but considering the way the beta was designed i could see if this will not be possible.
Would be nice to see mods like v5 and Fatal Alliances (ww1) though.

[Greyshaft]

I'd hate to go back to the "all TAC have the same movement allowance" days. PIF may not have changed the game flow but it certainly added color to the air combats.

[meyerg]

I'll concede adding a range statistic to the counter is probably a good thing. Adding more expensive twin engine fighters may be a good thing (better range, less Air to Air). Now, the rest of the "improvements" really add a little realism/historical accuracy at the expense of much playability.
Greg