I Go U Go

[SeaMonkey]

I'm going to suggest a different approach to this dilemma. Instead of IgoUgo, how about a simultaneous combat phase execution with pro-active decisions by the players as flagged by their options. For example, let's say that player A has checked the proactive intercept option which has a popup feature for a decision of how much air of the qualifying air units to be used. Player A makes the decision, results applied(hidden to both players) and the phase continues with the continual actions taken by the AI accounting, directed by the players through popups. This system would work for either TCP/IP or PBEM and since each player would alternate initiative according to the priority(point) allocation option(limited number of points for use by players), no one would have the advantage. Not until both players have fulfilled their obligations would the turn be terminated and the results be acknowledged to both by the AI. After a set number of combat phases have been executed, the number for each medium(air,naval,ground) determined by mutual player agreement(or AI determination from player prompts or initiative award from the previous turn success/supply/diplomacy/etc.) at the beginning of the turn, then we proceed to the Supply, Production, Diplomacy, etc. phases. I'm actually thinking about this as I type and more ideas are being developed how this system could be improved. So in essence there are but two parts to each turn, the combat phases and the rest, with the rest having implications for the next turn's combat phases.

[macgregor]

It sounds something like what I said about a wif-based instant messenger capable of updating the gamefile. I don't want to see a game with alot of horses(for the course i.e.-tricks that punish the uninitiated and reward the geek while having little to do with reality.) Wif was never like that. Wif is a strategy game-not an arcade game. You could play it in realtime but then an impulse would take a week. Some players move faster and think they should be rewarded for that. I'm not opposed to this. Perhaps the player with the initiative could be automatically timed which would affect (perhaps directly) the amount of time the reaction player would have to move.

[Fred98]

ORIGINAL: macgregor
You could play it in realtime but then an impulse would take a week.

I never played the board game. If I were to play this computer version, PBEM is the only way to play for me.

If people communicate by email, how many emails would it require to play one typical “impulse”

How many impulses in one typical turn?

How many turns are there in a typical ( short ) scenario?

-

[Mziln]

I never played the board game. If I were to play this computer version, PBEM is the only way to play for me.

If people communicate by email, how many emails would it require to play one typical “impulse”

(Q1) How many impulses in one typical turn?

(Q2)How many turns are there in a typical ( short ) scenario?
[/quote]

(Q1)

3.1 Sequence of play
The sequence of play in a turn is:
A. REINFORCEMENT STAGE
B. LENDING RESOURCES STAGE
C. INITIATIVE STAGE
D. ACTION STAGE
Repeat D1 through D3 until the action stage ends.
D1 Determine weather
D2 First side’s impulse
Every major power on the fi rst side performs these steps:
D2.1 Declare war
D2.2 Choose action
Choose either a pass, a naval, an air, a land or a combined action.

D2.3 Perform actions
The major powers that didn’t pass perform these steps in this order (their action choice will limit what they can do ~ see action limits table):

(a) Port attacks
(b) Naval air missions
(c) Naval movement
(d) Your naval combat
(e) Opponent’s naval combat
(f) Strategic bombardment
(g) Carpet bombing (option 32)
(h) Ground strike missions
(i) Rail movement
(j) Land movement
(k) Air transport
(l) Debark land units at sea
(m) Invasions
(n) Paradrops
(o) Land combat
(p) Air rebases
(q) Reorganisation

D2.4 End of action
Roll to end the action stage. If it doesn’t end, advance the impulse marker the number of spaces shown on the weather chart for the current weather roll. If it ends, move on to stage E—the end of turn.

D3 Second side’s impulse
If the action stage didn’t end, repeat the steps in D2 for the second side. If the action stage doesn’t end after the second side’s impulse, go back to D1.

E. END OF TURN STAGE
Both sides perform these steps in this order:

E1 Partisans
E2 US entry
E3 Return to base
E4 Final reorganisation
E5 Production
E6 Intelligence (option 63)
E7 Peace
E7.1 Conquest
E7.2 Allied minor support
E7.3 Mutual peace
E7.4 Vichy declaration
E7.5 Liberation
E7.6 Surrender
E8 Victory check (& option 30: factory destruction)

(Q2) Each game turn represents two actual months. So the scenario is as long was the actual campaign divided by 2.

[Fred98]

So, 1 turn, of 2 months duration, could take 30 - 60 emails to complete.

At, in a typical PBEM game, 1 email per day, a 6 year game could take 3 - 6 years to complete.

W.I.T.P is a great game. But I don't play the AI and the game is too large for PBEM, so unfortunately I don't play it.
-

[meyerg]

Here is some words from someone (c92nichj) who has experienced what I have warned about

... I find an impulse taking longer than in the real game mostly because of the strict order of play

Heed this valuable insight:

I've been waiting for this game for years now and I look forward to the release but I don't think it would be possible to play without some decent AI to handle intercept ground strikes or a new order of play.

Purists be warned, don't mess around while Rome is burning. If this project takes too long it will be overcome by a better game. If you want to play solitaire, you can have your pure Wif. For PBEM and AIA (and a chance at a decent commercial success), WIf must adapt to the computer.
meyerg

[SamuraiProgrmmr]

I would like to make some observations.

It has been suggested that the computer game of World In Flames will be slower than playing the real game. I do not believe that will be so. The point made about adherence to the strict sequence of play being a stumbling block is valid, but after players become experienced, that slowdown should go away. When I have played the game, we tried to keep to the strict sequence of play and at first it slowed things down. Later they sped back up. It was just another learning curve.

A useful feature to help with this would be the ability to 'mark' counters as needing attention at a certain point in the play. This will allow you to leave a 'reminder' for yourself to do something in a certain phase, step, or even a particular turn.

Several remarks have been made considering what would happen if the players swapped e-mails once a day. I sincerely believe that this game would be unrealistic to play via e-mail if you could only turn around one email a day. I also sincerely believe that it should not be a factor.

I have played some empire building games via e-mail. We would start them on a Saturday afternoon or a Friday night when the players would try to get several turns played in the first few hours of the game. The idea was that there was not much happening when your empire was small and we could all play quickly. We might play for 3 or 4 hours on the first two sessions which were agreed to be at the same time. After that, we fell into the 1 email per day pattern. It was ok, because the turns were beginning to take longer to play.

WIF can be like that also.... There will be some stretches where many e-mails could be exchanged in a short time and other stretches where it may be tomorrow (or later) before the turn cycles. I don't find this to be a problem.

Some posters have refused to accept that players would gather online at the same time to play. Again, I don't think that is a real problem. Those who play Wif now, generally have to gather at a certain place to play. I have read reports of people who regularly travel hundreds of miles (round trip) in order to play WiF. At first, this sounds silly, but how many of you will travel two or three hours to see a ballgame or visit a museum? I travel that far 10 to 12 times a year to attend weekend bridge tournaments. Won't it be easier to gather online? No travel time. No setup time? Grab a sandwich when your opponent is doing his movement phase.

I used to play WiF with a fellow who brought a book. When I was moving pieces, he was reading fiction. What is different when playing a computer game?

In all honesty, I once played World In Flames (tabletop) over the phone! Each of us had the game set up and we told each other what was being moved. It was more convenient than travelling and we were able to play for 30 minutes to an hour a session. We then had the freedom to 'break off' whenever either of us wanted to contemplate the next move. It worked fine. The only downside was a sore neck from cradling the phone between your shoulder and your ear.

The problem is that people want instant gratification and no 'down time' OR complete freedom to pick and choose when they spend their time on this game. Sorry folks, playing with real people just doesn't work that way. How many face to face games are interrupted by a phone call or a crying child or a bathroom break? Are we sure our expectations are realistic?

I do not feel that WiF will be viable as PBEM IF (PLEASE note I said IF) it is forced into a situation where the players cannot 'virtually gather' to exchange many small e-mails in a short period of time.

I feel that IF (AGAIN I used IF) players are going to 'virtually gather' to exchange many small e-mails in a short period of time, then some sort of TCP/IP connection that does not involve e-mails would be useful. This could be direct connection or a client/server arrangement.

I also feel that IF (the last time tonight, I promise) the Matrix version of WiF is changed to avoid the necessity of occasional bursts of small messages, that it will no longer be WiF, but rather a shadow of Wif. Will that 'shadow' be a better game than World In Flames? Maybe. Maybe Not. I am sure that there will be some people that will appreciate it and others who will loathe it. Who knows, I might even like it. But..it..will..NOT..be..WiF!

IF (okay, I lied when I said I wouldn't use it again) there is a scripting engine that gives the players enough control over some situations to feel comfortable, then it may become unimportant. However, I have never yet seen a scripting engine that gave me the control that I wanted to accomplish my goals without it being as complicated as a programming language which (while I would love it) may make it unusable by some players.

We have a mental image when we think about PBEM. In order for this to be successful, I believe that the mental image of Play By Email will HAVE to be altered to fit this game rather than trying to fit this game to the traditional image of PBEM.

Thanks for reading this.

Dean

[SamuraiProgrmmr]

ORIGINAL: meyerg

Purists be warned, don't mess around while Rome is burning. If this project takes too long it will be overcome by a better game. If you want to play solitaire, you can have your pure Wif. For PBEM and AIA (and a chance at a decent commercial success), WIf must adapt to the computer.
meyerg

I am a little put off by your remarks. Rome is not Burning. The development team hasn't even begun to work on this in earnest as they are completing another game, I believe it is a little early to start blaming outsiders for killing it. Surely the deadline is not already looming over their heads. [&:] There is no way that this discussion is keeping the game from being completed.

As I will explain in a moment, once the design decisions are made, this discussion will be over. Until then, I am thankful that Matrix has given us a place to air our opinions.

I have earned my living as a computer programmer for over 20 years. I can imagine many ways this can evolve. None of us know how many resources are going to be allocated to complete this game. None of us even know what the price will be. My understanding of many of these posts (and certainly my own opinion) is that some would like to see TCP/IP connection as part of the game. This should not be the end of the world to the developers. There are some very (VERY) good tools available to exchange information between programs. If a Quake Server can send a game update 20 times a second to 20 or more players, surely this game can be played over the net.

The real key will be making sure that the internal exchange of information between the game engine and the user interface is set up in such a way that it will complement internet play rather than hinder it. I could go into a technical discussion of what that means but it is late and it will probably bore those who are not technically oriented. If you want to hear it, just ask & I will be glad to illustrate the point. If the decision is made to do things a certain way, it will facilitate online play. I expect that the online play component may be added on later as an expansion pack. BUT, if things are not built with it in mind, it may be unfeasable to ever add that feature later.

In ths past, I have perceived some hostility on this forum for some of my opinions about PBEM and how it can be accomplished. I stopped posting here for a while to see if I was the only one with this opinon. I am glad to see that there are others who feel the same way.

Us PURISTS are not demanding that ours is the only way. We see the problems as realistic. We just aren't convinced that the world is coming to the end. We are asking that our way be considered and offering discussion about why we feel it is important.

I don't want to inflame the situation any further, but 'Rome' is not burning. Not tonight. Not tomorrow. Maybe next month. Maybe next year. But not tonight.

Good night and happy gaming.

[c92nichj]

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer

I would like to make some observations.

It has been suggested that the computer game of World In Flames will be slower than playing the real game. I do not believe that will be so. The point made about adherence to the strict sequence of play being a stumbling block is valid, but after players become experienced, that slowdown should go away. When I have played the game, we tried to keep to the strict sequence of play and at first it slowed things down. Later they sped back up. It was just another learning curve.

I've played the game over email for almost two years and maybe because of my playstyle it does take long time to complete an impulse. It do happens that I forget that I needed to fly an airmission with my japaneese NAV to get my army in supply and I don't discover that until I landmoved all germans and italians, in a face to face game that's easy as we always allow such mistakes being corrected later and I would probably not have made the mistake in the first place as I ocus on the japaneese fron only. In CWIF I have to reload the save file and redo all my previous moves, from the naval air phase.

As I said S/O 39-J/A 43 have taken us 4,5 months and we have exchanged maybe 5-10 emails per week and we do all the opponents moves in our impulse without exchanging emails (a lot of times we actually have called each other to ask for an important decision, most big naval battles have been fought over the phone for example).

Below you can see the status of the game.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer
It has been suggested that the computer game of World In Flames will be slower than playing the real game. I do not believe that will be so. The point made about adherence to the strict sequence of play being a stumbling block is valid, but after players become experienced, that slowdown should go away. When I have played the game, we tried to keep to the strict sequence of play and at first it slowed things down. Later they sped back up. It was just another learning curve.

Having played 1 complete game of CWiF completely alone, playing all major powers, from S/O 39 to late 46, I can say that it was considerable faster than playing WiF FE face to face with fellows.

Cycling through units available for current action, as well as the marvelous "Units" dialog used to quickly find all unused TRS, all undisrupted FTRS, for example, was very usefull to quicken play.

A useful feature to help with this would be the ability to 'mark' counters as needing attention at a certain point in the play. This will allow you to leave a 'reminder' for yourself to do something in a certain phase, step, or even a particular turn.

This existed in Chris' CWiF by right clicking on a unit.

Best Regards

Patrice

[c92nichj]

Cycling through units available for current action, as well as the marvelous "Units" dialog used to quickly find all unused TRS, all undisrupted FTRS, for example, was very usefull to quicken play.

I agree that the Units dialogue is extremely helpful I also use it to see what uncommited fleet my opponent has.

The difference between solitaire and PBEM is quite big though and more timeconsuming, but it might just be me and how I am playing. Hotseat is about the same time as playing Face to Face, it should be quicker but since only one person look at the screen at any one time it is hard to use the waiting time to plan ahead your moves.

[Froonp]

The difference between solitaire and PBEM is quite big though and more timeconsuming, but it might just be me and how I am playing. Hotseat is about the same time as playing Face to Face, it should be quicker but since only one person look at the screen at any one time it is hard to use the waiting time to plan ahead your moves.

Yes indeed.
Hotseat computer wargaming is quite frustrating for the non playing player(s).
I remember the old days when playing the first C64 wargames from SSI & Microprose (Crusade in Europe anyone ??), when we had to do "something else", and not look at the screen, when the other player was playing. Could last for a long time !!!

I really think more & more that TCP/IP will be my prefered style of play.
I already have my greatest WiF opponent, now 1100 km away, who is ready to spend nights playing WiF with me by TCP/IP & free Netmeeting voice communication.
And I also have 3 computers at home networked by TCP/IP to play quick games with local WiF players.

I really hope that WiF will not be modified (i.e. simplified) for PBEM, I hope that there will be, at best, an option to play "simplified WiF" for those willing to play PBEM with simplified sequence of play, and that regular CWiF will still be like WiF.

Best Regards

Patrice

[SamuraiProgrmmr]

ORIGINAL: c92nichj
As I said S/O 39-J/A 43 have taken us 4,5 months and we have exchanged maybe 5-10 emails per week and we do all the opponents moves in our impulse without exchanging emails (a lot of times we actually have called each other to ask for an important decision, most big naval battles have been fought over the phone for example).

I am astounded at the pace you have set. [&o] Most of our games lasted at least that long. I don't think we ever were able to match that pace playing face to face and meeting on weekends.

Fighting the naval combats via phone is essentially the same concept as having a tcp/ip connection for certain parts of the game. It seems that having this ability (i.e. being able to pick up the phone) greatly increased your speed.

Thanks for the screen shot.

Dean

[macgregor]

I still think that a cwif-based instant messenger capable of updating the gamefile could popup on the opponents screen allowing him to make the critical decisions involving air and naval interception.Showing the list of available units should save time. I admit that having a high-speed connection might be crucial.For air and naval intercept and battle rounds wif is an action game. However ,during land movement it should be Igougo. The phasing player starts with the gamefile and any imput from the other player is done through IM. At the end of his impulse -he sends the gamefile to the other player and everything is done in reverse.Weather and initiative should be quick as should all the beancounting in the end phase.Computer wif should move faster than the original -with less mess.

[SeaMonkey]

Simple solution for Hotseat, have two CPUs running mirrored games while taking opposite sides or any variation there of.

[Greyshaft]

How do you allow for the person who's chaotic schedule means that they cannot set aside a game night? I (for one) manage to squeeze in a dozen or so hours of sokitaire or PBEM game play each week, but I can never predict when it will be - early Sunday am, late Thursday night etc.

PBEM systems have to allow for asychronous play

[SeaMonkey]

Lucky you GS, at best I get maybe 2 to 3 hours a week for PBEM. For example, a simple SC campaign (Fall Weiss) played to completion usually takes about 14 months. Of course I may have about a half a dozen of them going.

[coregames]

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer
Us PURISTS are not demanding that ours is the only way. We see the problems as realistic. We just aren't convinced that the world is coming to the end. We are asking that our way be considered and offering discussion about why we feel it is important.

I totally agree with SamuraiProgrammer here; if meyerg is correct, and the so-called purists (who I assume are the people that made WiF the success it has been through their patronage) are somehow dooming a game design project that hasn't even begun yet, then why have a forum at all? Perhaps we should just all be quiet and hope for a version we can accept, designed at the behest of people who like computer games, but are not necessarily WiF fans.

It all comes down to what Matrix wants to do; is MWiF inspired by ADG's game, or is it a computer adaptation of it? If the latter is the case, the computer game should in no way be less than the board game, but rather, provide even more options for play. Once again I am puzzled by the idea of creating a computer version of a board game that is a simplified version... Aren't we selling computers short in their capabilities by giving in like that? I am confident there is a solution to these issues waiting to be discovered, whether it be a combination of AI and scripts, or a dual-mode approach that offers both streamlined PBEM mode and TCP/IP faithful mode, or some other idea.

To encapsulate the concerns of many who have spoken in these forums... If MWiF is shanghaied by non-WiF fans to create their dream-product, it won't deserve the name, and I am unlikely to purchase it.

[Greyshaft]

RobertC posted somewhere that he was tasked to do a faithful translation of WiF onto the computer. IMHO the only variations from the cardboard will be where the shoe just doesn't fit - eg resolving PBEM naval interceptions or air aborts/kills . In that case there may be a checkbox which allows the computer to take control of those decisions, but the Purists will always have the option to do it their way.

[coregames]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft
...the Purists will always have the option to do it their way.

I know it's hard to accomplish both PBEM and faithfulness in one game; I just want to say how much I appreciate what you are telling us Greyshaft, as well as how grateful I am to Matrix if that is the case. I will get the game regardless of price if it can be played as the game I love. My uneasiness has been diminished greatly by this information.