Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

I can't see why TCP or hotseat games can't have the full sequence of play.
There could also be two PBEM modes... one for the full Sequence of Play and one consolidated.
Getting our own preference doesn't mean the other guy is automatically deprived of his own choice.

Any multiple-mode approach they might adopt has the drawback of being harder to develop, since it will require parallel playtesting for each additional mode, and the code will be correspondingly more complex. Many modes would be great for the freedom offered to players, but I think we should count ourselves lucky if we get two modes; that would make players on both sides of the faithfulness-vs.-PBEM debate happy if they could pull it off. I hope this is the approach Crandall & Company adopt, rather than trying to force the game into a one-mode solution, which might not please either type of player.

As for hotseat play, since the players sit down one-after-another to take their turns at the same computer, that might play better using the asynchronous mode, to eliminate the need for a non-phasing player to frequently assume control of the mouse. Hotseat would be best suited to a two-player game, since the steps are in sequence for the entire phasing side and it would be very slow to input each power's impulse separately. PBEM would actually be better for multiplayer than hotseat would be.

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

One of the biggest challenges for the CWiF design team will be the PBEM sequence of play. If you go to www.a-d-g.com and download the WiF:FE rule set then you will see that the standard sequence of play allows over 100 successive interactions between the Axis and Allies players within a single impulse.

We were playing the board game and I suggested changing the phasing. We found it is very finely balanced. Depending on the changes the game can be influenced dramaticaly in favor of the attacker or defender.

This is just a example of how PBE WiF-FE phasing could work:

11.2 Port attack - You use port attack missions to attack enemy naval units in port. To make port attacks:

1. Your opponent flies combat air patrol to potential target hexes; *

2. You fly all your selected attacking bombers and escorting fighters to their target port hexes; **

3. Your opponent flies intercepting fighters to the target hexes; *

4. You fly intercepting fighters to the target hexes;

5. Both sides make search rolls;

6. Fight any air-to-air combats; * **

7. Surviving bombers suffer anti-aircraft fire from the target ships (AsA option 3: and AA units ~ see 22.4.2);

8. Surviving air-to-sea factors attack the ships;

9. Return all surviving aircraft to base and turn them face-down. * **


* This would be on a file which the game would execute when you reach this Phase.

** This would be on a file which the game would execute when your oponent reaches this Phase.

Using a method of file handling the game phasing would remain entact and PBE would be slow and tedious. You will have to be willing to commit youself to a much longer PBE game, but it could be done.

Also I wouldn't put it past somone to crack the PBE files (or simply reload the game) to get the results that suit themselves.

This is why I'm not a advocate of PBE.

ORIGINAL: Mziln
Also I wouldn't put it past somone to crack the PBE files (or simply reload the game) to get the results that suit themselves...

That's why I suggested combat results aren't revealed to the phasing player... knida more realistic also. You send out the orders for your attacks and then you sit biting your nails for a week or so waiting for the results.

What we need is many ideas in this thread, to fuel Matrix's team to creative excellence, don't you think Greyshaft? This is likely to be an important point if MWiF is to have effective PBEM capability.

I encourage Matrix to include that feature, having read most of the posts in this forum for the last year or so. I do hope that a more authentic mode is included, and I'm not sure what the implications of that would be on consolidating the activities. In many ways, within the next few months, Robert Crandall will probably feel like he is walking on a tightwire, juggling a bowling ball, an egg, and a chainsaw. I hope they pay him doctor/lawyer money for it! Sounds to me like he'll earn it. Hopefully, Chris Marinacci and Harry can at least keep the net intact under him.

I agree with Einstein that Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. In this case the perspiration is tossing around the ideas ad nauseum in the hope that 1 in a 100 posts may be vaguely useful to the design team.

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

I agree with Einstein that Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. In this case the perspiration is tossing around the ideas ad nauseum in the hope that 1 in a 100 posts may be vaguely useful to the design team.

Isn't this the way lemmings learned how to swim?

ORIGINAL: pasternakski
Isn't this the way lemmings learned how to swim?

Inspiring as always pasternakski...

Keith, you're starting to win me over to the "purist" approach to CWiF. While I still wouldn't discourage an entirely new global, grand strategy WWII game for the computer, I think keeping CWiF true to the boardgame is important. If it takes 5 years to finish a game...so what. I currently play WiF once a month and I realize that even though we actually play once per month, I think about it every day. We banter back and forth by e-mail ...talking smack with our opponents and speculating strategy with our allies. All this communication could easily be moving the game along. It also occurs to me that the pace of the game is not important...having an active game to play is important. If a day goes by and the only active thing to do is decide whether or not to intercept a groundstriking LND...it is still a good day because you are PLAYING WiF! Call me a dork, but when I'm playing WiF my whole consciousness slips into FDR, Churchill, etc. I can get hours of enjoyment just contemplating my end of turn builds. The key is that I'm PLAYING WiF! It doesn't matter if the game is in its 5th year, hell the real war lasted 6 years. If you've ever read Churchill's war memoirs, you know he had a blast in his war bunker/bedroom surrounded by his maps contemplating the little flags and markers representing the various fleets and armies all over the world. That is what WiF is all about.

Thanks John... that certainly is a switch from what I remember about your posts in Panzerjaeger Hortlund's thread about changing the sequence for PBEM. Isn't it odd that when we started posting, I was much more the purist than I am now, and you much more the PBEM simplification champion. More recently, I have actually found myself championing the PBEM mode, mostly because I believe it will give WiF exposure like never before. And now here you are warming to synchronous play! I think it bodes well that the trend is slowly towards more consensus; I hope that is indicative of what Robert Crandall and Co. are thinking lately about this project.

ORIGINAL: coregames
reproduce the fully interactive experience of synchronous play.

Are you talkin' dirty or whut?

ORIGINAL: coregames
I think it bodes well that the trend is slowly towards more consensus

-Neville Chamberlain