Matrix Games Forums

But I am more concerned with what the final product is. It seems to drift a bit too close to an RTS style of game (without the time constraints): "Attack there! Do it again!"

This reminds me a bit about a discussion we had earlier about giving the AI an advantage....

I guess that it maybe comes down to style of play. I like to focus on the long-term play, rather than who can play more quickly without making mistakes. Consequently, I play quite slowly, trying to make sure that I dont make any tactical mistakes. (Again, I really hate it when games get decided by a few tactical mistakes.) I never play with a clock - that would take the enjoyment out of it for me, as THAT feels like a RTS for me. (I prefer WC3 when i want to play RTS's.)

In my opinion, the most fun part of the game is being able to plan ahead. At least several impulses, but also several years. If I play Germany, I know exactly in 1939 how many armor, mech, lnd and fighters I want north and south of the pripet's during barbarossa, and if barbarossa will come in 1941 or 1942. I will then adjust these plans according to losses and enemy builds. Drastically, if I have to, but usually only by a few units. I never build a unit just because it is "cool", it always has a purpose, and is part of my long term strategy.

When planning my land attacks, I go through the following steps (not neccessarily in that order):
1) Before I take any actions (even air). I evaluate possible attacks vs the entire enemy front, determining where I can blitz, and what kind of odds I can get.
2) I then identify any points in the enemy front that can be put out of supply by any reasonable attack, and if additional attacks (or overruns) can be made against those out of supply units (if any).
3) After identifying all possible attacks, I consider the positional advantage (both tactial and relative to my long term strategy) I am likely to gain from each possible target, and weigh this against any material advantage I may gain/loose (including chance of flipping).
4) After evaluating possible gains, I consider what effect a very poor roll will have on my front. Can I afford to loose 2 units and flip everything. This is weighted against the likelihood of such a poor roll.
5) I will then ground strike any hexes i deem vulnerable or important, either for direct attacks, follow-up attacks, or as a counter-measure vs counter-attacks, if I have available air missions and sufficient air power.
6) After ground-striking, I re-evaluate 1-4, if neccessary, before moving my units and calling any attacks, adding HQ support, ground support, etc.

To me, the first of these steps is the trivial one. Though still quite time consuming, that step is very straight forward, and given enough time, anybody will be able to perform this quite accurately. Imo, the challenges lie in steps 3 and 4, especially when faced with having to compromize between short term and long term gains and losses and between possibility and risk.

For other people, especially people that like to play very quickly (RTS people in my opinion), emphasis on being able to perform step 1 very quickly and accurately becomes one of the most important aspects of the game, as a few serious mistakes during that step can cost the game quite quickly. These people are also the most likely to loose the game to a semi-competent AI, as beating the computer in terms of the speed of these calculations can be quite hard.

Anyway, implementing the kind of "odds view" that I proposed will remove some of the "trivia" for people like me that like to play slow games with emphasis on the long term strategy, while making it possible to disable the view (for both sides) should conserve the fun for the clock-using lightening-chess-wif-players out there.

I guess these things come down to budgets and priorities, and obviously, this kind of functionality is fully optional.

I just hope the map and units don't get cluttered with a bunch of numbers. IMO WiF is a work of art as well as a game...some of these suggestions are nice features to add, but I would hope that they could all be toggled off. I think the odds calculations is definitely too much. I first saw this with Korsun Pocket and it made the game too easy. Some of us enjoy and take pride in crunching numbers and having to scan the battlefield for that last air factor to make a 4-1 attack possible.

It is true that the odds function will make the game easier, or at least faster at the same skill level, against the AI. In human-vs-human games, it will just shift the focus slightly from the tactical to the strategical part of the game.

I just wrote myself a note to never play against you for money (unless it is 'speed' WIF using a chess clock).

The game has many parts running from the trivial of how many movement points it costs to enter a hex to the complexity of timing a Japanese attack against Pearl Harbor.

The game is the sum of the parts. The pleasure of playing it also lies in the sum of its parts.

MWIF changes WIF in many ways. There are no counters to lay out in a row and rearrange while mulling over possibilities. No one spills their drink on the map, drastically altering the terrain in Siberia.

Having MWIF identify rules constraints is essential, especially regarding legal placement of units, moves, and attacks. Rigidly enforcing the sequence of play has both it pluses and its minuses, but more or less has to be done to keep the programming from becoming even more Byzantine than it already is.

Counting and summing, odds calculations, do table lookups, and the like should certainly be included too.

It is when determining "what is possible" that the situation gets murky. I guess I personally draw the line somewhere between (A) informing the player which units can move to a hex and (B) informing the player which units, when moved to a group of hexes, will give the best attack odds on a target hex. 'A' identifies legal moves, while 'B' identifies who to move where. This is sort of the difference between identifying all the pieces in chess that can legally capture a pawn versus which piece is best to capture it with. I approve of MWIF providing type A information but not type B information.

I think that the discussion here is moving to the trade-offs between timely information/planning assistance vs. knowing all things/advice. I, for one, would like to see MWiF remain squarely on the first.

Computer games can add greatly to the conduct of a game. Anybody who has paper gamed the Europa series games Fire in the East/Scorched Earth/Urals would greatly appreciate the ability to see conbat stengths and armour proportions along the seven foot length of game table and 2500 unit counters that make up a front line. It can very tedious to pick through six unit high stacks over 50 hexes with tweezers and remember it all. [&:] This is not to mention incidents of hurricane "Sneeze" or earthquake "Hip Check".

Nobody likes to make a game losing mistake, but its part of the game. Actually, its part of war. History is full of accounts of lost opportunities where a commander was too timid to move or just didn't know that he could walk in to an objective initially that later became the focal point of the battle with heavy casulties. One of my fondest moments is a game of 3rd Reich where the German player put an air unit on an airbase counter and forgot that there was no land unit in that hex in France 39. We got a double move and took Berlin in Spring 40! To his credit, he continued play and in the next two turns recaptured Berlin before he had to surrender and almost got Paris in the bargain. Our gaming club talked about that game for years.

I feel that giving too much calculation-based information borders on advice (like calculating max odds and highlighting possible units or hightlighting air unit coverage) and removes one of the fun aspects of game play, that is, providing the enemy the chance to make mistakes and capitalizing on them. A good German can provide an effective air umbrella against the Allied strategic bombing campaign. A poor one just clicks a button and looks for holes in the umbrella.

Too much calculation also aids in the depredations of one of the two player types that I never game with, the G*d D*mn Accountant (the other is the Compulsive Cheater). The guy will click on every garrisoned hex in the world to maximize any of dozens of attacks and arrive at games with 40 sheets of odds calculated down to the nearest strength point. (I do NOT mean to imply that hakon is like this in any way, shape, or form; he wrote out what I actually do in my mind every turn and sounds like a competent opponent).

My point behind the diatribe is this. Focus on the planning assistance features that removes the tedium and speeds good play. We have the opportunity to speed up MWiF vs the paper game and allow more time for strategic coups. The rest can bring calculators.

Sermon complete

danh

P.S I would play MWiF anyway, I just wouldn't use the extras. It is shaping up to be a very fine product!

Ah, extras.

These items will not be implemented as one massive set of improvements to the interface. Instead they will be layered on, like adding makeup (?). [I could use a clothes analogy here but I live in Hawaii and the only real question is whether to put on a T-shirt or no shirt at all.] Some guys prefer the "love of their life" to wear minimal makeup, others like shiny lip gloss. To each his own.

I will add the more obvious features that provide information and place the others in a "would be nice" list that may or may not get done depending on the speed with which other tasks can be completed. I find that often there are things that can be done very easily as part of a larger code modification/implementation. Knowing what players would like to have, let's me do that (as opposed to relying exclusively on my own ideas - which are sometimes goofy[:'(]).

I guess this all comes down to two schools of thinking, and since Steve has made up his mind already, I will not argue the case further.

Also noting that Steve does not want to play against me, I guess my only path to revenge, will be starting a thread "The AI is too weak" a few days after the game is publised, with a screenie of a decisive victory over the AI. [:'(]

ORIGINAL: hakon

I guess this all comes down to two schools of thinking, and since Steve has made up his mind already, I will not argue the case further.

Also noting that Steve does not want to play against me, I guess my only path to revenge, will be starting a thread "The AI is too weak" a few days after the game is publised, with a screenie of a decisive victory over the AI. [:'(]

Oh, I am quite willing to play a game against you (and anyone else for that matter). It was just the bit about the money.

Of course there is also this thing about me finding time. Poof! There goes a week! [&:] Poof! There goes a month! [X(]

I guess I read that part a bit quickly. The time issue is always significant when it comes to wif games.