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

[wfzimmerman]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

It took me a long time to create the code & data for the 6 scenarios I have done (CWIF had 3 done), I still hve 2 left to do, and there are some missing pieces remaining to be done for all the scenarios (e.g., units for Cruisers and Convoys in Flames, factories "en route" at the start of a scenario).

Will the additional scenarios be working in 4.00?

[mlees]

MWIF product 1 has no provision for "creating scenarios" beyond the 11 standard scenarios defined in WIF FE.

The details are quite numerous for creating a scenario...<snip>

That's what I feared. I apologise for making you repeat that, 'cause I'm fairly sure you've said as much in the past.

Thanks!

[HughJardqok]

I believe that what Sgt. Les has said here rings very true. I have been unable to complete an entire game because of the sheer enourmity of this game as a tabletop version ( tied up the garage for three months and we still didn't get very far, how do you get five guys together long enough to complete the war? ), because trying to finish it one on one with the original beta it would crash after a couple of months, and because I haven't found the time to finish it using the Vassal engine and PBEM, but... I really want to have a playable computer based version of the original, AI is secondary, I am more concerned with having all the pieces available from the "fianl" edition and the expansions, SiF, PiF, MiF, AiF, CarrierPiF, maybe all the way down to convoys, with my main need for smooth interface being: choosing options at the start automatically puts the right forces in your force pool, and force pool additions sorted automatically at the end of each year, supply trails tracked (especially for handling convoy points for limited overseas supply and production step), ZOC's, I think it is important that you have to add up your own factors and make your attack based on your own math for the hex in question and then commit and choose your table then the comp actually works out the final odds and you roll a very functional and truly random number generator and apply your consequences, PBEM and Six person hotseat!, that's it. I'll buy it.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: HughJardqok
I believe that what Sgt. Les has said here rings very true. I have been unable to complete an entire game because of the sheer enourmity of this game as a tabletop version ( tied up the garage for three months and we still didn't get very far, how do you get five guys together long enough to complete the war? ), because trying to finish it one on one with the original beta it would crash after a couple of months, and because I haven't found the time to finish it using the Vassal engine and PBEM, but... I really want to have a playable computer based version of the original, AI is secondary, I am more concerned with having all the pieces available from the "fianl" edition and the expansions, SiF, PiF, MiF, AiF, CarrierPiF, maybe all the way down to convoys, with my main need for smooth interface being: choosing options at the start automatically puts the right forces in your force pool, and force pool additions sorted automatically at the end of each year, supply trails tracked (especially for handling convoy points for limited overseas supply and production step), ZOC's, I think it is important that you have to add up your own factors and make your attack based on your own math for the hex in question and then commit and choose your table then the comp actually works out the final odds and you roll a very functional and truly random number generator and apply your consequences, PBEM and Six person hotseat!, that's it. I'll buy it.

Welcome.

You might want to read the thread named Directory - at least the first post therein. The thread on Optional Rules should be of interest to you too, since it lists the units from the different expansion modules that will be in MWIF product 1. I also recommend the tutorial threads because they show screen shots of both the map and units and describe the differences between MWIF and WIF FE (the board game version).

As for calculating odds in your head in advance of declaring a combat, I strongly suspect you are in the minority. Anyway, the program does that for you once you (provisionally) commit units to an attack. However, you can change your mind and 'undo' an attack. You are not fully committed until you press the button that says you have entered all the land combat you want to make.

[trees]

That's why I like fractional odds...throw everything you possibly can at the most important hex, then add it up later and see what you get. Improves your play and speeds up decision making, as long as you are good at deciding which is the most important hex.

[coregames]

ORIGINAL: trees

That's why I like fractional odds...throw everything you possibly can at the most important hex, then add it up later and see what you get. Improves your play and speeds up decision making, as long as you are good at deciding which is the most important hex.

This is true trees, I never thought of it that way -- it would at first appear that using fractional odds would slow the game down, but by making factor counting less important, it may actually save time and speed play. You've convinced me: my local group should use that next time we play.

[ravinhood]

I myself like options and many variables to wargames I buy nowadays. I don't really want just a carbon copy of the board game, but, more options to turn it into more ways to play it. I like the idea of a 1933 start date and I like the idea of it being also historically accurate or inline with the board game. I like choices as to how I might want to play it. I want difficulty levels that I can change by sliders or numerical inputs like a Combat Mission or SPWAW. I want these setting for individual Majors, so I can tweak power where I think the game needs it (especially for the AI) and lower it for myself. I never liked static difficulty settings or hardcoded settings. I like to see more wargames take on the like of a chess match as well or once again at least that choice. Where all things being equal to start and then it's up to the skill of the player and not the history to decide who wins or loses.
&nbsp;
I'm sure it's rather too late for any of this to be of any value, but, that's just what I like to see in wargames nowadays. VARIETY instead of boring Simulations. Forge of Freedom brings out that quality I think in allowing the CSA to finally whoop the snot out of the North.

[SLAAKMAN]

Final Edition, Works Pizza (aif, pif, cif, xif, xif, xif, xif, xif, etc, etc, etc) and absolutely no AI. Leave the AI as an optional patch to be D/L'ed later.

[sapper_astro]

I have dialup. If the AI is a patch, then no money from me. Must have AI.
&nbsp;
Just sayin[;)]

[Ballista]

I hope the AI would better be able to be patched a lot (and easily). I feel it will be barely adequate initially, but as more experience is garnered and more folks play against it and its inadequacies are found out, it could be improved over time. And that means patching it. Hopefully this will be as painless a process as possible....

Just sayin' [:)]

[sapper_astro]

Well, it has been in development for a loooong time now. So hopefully the AI will be half decent. There are many wargames here that have managed that after all.
&nbsp;
Don't get me wrong, I want a strong PBEM and hotseat included (If anyone else has a preferred variant that i left out, chalk it up to ignorance[;)]).
&nbsp;
But since I don't have a lot of time to get hold of opponents, the AI is always an important consideration for me.

[Ballista]

I'm lucky- my roommate is a WIF player (indeed, introduced me to the game back in the early 90's- the version that didn't have named/numbered unit counters and long before PIF etc etc). This is definitely an unusual situation, so I can understand folks wanting the AI to be included. I'll probably wind up playing both at the same time [:D]

[Mandro]

I think that after waiting so many years for this product to be published, what we want in the game is simple.

1. Keep it as true to the original as possible. Purests want a computer replication of the board game, not some fantasy fiction, what if simulation.

2. Get it out as soon as possible. This delay has frustrated many gaming enthusiasts. WIF is by far the best strategic level recreation of WWII ever designed. The convenience of having the design in a PC format is about 10 years over due.

3. Hot seat mode is essential. Most gamers want to be able to play against friends and family at home.

I owned the original as soon as it was published. What a blast and challenge that game was. The only problem with board games is the time and space required for set up. Computers have made that tedium obselete. The problem with most new game systems is the over-emphasis on real-time play and eye-popping graphics.

Once gamers get their hands on the game, they will offer suggestions for improvement. Improvements can be released as expansion pacs or new releases. The original game is in it's 7th edition, I think. Why not the same here? Sid Meiers' Civilization series should be a case in point. Great system that has been continuosly improved and released over the last 10 years.

Maybe release a demo and get feedback? I don't know, but I'd really like to add this game to my library of PC games.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Mandro
I think that after waiting so many years for this product to be published, what we want in the game is simple.

1. Keep it as true to the original as possible. Purests want a computer replication of the board game, not some fantasy fiction, what if simulation.

2. Get it out as soon as possible. This delay has frustrated many gaming enthusiasts. WIF is by far the best strategic level recreation of WWII ever designed. The convenience of having the design in a PC format is about 10 years over due.

3. Hot seat mode is essential. Most gamers want to be able to play against friends and family at home.

I owned the original as soon as it was published. What a blast and challenge that game was. The only problem with board games is the time and space required for set up. Computers have made that tedium obselete. The problem with most new game systems is the over-emphasis on real-time play and eye-popping graphics.

Once gamers get their hands on the game, they will offer suggestions for improvement. Improvements can be released as expansion pacs or new releases. The original game is in it's 7th edition, I think. Why not the same here? Sid Meiers' Civilization series should be a case in point. Great system that has been continuosly improved and released over the last 10 years.

Maybe release a demo and get feedback? I don't know, but I'd really like to add this game to my library of PC games.

Thank you for your comments and welcome to the forum.

You might want to read the first post in the Directory thread to get an overview of the forum. And if you search through the thread titles, you'll find some on the maps and units (unit descriptions & unit depictions) as well as a half dozen threads on the introductory tutorials. All suggestions are both read seriously and appreciated.

[matze]

have the game the atomic bomb (usa), biological and chemical weapons (japan) and german v-1/v-2 rockets, defense lines like atlantic wall or maginot line for self building and "wonder weapons" like jet fighters, rocket fighters, super tanks like king tiger, maus etc.?
and PLEASE no simple counters! please unit icons like in world at war...

[matze]

since 7 (!!!!) years the game is in developing??????? when is the release??
&nbsp;
matze
&nbsp;

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: matze

have the game the atomic bomb (usa), biological and chemical weapons (japan) and german v-1/v-2 rockets, defense lines like atlantic wall or maginot line for self building and "wonder weapons" like jet fighters, rocket fighters, super tanks like king tiger, maus etc.?
and PLEASE no simple counters! please unit icons like in world at war...

See your other thread :
tm.asp?m=1403805&mpage=1&#1403817

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: matze

since 7 (!!!!) years the game is in developing??????? when is the release??

matze

Actually, Chris Marinacci started in 1996, I believe. It didn't receive much attention from late 2003 to July 2005 when I became lead developer. I've worked on it constantly since then (1 year 8 months).

The monthly posts in the When? thread answer your question about time in more detail.

[coregames]

ORIGINAL: matze

have the game the atomic bomb (usa), biological and chemical weapons (japan) and german v-1/v-2 rockets, defense lines like atlantic wall or maginot line for self building and "wonder weapons" like jet fighters, rocket fighters, super tanks like king tiger, maus etc.?
and PLEASE no simple counters! please unit icons like in world at war...

People are going to want to preserve that traditional wargame-like feel, and counters (simple?) help convey that.

[Ballista]

Chris did a GREAT job (in his own time) and produced a good proto-type with CWIF. Under Shannon's direction he has taken us to the point we are today and has also done a superb job.

A wait of a little while longer will definitely not hurt those of us who have been in for the long haul and will definitely pay off later with folks who aren't even familiar with the project as they see what a great computer game it will be. This game is a computer classic in the making. Enjoy the ride [:)]