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

[Jimm]

Absolutely agree. There would be nothing worse than rushing out a game to market,receive a huge amount of hype and response from the big WIF community out there, and it be a disappointment. I share the desire to see it in actuality- but its far more important to make sure its worth the wait.

[sunshines]

[font="arial"]One of the things I enjoyed the most about TOAW game was that you could let the AI play itself.  (Select AI to play both sides anytime in the game).

It is so fun sometimes to just sit back and let a war unfold quickly on the screen while you stuff you face and root for one side like a sports event.

Sometimes I would like a quick play out of a possition that I had played to as a human player if I felt lazy and wanted to see how things could turn out. Either way this option for me is the single nost wanted feature usualy lacking in a war game.  Will MWIF have a AI vs AI setting that can turned on at any time????

Sunshines
[/font]

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: sunshines

[font="arial"]One of the things I enjoyed the most about TOAW game was that you could let the AI play itself.  (Select AI to play both sides anytime in the game).

It is so fun sometimes to just sit back and let a war unfold quickly on the screen while you stuff you face and root for one side like a sports event.

Sometimes I would like a quick play out of a possition that I had played to as a human player if I felt lazy and wanted to see how things could turn out. Either way this option for me is the single nost wanted feature usualy lacking in a war game.  Will MWIF have a AI vs AI setting that can turned on at any time????

Sunshines
[/font]

Welcome to the forum.

There have been several other forum members requesting this. It is not high on my priority list of features to add, but if it can be done with little effort, I will. At this point I haven't given it much thought.

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
So I'll just say that I am designing for 1024 pixels wide by 768 pixels high, with support for larger widths and heights. The program 'reads' from the operating internals what resolution you have the screen/monitor(s) set for, rather than imposing a resolution.

With any luck, the support for "larger widths and heights" is accomplished by showing more of the map instead of just scaling up and making it larger. Please please please. I have a 30" monitor that I run at 2560x1600 and that screen real estate is put to much better use giving a broad view of things instead of just getting a staring at the same tiny little micro-view presented in giant fonts.

[coregames]

Some think it would be cool if both the old and new naval OCs were available, and the players select which before each scenario. This is from two players in our local WiF group (not me, I prefer the old version).

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: jchastain

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
So I'll just say that I am designing for 1024 pixels wide by 768 pixels high, with support for larger widths and heights. The program 'reads' from the operating internals what resolution you have the screen/monitor(s) set for, rather than imposing a resolution.

With any luck, the support for "larger widths and heights" is accomplished by showing more of the map instead of just scaling up and making it larger. Please please please. I have a 30" monitor that I run at 2560x1600 and that screen real estate is put to much better use giving a broad view of things instead of just getting a staring at the same tiny little micro-view presented in giant fonts.

The program has 8 levels of zoom, so how big each hex is depends on your preference and it is easily changed using the + and - keys on the numeric keypad (one of several ways to do that).

The program adapts the map display to a base of 96 pixels per inch, and then uses whatever monitor(s) you have available. I run two 19 inch monitors side by side and one of the beta testers uses 3 monitors across. There should be no problem making full use of your large monitor. By the way, you now have me interested in obtaining two 30" monitors (previously I had been lusting after two 24" monitors).

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: coregames
Some think it would be cool if both the old and new naval OCs were available, and the players select which before each scenario. This is from two players in our local WiF group (not me, I prefer the old version).

I will probably end up doing that. The old Naval OC rules are already coded, so that will definitively be included. As for making the new version available, I should do that to make the program conform to the August 2004 (Patrice, do I have the dates right on this?) version of RAW I am designing to. But I have not promised that (yet).

[paulderynck]

Another suggestion on the Yahoo list was to allow the player to choose either the old or the new flavor of Naval OC when he played one.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Another suggestion on the Yahoo list was to allow the player to choose either the old or the new flavor of Naval OC when he played one.

Not to my taste. I prefer having this as an optional rule (old or new Naval OC), chosen/set before the game starts and used accordingly throughout the game. Increasing the flexibility of how Offensive chits can be used doesn't strike me as necessary - nor as an improvement.

[paulderynck]

Yeah.

I just thought I'd mention it. Its not even a molehill to die on.

[Froonp]

I will probably end up doing that. The old Naval OC rules are already coded, so that will definitively be included. As for making the new version available, I should do that to make the program conform to the August 2004 (Patrice, do I have the dates right on this?) version of RAW I am designing to. But I have not promised that (yet).

RAW7 august 2004 is the latest RAW, tha's it.

[lomyrin]

I just saw a message on the regular Wiflist that ADG has just released a 2007 set of unit counter sheets that includes a number of changes and additions to the existing counters.
 
The changes appear to add, change, and otherwise modify planes, ships, land units, SUB's, and Minor country units. An example is addition of Portugal forces that makes the unopposed invasion of Portugal no longer possible.
 
What is the prognosis for inclusion of these changes in MWiF product 1 ?
 
Lars

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

I just saw a message on the regular Wiflist that ADG has just released a 2007 set of unit counter sheets that includes a number of changes and additions to the existing counters.

The changes appear to add, change, and otherwise modify planes, ships, land units, SUB's, and Minor country units. An example is addition of Portugal forces that makes the unopposed invasion of Portugal no longer possible.

What is the prognosis for inclusion of these changes in MWiF product 1 ?

Lars

I would have to understand what the changes are in detail to make an informed decision. If they are small, adding them is a no-brainer. But if they are sbustantial, then I would have to give it serious thought. One of the problems, Chris ran into repeatedly was that ADG keeps coming up with improvements/add-ons to the WIF system of games. Keeping up with the changes means the product design document is a moving target.

[lomyrin]

I have not seen the details, only the general descriptions. Apparently there are some strength changes and a few additional planes and ships as well as Minor country units and Volunteer units. SUB's seem to have a lot of changes. The Mech in Flames counter sheet is said to have quite a few changes.

I would defer to Patrice for details as I am convinced that he will check it out.

Lars

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

I have not seen the details, only the general descriptions. Apparently there are some strength changes and a few additional planes and ships as well as Minor country units and Volunteer units. SUB's seem to have a lot of changes. The Mech in Flames counter sheet is said to have quite a few changes.

I would defer to Patrice for details as I am convinced that he will check it out.

Lars

I already saw the playtest versions of those countersheets, but not yet the production versions. I'll run donw a comparison when I'll have them, and publish the result on my website when done. I'll also publish reduced scans of them for people to see them.

CS7-8 (PiF) only have a couple planes changed, the Sunderland getting a white cirle & NO PARA symbol, and the CW LL C47 changed from 1938 to 1941, and the Ansons not ATR any more, and a new ATR, the Harrow in 38 or 36. If these had to be included in MWiF, there would be 1 new plane graphic to add to the counters bitmaps (the Harrow) and a couple of counters to change their values, and the Sunderlands to add the No PARA symbol.

CS18-22 (SiF) only have Subs changing their arrival years and some of their factors, to go with the change initiated in 2003 about SUBs philosophy. If they had to be included in MWiF, there would only be a couple of dozens of SUBs to change in value & some combat factors. I would volunteer happily to do them.

CS24 only have 6-7 US Entry Chits changing values. This make the overall average & standard deviation of the whole lot of US entry counters (CS24 + CS14) change a bit :

Previous values (CS24 from 2000 & CS14 from 2003) :
Averages :
1939 2,27
1940 1,35
1941 3,47
1942 4,21
1943 5,08

Standard Deviations :
1939 1,39
1940 1,15
1941 1,41
1942 1,19
1943 1,00

2007 counters values (CS24 from 2007 & CS13 from 2003)
Averages :
1939 2,33
1940 1,35
1941 3,53
1942 4,21
1943 5,08

Standard Deviations :
1939 1,30
1940 0,93
1941 1,41
1942 1,19
1943 1,00

If they had to be included in MWiF, there would only be the values of the US Entry chits to change.


And finaly the new CS23 has no new type of units, only
- Units reprinted from CS25 (already included in MWiF),
- Ship Units reprinted from CS30, but with SiF values now (they had WiF values).
- New City Based Volunteers (for which rules already exist, or should exist in MWiF)
- 4 New GBA unit (totaling 12 now), plus 4 GBA DIV, obtained either by propoting a DIV in combat to GBA, or by breakdowning a GBA.
- 1 Portugese GAR (3-1) from way before 1939.
- The regular ENG and DIV that the old CS23 also had (the ENG are the same and in the same numbers, and the DIV are changed a bit).
- The regular Supply units that the old CS23 also had (the CW have only 2 now, and the Chinese have 1 for each faction).
- The regular FORT units that the old CS23 also had.

If they had to be included in MWiF, there would only be half a dozen aircraft bitmaps to add to the game (most of them being duplicates of already existing ones), half a dozen ships graphics, and some new units data to add to the game. Not much to do either.


To sum up, if there is a will to add them, I volunteer to add them all, there is not much to do.

[Froonp]

Here is ADG announcement, posted at comsimworld & the WiFlist.

*********************
ADG is pleased to announce the release of its latest kits:

2007 Planes in Flames (PiF, CS 7-9)
2007 Ships in Flames (SiF, CS 18-22)
2007 Mech in Flames (MiF CS23 & non-leader counters from (LiF) CS 25)
2007 WiF countersheet set (all of the above & CS 13, 17 & 24)

All kits have been revised with the latest errata. In the case of PiF,
this includes new aircraft and some revised capabilities of some
others but overall not dramatic changes.

SiF has more substantial changes particularly amongst the subs which
have all been dramatically revised to base their availability date on
speed and range (which changed dramatically during the war) rather
than actual firepower (which didn't). Thus advanced building subs
becomes a major option to get those long range subs early that can do
the most damage to the vulnerable supply lines.

Finally Mech in Flames has been completely overhauled to make it
totally compatible with WiF Final edition, both graphically and
conceptually. Thus all those superfluous (and ugly) garrison, mech and
motorised units have been replaced or deleted. As a nod to the kit
name we have updated the late-war ARM, MECH and MOT of each major
power to WiF: Final standards as well as all the other units included
in the original Mech in Flames (e.g. supply units are now depicted as
what they are, motorised divisions and forts have also of course beenr
etained).

Some of the spare units created by deleting the obsolete units were
used to move across all the non-leader counters from CS 25 (Leaders in
Flames), which is not being reprinted (so get in quick if you want one
of the last hundred).

This meant we also got to upgrade the Guards Banner Army units both
extending the numbers and types of them, but also adding a new unit
type, Guards Banner Divisions (which can only be brought into play by
breaking down a Guards Banner army unit). As you can imagine, the
Guards Banner divisions are pretty good, so not only does this
increase the flexibility of the Russian player, it also increases
their decision making and staying power (not to mention the counters
themselves look pretty schmick).

With the rest of the spare counters, we have added extra city based
volunteers for many more major powers giving them historical
objectives to head towards, some early and late war aircraft, some
extra minor units to stop naughty invasions (no more Lisbon on a free
I'm afraid) and also some ship what-ifs (e.g. British monitors, the
actual Japanese CV Shinano class conversions, upgunned Scharnhorsts
and French CVL conversions) in both WiF Classic and WiF Deluxe versions.

All these kits also include a kit identifier, a single character on
the back of the counter that tells you which kit the counter comes
from. In the case of MiF, there is sometimes a second character that
tells you that not only does the counter come from MiF, but it is only
to be employed if you are also playing SiF.

The 2007 WiF countersheet set includes all the above plus one copy of
CS 13, 17 & 24. CS 13 & 17 are the DoD counters printed unchanged
while CS 24 has had 2/3rds of the '0' US entry chits upped to 1 making
US entry slightly earlier and minimising the chances of picking a 0 US
entry chit (only 2 left now).

**************************

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Patrice,

If we can do this without going back to Rob for more graphics, then fine. Perhaps we can reuse some of the existing air unit graphics for the new units?

[Neilster]

This all sounds good. The sub stuff especially so. Given the time in development and attention to detail shown so far on this project, my vote would be to not scrimp on this.

Cheers, Neilster

[Mziln]

I would suggest that you check with Matrix Games first. Remember we are using RAW7 august 2004 while the 2007 constitutes new product.

Can product developed by ADG in 2007 be used by Matrix Games in MWiF [&:] 

Or did the aggrement between ADG and Matrix Games limit creation of MWiF using RAW7 the Final Edition august 2004 [&:]

 


Since you decided to ignore this post. Here are some new terms for you "Copyright Infringement" and "Theft of intellectual property". Now does Matrix Games have the legal rights to use property created by ADG for WiF in 2007?

[wfzimmerman]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

This all sounds good. The sub stuff especially so. Given the time in development and attention to detail shown so far on this project, my vote would be to not scrimp on this.

Cheers, Neilster

Strongly agree. It was always inevitable that ADG would release new revenue opportunities ////// //////// products before MWIF completed. We need to stay in sync with 2007 WIF.