World in Flames is the computer version of Australian Design Group classic board game. World In Flames is a highly detailed game covering the both Europe and Pacific Theaters of Operations during World War II. If you want grand strategy this game is for you.
I'm saying you this: the decision to release the game was made by Matrix.
And by saying this, I've said almost too much already...
O.K., reading between the lines then I surmise that Steve was not ready to release but was forced to by Matrix?
I know, you're under an NDA that prevents you from either confirming or denying this.
So, let me pose another question to the folks here in general. (1) Is it better to have MWiF in the state it's in and under continued development by Steve or (2) Not have MWiF?
Personally I think (1) is the better option (condition) because I think Matrix would be much more likely to pull the plug on MWiF in case (2) versus (1). This is, unless we all abandon MWiF.
Another question, is it better to have an "imperfect", but evolving MWiF or an abandoned (or no) MWiF?
I'm firmly in #1 above as I would not even be playing this game at all if it was not on the PC
Also, it is far better (imho) to have what we have (and the slow pace of fixes) versus giving up like what happened with EiA and a lot of other games (not just at Matrix alone).
But then as I said before my expectations were really low at release so I got what I expected to get. Plus I even bought two copies on release [X(] And I'm still happy with my purchase but do understand why others are not.
Problem with real time games. Its not enough that your mind is fast enough to figure out what you want to do.
Its how fast your hand and fingers are as you think. Mouse monkey games are great for younger gamers.
Not so much as your body ages.
Playability and Realism is the tightrope to negotiate.
For the young and older gamer. Chess is Igoygo. Still a popular turn based game. http://www.fide.com/component/content/a ... ougov.html
Wargames created in the classic igoygo play style is an acceptable way to play. Even for a computer game.
What I want to see in Real Time / Simultaneous games is not pull-the-trigger first-person-shooter gaming (no shortage of that available everywhere), but Real Time Command games. I'm thinking as voice recognition continues to improve, this can be put into historical gaming somehow. Military conflict always happens without being able to think, ahh well, I'll figure out what to tell the 2nd Battalion to do tomorrow. Fine for Grand Strategy games, sure, but not Operational to Tactical level.
Also in Strategy games, computers should be used to solve the Playability problems Fog of War creates with paper and cardboard systems. Even at the Grand Strategic level, there was plenty of Fog of War before the rise of detailed satellite coverage commanders have today.
I"m a little less interested in worrying about the stats showing the 1st division only has half as many artillery tubes as the 2nd division. (WitP:AE)
I played some time ago and it was really good. I abandoned as (as usually happens to me with operational level wargames) I don't know what's going on. I mean, in MWiF 10 land factors attack 2 land factors and it's 5:1. In operational level there is morale, fatigue, supply, distance from HQ... that affects the combat and I am unable to trace, and (thus) combat results are not what I expected. Other than that (which is only a personal caveat) it seemed great to me.
I don't think there is a free speech issue on the forum. Look at my silly little situation.
I was playing the game, happily spelunking along, and tsk-tsking some supply issues across the lake to Libya. Then I saw some units that should have stayed disorganized, instead do a magical dance and became re-organized. Shocked, I reported it as a bug.
This my readers, is where my sad tale begins. I report surrounded units being re-organized, and I found out that units being allowed to spontaneously re-organize was an optional rule! In fact, it was called Optional Rule #47. Hastily I scrambled to a-d-g.com.au and searched the official PDF. Agonized, I fell back into my chair, shuddering inside. What had they done? Do they really think surrounded units should re-organized? I hastily check isolated oil dependent units in-game, and they do retain disorganization status! I wailed a good bit on the bug report forums in wrath, and anger of ruined games. Hours lost, unable to be regained. Pleaded and raged for a tool to allow me to continue my games. But, from high above, silence.
Never once was one of my threads closed.
Here I have a open thread regarding how un-realistic this game is without optional 47, and it has not been closed. I think that the reason is that, first, there is a legitimate concern regarding the rule itself. I agree with many others that an isolated unit should be allowed to be destroyed by the owner, but that mechanic is absent from the actual RAW of WIF. I've never had Guderian or Zhukov trapped, and whenever I've completed such a move, I always end the suffering sooner than later. I prefer the coup-de-grace, and not try to make my opponent suffer; not to mention it very often relieves logistical issues.
My point being that the thread still lives, not because I insist on insulting people, but actually I post logical arguments in my own favor. Those thoughts are argumented on, discussed, and generally considered fairly or unfairly. While the topic isn't generally favorable, there remains an element of possibility that the issue could be resolved.
Many, many, alternatives have been offered for the rule, but it cannot be played around. Particularly in Siberia and China. The tool to fix the problem denied to all but beta-testers (4).
My opponent and I were tackling the Asian map with complex strategies regarding control, supply, and logistics. Both of us moved unsupplied units even further out of supply to capture objective areas. In military terms this is known as exploitation, because typically most opponents will not even have speed-bumps behind their front line. Taking supply sources, victory cites, isolating enemy units are the primary reasons for moving out-of-supply units, and disorganizing them.
Overall I've not determined whether the change in map scale makes the asian map untenable, or still playable. However, due to the lack of units in the overall theatre, supply becomes extremely important, and units tracing supply over enemy hexes is not allowed. I wouild like to make my own conclusions whether the unification of the map scale breaks the game, or whether it is still viable.
Just for those who don't know, a very often used strategy is for the USSR to declare war on Japan as soon as possible in the full 1939 campaign. Why? They get their reserve units (non-GE) and even more important, they are no longer neutral. They can call any action, where for them, the Land action is extremely powerful.
An attack on Japan in 1940 with the USSR could see the Japanese unseated in Manchuria, Korea, and China perhaps. With no rule implemented regarding peace, other than a gentleman's agreement, means the Germans have to rescue the Japanese in 1941 with Barbarossa.
With the new map scale, what is the result of max pressure on Japan early game? I still don't know. Does it break WIF? Don't know. You see, to answer said questions, supply has to work properly. To me, Rule #47 has never been optional, it can be exploited in multiple ways that are unquestioningly un-realistic. why it's an optional is a source of continual wonderment for me.
But my thread on my wonderment over option #47 isn't closed. Consider that, and why it would be.
Most men can survive adversity, the true test of a man's character is power. -Abraham Lincoln
I don't think there is a free speech issue on the forum. Look at my silly little situation.
I was playing the game, happily spelunking along, and tsk-tsking some supply issues across the lake to Libya. Then I saw some units that should have stayed disorganized, instead do a magical dance and became re-organized. Shocked, I reported it as a bug.
This my readers, is where my sad tale begins. I report surrounded units being re-organized, and I found out that units being allowed to spontaneously re-organize was an optional rule! In fact, it was called Optional Rule #47. Hastily I scrambled to a-d-g.com.au and searched the official PDF. Agonized, I fell back into my chair, shuddering inside. What had they done? Do they really think surrounded units should re-organized? I hastily check isolated oil dependent units in-game, and they do retain disorganization status! I wailed a good bit on the bug report forums in wrath, and anger of ruined games. Hours lost, unable to be regained. Pleaded and raged for a tool to allow me to continue my games. But, from high above, silence.
Never once was one of my threads closed.
Here I have a open thread regarding how un-realistic this game is without optional 47, and it has not been closed. I think that the reason is that, first, there is a legitimate concern regarding the rule itself. I agree with many others that an isolated unit should be allowed to be destroyed by the owner, but that mechanic is absent from the actual RAW of WIF. I've never had Guderian or Zhukov trapped, and whenever I've completed such a move, I always end the suffering sooner than later. I prefer the coup-de-grace, and not try to make my opponent suffer; not to mention it very often relieves logistical issues.
My point being that the thread still lives, not because I insist on insulting people, but actually I post logical arguments in my own favor. Those thoughts are argumented on, discussed, and generally considered fairly or unfairly. While the topic isn't generally favorable, there remains an element of possibility that the issue could be resolved.
Many, many, alternatives have been offered for the rule, but it cannot be played around. Particularly in Siberia and China. The tool to fix the problem denied to all but beta-testers (4).
My opponent and I were tackling the Asian map with complex strategies regarding control, supply, and logistics. Both of us moved unsupplied units even further out of supply to capture objective areas. In military terms this is known as exploitation, because typically most opponents will not even have speed-bumps behind their front line. Taking supply sources, victory cites, isolating enemy units are the primary reasons for moving out-of-supply units, and disorganizing them.
Overall I've not determined whether the change in map scale makes the asian map untenable, or still playable. However, due to the lack of units in the overall theatre, supply becomes extremely important, and units tracing supply over enemy hexes is not allowed. I wouild like to make my own conclusions whether the unification of the map scale breaks the game, or whether it is still viable.
Just for those who don't know, a very often used strategy is for the USSR to declare war on Japan as soon as possible in the full 1939 campaign. Why? They get their reserve units (non-GE) and even more important, they are no longer neutral. They can call any action, where for them, the Land action is extremely powerful.
An attack on Japan in 1940 with the USSR could see the Japanese unseated in Manchuria, Korea, and China perhaps. With no rule implemented regarding peace, other than a gentleman's agreement, means the Germans have to rescue the Japanese in 1941 with Barbarossa.
With the new map scale, what is the result of max pressure on Japan early game? I still don't know. Does it break WIF? Don't know. You see, to answer said questions, supply has to work properly. To me, Rule #47 has never been optional, it can be exploited in multiple ways that are unquestioningly un-realistic. why it's an optional is a source of continual wonderment for me.
But my thread on my wonderment over option #47 isn't closed. Consider that, and why it would be.
Agreed well said and I stand corrected on free speech here.
In my experience, usually on the Asia map this involves bypassed ChiComm units trying to trace to Urumqi or Kashgar or far south, potentially dozens of hexes in any case. As a house rule, we would look suspiciously at giant supply lines that snaked through desert, mountains, etc. endlessly to establish supply improbably far, far away: when flipped, those guys would stay flipped until relived from the outside. This also alleviated littering the map with control markers.
Maybe as a compromise that retains the spirit of the rule without taking ages to compute, the computer could cut off its supply search after 15 or 20 hexes? That seems a reasonable distance to preserve some need to truly pocket bypassed forces.
Otherwise, it's inconceivable playing without 47.
That is my intended solution. However it remains on my task list as a not 'super' high priority.
It's a year later from the above post. If you look a the dozen posts before it, near unanimous agreement from paying customers and betas that this should be a priority. Any progress?
In my experience, usually on the Asia map this involves bypassed ChiComm units trying to trace to Urumqi or Kashgar or far south, potentially dozens of hexes in any case. As a house rule, we would look suspiciously at giant supply lines that snaked through desert, mountains, etc. endlessly to establish supply improbably far, far away: when flipped, those guys would stay flipped until relived from the outside. This also alleviated littering the map with control markers.
Maybe as a compromise that retains the spirit of the rule without taking ages to compute, the computer could cut off its supply search after 15 or 20 hexes? That seems a reasonable distance to preserve some need to truly pocket bypassed forces.
Otherwise, it's inconceivable playing without 47.
That is my intended solution. However it remains on my task list as a not 'super' high priority.
It's a year later from the above post. If you look a the dozen posts before it, near unanimous agreement from paying customers and betas that this should be a priority. Any progress?
Thanks for speaking up for us, but I think you might be more that slightly mischaracterizing the group-think. Several of us have spoken out against rule 47, including me, and why we wouldn't play with it. For me, it's definitely not a priority and I would much rather the game actually work (still haven't finished a single game start to finish without one or more bugs preventing the game from continuing) than to see optional rules I don't intent to use get implemented. And if we're talking about optional rule implementation, I'm much more eager to see some sort of (probably modified) implementation of Soviet/Japanese peace rules.
Although I more or less agree with you on the way Matrix has handled this project, start to finish, I think it's fair to say that you do not in any way speak for the majority on these boards.
Head Geek in Charge at politigeek.net - the intersection of politics and all things geeky
