Matrix Games Forums

Maurice, if I am 'meddling in your kitchen' more than you are comfortable, please don't hesitate to tell me. It is your project, after all.

i don't take offense to "informed" discussions. I do have to say though that this is not exactly "my" project. Robert Crandall, who has much game design experience will play the lead role here and i am contributing as much as time allows. My current priorities are to get 3 other titles polished and out the door ASAP.

i agree with your design above. From a technical aspect, yes, all 3 modes can use the same base messaging system, but from a user "experience" and playability standpoint (some call this the UI) the presentation and execution of a given game turn may have to change to make it a playable (and enjoyable) game.

Maurice,

ORIGINAL: MButtazoni

from a user "experience" and playability standpoint (some call this the UI) the presentation and execution of a given game turn may have to change to make it a playable (and enjoyable) game.

I both agree and disagree. I see it as two different problems.

It is clear that for PBEM, changes have to be made. I haven't been offering specific suggestions on what changes. Don't interpret that as resistance to them happening, I just want to spend some more time with the rules before speaking any more than I already have on that subject.

I agree that the presentation will need to change. I felt that the CWiF that was being tested was hard to look at and not a terribly good user interface. But it was a one man project and polish could wait until the end. I always felt that closer to completion, some of the graphics would improve (not so many harsh lines, better colors and shading) and become easier to look at.

However, for modes of play other than PBEM, I don't necessarily agree that the execution needs to change. In fact, I think it would be a bad business decision to make some of the changes that have been suggested.

Here's why.

The real question is "what is enjoyable", isn't it?

Why do we play games? To be entertained. How does that entertainment manifest? I would propose that it manifests by building tension, taking action, and culminating in conflict resolution creating emotional release (gratification or disappointment). This applies to many games. Perhaps an analytic measure of a game (not a computer game or a tabletop game, but the pure game itself) is the frequency, duration, and intensity of this tension/release cycle.

Think about Civilization, one of the most successful computer game series ever made. The thing that makes that game sucessful, IMHO, is the constant urge to play 'one more turn'. Why? Because in your multiple endeavors, you always a plan that was about to culminate and you wanted to see how it worked. Just one more turn... Just one more turn.. ad infinitum.

Why do people play simple games like FreeCell, Minesweeper, or Bejeweled? Tension, action, release. Why do people watch drama? Tension, action (by the characters), release. You get the point.

This is an inherent failing of large, turn based wargames. The plans take too long to come to fruition. However, with WiF, the 'air jujitsu' (and the 'naval jujitsu') is a segment where this slow, plodding, game gives a quicker pace of tension/release for BOTH players at the same time.

The thing that makes WiF great, in my mind, is not just the ability to control the entire planet's war effort. Not just the total control of the economy, production, military, and political efforts. It is also the excitement of a pitched 'battle' in which much weighs in the balance.

Please don't remove it entirely from the game. Just make some things options labeled 'not recommended for PBEM'.


One last thought.


20 years ago, I started playing Star Fleet Battles. It is one of the finest tactical naval combat games I have ever played. It is so detailed that tactical may not be adequate as a description. Perhaps microtactical would be better. I have literally seen games with groups of people where it took 4 hours to game out one turn of a fleet action. Were those games ever finished? No. Did we have fun? YOU BET [:D]

However, we always yearned for a way to play the game with the same rules but less work.

For years, we (the SFB community) begged for a computer adaptation of that game. There were copyright legalities that prevented it from happenening. (I won't bore you with the details here.) Finally, Paramount and Amarillo Design got together and cut a deal to create Star Fleet Command.

I helped playtest it. It is a fine game. I enjoyed playing it. [&o]

But... It... Is... Not...Star... Fleet... Battles [:@]

It is a real time clickfest based on Star Fleet Battles. It is fun. It is beautiful. It is just not what many people wanted.

The sad truth is, though, that since it has been produced, it is very likely that there will never be a turn based Star Fleet Battles computer game produced. The people that now control the computer gaming rights are not interested in producing it and apparently will not dilute their 'property' by allowing someone else to do so.

This sequence of events is what I am afraid of. This is likely the only computer edition of this game that will ever be completed. At this stage, all of the suggestions of change are nebulous. Some change will be good. The wrong changes will put WiFfers in the same boat as SFBers.


Thanks for reading,

Dean

Robert Crandall, who has much game design experience will play the lead role here

OK. Now, after my wife and kids, Robert Crandall has just become the most important person in my life. Go Robert!

Very interesting contributions, Dean. you're a good addition to this forum. I like your ideas and your analysis on gaming entertainment is right on. Maybe you should send an application to the aforemention Mr. Crandall and start working on putting WiF to computer. [:)]

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead
Very interesting contributions, Dean. you're a good addition to this forum. I like your ideas and your analysis on gaming entertainment is right on.

Thank you for your kind words.

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead
Maybe you should send an application to the aforemention Mr. Crandall and start working on putting WiF to computer. [:)]

Wow! Thanks again.

If anyone at Matrix Games wants more discussion on methods, I am certainly open to helping out in a limited fashion.

Dean

Eeek! I know I have been scarce around here but has that really made me so valuable?

For a little while there I thought that my previous project was all but done and I was tucking into MWIF in a big way from several directions. Then I got called back and I'm embroiled in a host of little things all over again. I too am impatient to get back to the fun stuff here in WIF-land.

Laughing, Rob.

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead

Robert Crandall, who has much game design experience will play the lead role here

OK. Now, after my wife and kids, Robert Crandall has just become the most important person in my life. Go Robert!

Although I don't post very often here I do read this forum daily and so now I thought I would add my two cents to this discussion.
So I'm wondering why we all want a computer version of WiF in the first place? The reason I want a CWiF is because I don't want (or can't) keep 12 feet worth of maps set up in my garage for weeks or months at a time, and I can't find any players out here to play with. I think it's pretty clear that we don't want just another grand strategy world war 2 game. IMHO I want World in Flames on the computer. If I want a heavily modified/streamlined/altered, etc. version of WiF then I'll just play WaW or some other game that is already out there. So mostly I would like to be able to play against a good AI opponent.
I recognize the benefit and usefulness of PBEM, but I would like to have the option to play WiF the way it is on the tabletop as well as streamlined version for PBEM.
BTW, I completely agree with Dean's comments. As a SFB player and a SFC player I can say that although I enjoy both games, they are not the same game. Please don't allow WiF to go down that path.

I hope my sarcasm has not offended anyone (although Alan can still send me $50), and no offense to the WiF purists (I consider myself a WIF reactionary longing for the days of fifth editon and DOD 1).

My first step of my three steps was a faithful recreation with no AI. Now I can bring my laptop with a wireless card to my friends house, and we can all get on his server and play a game without setting up the board. We can load standard setup files for countries, let the computer roll the dice, resolve the rules disputes, select from the force pools and we are way ahead. Not to mention we can save the game and walk home without having someones cat ruin hours of gameplay (it has happened).

The next two steps involve adding AI and PBEM. The AI is almost essential for PBEM to provide a foundation for allowing your air preferences to be filled in with some intellegent decisions. These can be the same algorithms the computer players use to make decisions. It may not be possible to have a decent AI for a while, and whoever takes this project has my utmost respect.

Finally we add PBEM and throw out the boardgame paradigm to get the best strategic WWII game experience possible using the WIF core. When this is done, I guarantee we will all like it better than the network version once we get used to it. Step one (faithful recreation) will tide the purists over until the rest is complete. Computer WIF will never make the step to greatness without getting to PBEM and casting off the constraints that were put on this "boardgame port to a computer".

I know we all want a strategic game with the multitude of strategic and tactical decisions WiF offers, but I feel (POSSIBLE HERESY COMING), we can do better than a "faithful adaption".

Thanks for listening Matrix, your participation in this thread is appreciated.
greg

ORIGINAL: meyerg
My first step of my three steps was a faithful recreation with no AI. Now I can bring my laptop with a wireless card to my friends house, and we can all get on his server and play a game without setting up the board. We can load standard setup files for countries, let the computer roll the dice, resolve the rules disputes, select from the force pools and we are way ahead. Not to mention we can save the game and walk home without having someones cat ruin hours of gameplay (it has happened).

YESSSSS! Infinitely better than playing on a tabletop. My friend had a Lab. Retriever with the 'atomic' tail.

ORIGINAL: meyerg
The AI is almost essential ... It may not be possible to have a decent AI for a while, and whoever takes this project has my utmost respect.

Lobbying for a programming structure that will allow inclined players to write their own AI will help in this matter. No matter how good the AI is, there will come a day when the contraints of business decisions and other jobs will bring an end to development otherwise. The community can continue to evolve the AI as a labor of love.

Dean

Playing the game on a computer with a small monitor will be a bad idea.

It is best if I could have the whole map laid out before me, so that I can see everything at one glance. On a computer screen this is not possible.

The solution is to use a projector such as is commonly used by business – and project the game onto a wall. Then you can see the whole thing in one glance.

I have considered doing this with other games but it’s not practical at this moment. The major problem is that at that scale the graphics are poor

If this feature were in the game, players could visit and play together and we re-establish the social side.

This feature could make the game a real winner. And eliminate the PBEM problem

At first I found the old demo to be a bit annoying because I was used to being able to see the whole map(s). I quickly got used to it though, and after a while it didn't bother me. The key is the use of the "next unit" arrow which allows one to quickly skip through all the units that can do something that phase.

As mentioned above, the huge advantage of computer WiF is the lack of book-keeping.

I might be in the minority but I really enjoy computer opponents and am looking forward to many man versus machine battles. At least at first. There's less pressure and one can relax a bit, have a few beers and reload a saved game if that carrier group gets destroyed [:'(].

Cheers, Neilster

My first step of my three steps was a faithful recreation with no AI. Now I can bring my laptop with a wireless card to my friends house, and we can all get on his server and play a game without setting up the board. We can load standard setup files for countries, let the computer roll the dice, resolve the rules disputes, select from the force pools and we are way ahead. Not to mention we can save the game and walk home without having someones cat ruin hours of gameplay (it has happened).

The next two steps involve adding AI and PBEM. The AI is almost essential for PBEM to provide a foundation for allowing your air preferences to be filled in with some intellegent decisions. These can be the same algorithms the computer players use to make decisions. It may not be possible to have a decent AI for a while, and whoever takes this project has my utmost respect.

Finally we add PBEM and throw out the boardgame paradigm to get the best strategic WWII game experience possible using the WIF core. When this is done, I guarantee we will all like it better than the network version once we get used to it. Step one (faithful recreation) will tide the purists over until the rest is complete. Computer WIF will never make the step to greatness without getting to PBEM and casting off the constraints that were put on this "boardgame port to a computer".

That makes a lot of sense and should satisfy everyone...especially if the various stages are released when they are completed (even better if it is within a year or two). Just as the boardgame has gone through numerous revisions and editions, MWif should be allowed to grow and develop over time. Good idea.[;)]

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

ORIGINAL: amwild

as long as both players were logged on at the same time.

Maybe you misunderstood me: I meant that the exchange of moves would be fairly quick while both players were logged on, not that the players would have to be logged on at the same time. The means of data transmission would still be e-mails that could sit in an inbox somewhere for as long as necessary.

This contrasts with TCP connections, where if the data packets are not accepted by the intended recipient at the moment they arrive, they are lost.

The method of data transmission I suggested was intended to speed PBEM play as much as possible while retaining all of the normal sequence of play.

I have no doubt that a direct TCP connection would be faster, and I believe that it should be one of the available multiplayer options, but since Matrix Games has said that PBEM is an option they want to consider, making it able to send e-mails via its own SMTP client and receive e-mail via its own POP or IMAP connection to a server, and/or some form of interoperability with a mail client such as Outlook, Outlook Express, Netscape, Eudora, etc. is a way to make the PBEM process as quick and painless as possible.

How closely is Matrix working with ADG staff on this, if at all? I am curious about their feelings regarding PBEM and the turn sequence.

ORIGINAL: MButtazoni

to play this (or any other wargame):

1. Asynchronous Multiplayer (PBEM, hot seat)
2. Synchronous Multiplayer (online play, peer-to-peer, client/server)
3. Singleplayer (vs. an AI)

each of these have different requirements on play experience (and enemy-activity feedback) to make them successful. i think the game has to be streamlined as we move from #3 down to #1.

When making these decisions we have to ask ourselves (and you should ask yourself too) "when do we want the game to ship?"

BTW, i am not proposing solutions MWiF here (yet) just discussing design options.

Well I (beeing selfish here, and saying what I feel hehe) have already waited so long, so I would prefer to wait another year or two more if that is what will be best for the game. As I have stated before, I want WIF on the PC, not any uber-xtreme-WWII-game that is only remotly WIF-like.
Know others have expressed something like this here before, but if Matrix decides to have a count here, to see what ppl want, I want to be heared first

Let me say first that I'm sure nothing I say about designing computer games is likely to be new to the pros at Matrix. This post is intended more to entice feedback from the Matrix elite and the gamers (including fans of both ADG and Matrix) who are following this stuff. This is in the spirit of the original thread Panzerjaeger started here.

I think the best way to find the right balance so the sequence allows for PBEM is to incrementally work towards the least change possible from two sides: simplification and faithfulness.

First, establish how much scripting from non-phasing players and support from the AI might be needed for the existing sequence. This is a thought exercise only, assuming some change will be necessary. Determine a cost-to-benefit analysis of this approach for comparison.

Then, analyze the implications of a small set of incremental changes to the sequence (such as grouping strat bombing, carpet bombing and groundstrike into one phase), once again establishing the scripting and AI elements needed to make it PBEM suitable. This cost-to-benefit analysis can now include the "unfaithfulness" factor, reflecting a small compromise for the sake of a game with wider appeal and versatility.

Continue doing a cost-to-benefit analysis like this after each incremental restructuring or simplification, and keep going till you are well past what you feel to be the right range of sufficient compromise, in order to have a wider range of approaches for comparison.

Armed with these analyses, you can gauge which range of approach approximately changes the sequence enough to make PBEM workable while compromising the least in the name of recognizability, and begin work from that set of basic assumptions.

I realize this is a lot of brainstorming and analysis with many factors involved, but it is mostly theoretical and conceptual, very high-level thinking on the possible approaches.

One advantage of taking a little time to do this kind of pre-design work is that the game will have the best chance of pleasing both purists and newcomers, thus deserving the moniker World in Flames while hopefully selling like hotcakes. The game will still provide a recognizable WiF dynamic to TCP/IP users who have the time to play that way, but have enough restructuring to allow PBEM that isn't ridiculous.

Another advantage is that the role of scripting from non-phasing players, as well as the role of the AI, will be integrated purposefully from the conception stage, allowing both to be tailored to what is needed for PBEM. This might make the AI easier to program too, but I am a poor judge of that aspect.

I think, given that a computer is handling the book-keeping, all players should plan out their moves for the impulse--what goes where to do what, picks up something here, drops it off there, etc. Then the computer decides when inteceptions are possible and notifies the comcerned players. Players would have to decide ahead of time what to commit to which battles. If you have fighters deployed to intercept enemy fighters attacking your bombers over, say, Dusseldorf, then you should have tagged them to reply to an enemy intercept, either all if any, or one for one, or enought to maintain numerical pairity of superiority, depending upon preference. Same goes for naval air interception. As for which bomber or fighter gets burnt of sent to the showers, let that be randomized, or let there be a toggle. Say your bomber campaign has no purpose other than to draw enemy fighters into combat, then comcentrate on dropping bombers to save fighters. The "enemy", seeing your strategy, would then be able to reset his preference to concentrate his kills on your fighters. Basically, the responses of individual players to enemy movements during the impulse could be largely played out by the AI given certain instructions. One player would be the designated "host", and all the responses would be integrated later, before the next impulse. You would thus have two impulses being played out at once. Easier to see where the enemy is going, but if you also moved, you could find yourself out of position. Its part of the Fog of War.

I'm confident that the Matrix staff knows some of these compromises will have to be made in order to inprove the game experience via e-mail or online. I'm also confident that ADG knows that the final product will not be a virtual port of the boardgame to the computer, otherwise they'd have been better off just doing a PBEM aid such as JET is for Europa's WWII (and WWI) games.

It may have been on another thread, but someone mentioned the "glory days" of WiF ver.5 and DoD I. God, I wore my maps down such that the creased tear if you sneeze on the map, there's dirt ground in at key areas such as Gibraltar, Pearl Harbour, Scappa Flow, etc., from frequently accessed stacks. Some counters barely have any ink left on them from over use.

I have the last version of Chris' CWiF at home; CWiF was my only introduction to WiFFE. I had gotten PiF, but none of the new stuff. Mine all was pre-1992. Just for a lark, I tried adding up the difference in production between WiF 5 and WiFFE for Germany from Sep 1939 to Jun 1941. Assuming historical conquests, the old version netted 95 points more than WiFFE. And yet, except for the ships, none of the costs have been lowered to reflect lowered production, and to allow players to dabble more with the increased counter density. Russian infantry used to be 2 points each, not three. Made a BIG difference in the survivability of the Soviet Union.

I've been reading about CWiF since the winter of 1999. Its coming up 5 years now. Matrix has a few years to go with their work. I think they're going to have enough to do just keeping up with Harry and his changes, nevre mind changing the way the game played. I don't envy their task.

PBEM does seem incredibly difficult to include in a 100% adaption. But is it so hard to accept that a computer game is different from the boardgame?
I would like CWIF so I can play or practise my skills without spending hours stacking counters. But in the end I'll continue to play the boardgame because sometimes wasting time is fun.

A hotseat 100% adaption could be combined with a PBEM version that is much simpler and faster. This would be different, yes. But it might still be.. fun!

You could end your turn by giving orders to your units as regards their reactions to your opponent. You could tell one FTR to intercept anything in range, or only intercept in one specific hex. You could tell a bomber to support a critical hex, or stay put. You could tell your fleet to fight or avoid combat if possible. You could order an exposed corps to always choose Blitz attacks in the hope of keeping it.

This would take many decisions out of your hands, but that might actually be really fun. Much more like sitting in the HQ and hoping your useless subordinates will do the right thing.

Sure, this might be exploitable, but the opponent will never know for sure just what your units will do.

Having run in circles around the pathetic AI in HOI I have little hope for a competent AI in CWIF.

I think everyone accepts that there must be changes for PBEM to be viable. I think everyone accepts that PBEM is incredibly important to the success of this version of WiF.

For myself, however, it is important that the changes be made in such a way that the game has the same 'feel'. By that, I mean that I want to do everything I can as a fan to be sure that the computer version of WiF does not become some other game with WiF graphics.

There has a been a long quiet spell on these forums. I hope that there are others doing what I have been doing.. Actually playing WiF while thinking about how it would translate to PBEM. There have been many solutions suggested. These range from scrapping the parts of the game that involve intense interaction (most of the game, unfortunately) to scripting these segments (allowing partial control) to allowing users to write their own AI routines to make the interactive decisions. The designers will have to make the final decisions.

When I first got involved with this forum, I felt strongly about some things that I may end up retracting. Having shot my 'mouth' off earlier, I am waiting to post my opinions when I am more sure of them. I have spent some serious time with the rulebook for the last three or four weeks. In fact, I am actually playing a PBEM game of WiF to see if I can write my intentions out for some of the interactive segments. Also I am thinking about what I base my decisions on. I appeal to any WiF players out there to do the same. Soon we will be able to give the designers an idea of what scripting parameters will be useful and how adequate they will be.

In the end, it is possible that some of the sequence of play will have to be altered for PBEM. If so, then those of us who are purists will have to accept it. Hopefully, we will come up with something that streamlines play without destroying some of the best parts of this game.

I hope that no matter what changes are made, the ability to play the game as written using a combination of TCP/IP direct connection and PBEM will be a feature. Yes, it would be inappropriate for players to twiddle their thumbs while another player is deciding where to move his armies, but if you can disconnect for the slow planning segments and reconnect for the interactive ones, I believe there are many players who would would be willing to play that way. I know I would.

You see, the fun of playing wargames is not pushing cardboard around a piece of paper and rolling dice. [:-] The fun is (to quote a denizen of the yahoo WiF group) "dancing around the table with a beer singing 'I gotcha, I gotcha'". It may sound silly but it illustrates a point. My fondest memories of gaming involve the friendly taunting, gloating, and moaning that invariably emits during face to face gaming sessions. I just wish there were room on the screen for webcam photos of my opponents' faces as key situations resolve themselves. [;)] Of course, they would want to see me.[:(]

Well, I have rambled along enough for now. Thanks for reading. I think it is time to go sort through some cardboard. Now where is that SS unit [&:]