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.
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
If you take the size of the units at 100% resolution (1/2 inch) and place them in a hex at 200% resolution (1.5 inch), you can place them side by side in a 2 by 2 grid. This lets you see four units per hex. Each land unit in the hex would be visible in its own cell in the little grid (maximum of 3 land units per hex) and all the planes could be stacked in the fourth cell of the grid. This means that you could see all the land units from Switzerland to the English Channel on the screen at once. No thumbing through each hex to see what's where. This could also work at the two lower resolutions though at 150% you would need a keen eye for the units would only be a 1/4 inch across.
Alternatively consider the option of Filters to only see your choice of air / ground / naval units on the map
I'm not sure that having the units side by side will benefit playability, would it not get confusing which hex a unit is in?
I think that a one stack per hex with a good on-map filter would be great. So not only filter for naval/air/land but also custommamde filters like 'show me all unflipped fighters' something like the filter currently in place but on-map.
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
If you take the size of the units at 100% resolution (1/2 inch) and place them in a hex at 200% resolution (1.5 inch), you can place them side by side in a 2 by 2 grid. This lets you see four units per hex. Each land unit in the hex would be visible in its own cell in the little grid (maximum of 3 land units per hex) and all the planes could be stacked in the fourth cell of the grid. This means that you could see all the land units from Switzerland to the English Channel on the screen at once. No thumbing through each hex to see what's where. This could also work at the two lower resolutions though at 150% you would need a keen eye for the units would only be a 1/4 inch across.
Alternatively consider the option of Filters to only see your choice of air / ground / naval units on the map
I'm not sure that having the units side by side will benefit playability, would it not get confusing which hex a unit is in?
I think that a one stack per hex with a good on-map filter would be great. So not only filter for naval/air/land but also custommamde filters like 'show me all unflipped fighters' something like the filter currently in place but on-map.
I want to provide both capabilities.
To visualize what the four units in a hex would look like, imagine cutting a large unit at 200% resolution twice: vertically and horizontally. You will still have the outside of the hexagon surrounding the resulting 2 by 2 grid. Also, the groups of four units in each hex will still form a hexagonal pattern on the screen.
I'm wondering if its worth having a seperate panel to display the contents of the selected hex. So you'd have the normal map with a limited amount of info for each hex but whenever you selected (clicked on) a hex the "hex panel" would fill up with the extra tonnes of info about the counters in that hex. Kinda like the SSG Ardennes Offensive combat screen where you got up close and personal with the hex under attack.
ORIGINAL: Greyshaft
I'm wondering if its worth having a seperate panel to display the contents of the selected hex. So you'd have the normal map with a limited amount of info for each hex but whenever you selected (clicked on) a hex the "hex panel" would fill up with the extra tonnes of info about the counters in that hex. Kinda like the SSG Ardennes Offensive combat screen where you got up close and personal with the hex under attack.
This is a topic for the game interface thread which I will start in two weeks or so. Don't lose the thought. Indeed, you might write it up off line with more specifics and post it as soon as I start the game interface thread.
I am spreading the threads out over 2 months for several reasons. One of which is that I need to spend some time coding in addition to monitorng the forum discussion.
I think I understand what you mean, however I think that it will be difficult to get an overview of the front at that level of zoom, or you will need a bigscreen with awesome resoulution.
I think I understand what you mean, however I think that it will be difficult to get an overview of the front at that level of zoom, or you will need a bigscreen with awesome resoulution.
Oh I agree. The maximum overview with 4 units to the hex would be about from the the English Channel to Switzerland. That is way too small an area for an overivew of the situation in Russia or China. However, the lower levels of resolution would still be available (125% down to 25%). Though you would only get to see the top unit in a stack at those levels of resolution, it will let you get an overview of a larger area.
I, myself, would only use the 4 units in a hex resolution when planning the details of attacking a line - deciding which units are going to attack which hexes. Even at the higher resolutions, you would be able to choose between viewing 4 units in a hex or 1. In the latter case, we have been talking (in this forum) about using more pixels per unit so the units can be more detailed.
Strange thing
Off map boxes, and pacific map scales exist in WiF FE for only one reason : Space constrains, limit in the room available to lay down the maps.
It would be crazy to incorporate in a computer game things that exist only due to physical limits.
Even Harry the WiF FE creator supports this and says that if he could, he would have done WiF with a single scale map and no off map boxes.
Agree 100%, and would add the same for divisions and other counter limitations in the WiF. Unlimited breakdown can give lots of extra units, but who is going to want to keep throwing away combat factors simply to get more units?
I favour me too the CWif map and unlimited breakdown, however I think that on the defence to have two weaker units instead of a stronger one can be a big advantage, because often for the attacker the gain of a better attack rapport don't compensate the difficulty to dislodge two unit from a hex instead of one.
A question: the corp unit after breakdown can be produced again before all of its divisions are eliminated or not?
Thanks.
I'll lodge my vote on maps for European scale for the entire world. Stodgily, I'd like to retain the WiF maps artistry, but from a marketing standpoint, I admit you can probably do better & help sell the game thereby. So "improved" graphics are fine too .
Good luck,
Dave L., wishing that the game would be released for Macintosh, sigh.
Well, basically in WiF, the Chinese front becomes very static very fast, because there are alot of mountains and rivers, and (relatively) few hexes. That means that it is very easy to defend, and very hard to attack. The movement cost for the pacific/asia maps also ensure that most units can only take one step at a time, and sometimes not even that (i e they become flipped for moving a hex).
This is good, because in real life, the Chinese front was horribly static.
It was static in real life because the Japanese decided to stop attacking c. 1938. When they had motivation to do so again in 1944 (when US long range bombers started using forward bases in China), suddenly they made ground, at a time when Japanese forces were reeling all over the Pacific no less.
On the Chinese side, the Nationalists and Communists were at least as wary of each other as of the Japanese. If Japan was not attacking them, they would not recklessly expose themselves to potential loss to the other faction just to push the Japanese back a bit. Chiang, for example, knew well by 1942 that Japan was just a visitor (ie, the US would win the war) and that the Communists were his real foes. That's why he requested LL and then used those forces against Japan as little as possible.
The Chinese theater was static because neither side wanted to attack, not because terrain out-and-out forbid offensives. In WiF, the maps do inhibit offensives, but that's sheer logistics: ADG could not reasonably print Euro-scale maps of the entire world.
The Chinese theater was static because neither side wanted to attack, not because terrain out-and-out forbid offensives. In WiF, the maps do inhibit offensives, but that's sheer logistics: ADG could not reasonably print Euro-scale maps of the entire world.
So maybe MWiF would need additional rules to give the historic result ? Because as far as I could see in CWiF, the war in China was far from static !!!
I know that ADG had issued an optional rule for WiF FE with friction markers to hamper the Japanese in China, maybe this optional rule could exist in MWiF ?
Maybe there should also be an optional rule reflecting the Chinese reluctance to waste troops attacking the Japanese ?
At the risk of rambling, I'd suggest that the question be asked to the WiF FE designer who has the right level of knowledge of WiF FE and of History, and who could come up with a solution.
The Chinese theater was static because neither side wanted to attack, not because terrain out-and-out forbid offensives. In WiF, the maps do inhibit offensives, but that's sheer logistics: ADG could not reasonably print Euro-scale maps of the entire world.
So maybe MWiF would need additional rules to give the historic result ? Because as far as I could see in CWiF, the war in China was far from static !!!
I think that adding something to the defense of key hexes/cities, maybe something like the current warlords.
I agree that it may change the dynamic of Asia, so I will propose this idea... Pick holes it it at will
It seems that there are two kinds of division breaking.... (1) the kind that came in the original rules and (2) the kind that is suggested to alleviate some of the possible problems on the asian map.
What if we had two kinds of divisions that mirrored those two kinds of division breaking?
The second kind of division would not cause the parent unit to go back to the force pool until both divisions were destroyed (or rather one parent unit per 2 divisions destroyed) and these divisions will not be allowed to stack in the same hex with other units. This will prevent abuse of the damage allocation when it is necessary to spread a corps over more than one hex.
We could even have a rule that says type 2 divisions must remain within a certain number of hexes.
I have been labeled a purist in the past and am leery of creating new rules out of thin air, but there really are two good sides to the map scale / unlimited divisions argument and it may need some thoughts.
Comments?
Bridge is the best wargame going .. Where else can you find a tournament every weekend?
ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer
It seems that there are two kinds of division breaking.... (1) the kind that came in the original rules and (2) the kind that is suggested to alleviate some of the possible problems on the asian map.
What if we had two kinds of divisions that mirrored those two kinds of division breaking?
The second kind of division would not cause the parent unit to go back to the force pool until both divisions were destroyed (or rather one parent unit per 2 divisions destroyed) and these divisions will not be allowed to stack in the same hex with other units. This will prevent abuse of the damage allocation when it is necessary to spread a corps over more than one hex.
We could even have a rule that says type 2 divisions must remain within a certain number of hexes.
I like it, with some reservations. I could code it. It might be a little hard to explain to new players.
Let's put it on the list of possible ways to make sure the war in China doesn't become silly. There have been several suggestions made to prevent that and I believe we probably will have to play test them to see which to use. Of course, any of these changes that we put into MWIF will be options. I would also really like to keep the number of changes to an absolute minimum with as minor an effect as possible. You see, in my own way, I am a purist too.
-I really like unified scale and unlimited divisions
-for unlimited divisions to not cause disruptions to cor game mechanisms, however, I suggest two (house) rules:
1.Minor countries shouldn't be able to break down units, or else there are multiple exploits available
2.Some sort of corps-first loss rule should be played. I have a presonal favorite, basically that a DIV satisfies only half a loss, plus extra losses are half-losses.
If you use the two(or similar) rules above, unlimited DIV's basically become exactly what they were ment to be, an important tool to fill the low-density parts of the maps. Yes, Japan has more div's for it's supercombined, but there are also mor islands to take.
As for the china campaign, it is MUCH more fun in CWiF than in normal WiF. It's very high-mobility, knife-edge stuff. Both sides have horrible supply, and both sides can (and should) send DIV raiders behind enemy lines. Both sides are attacking and defending at the same time. The balance is still quite good, and more units do not really need to be added. One problem, however, is that the situation is not very stable, a small advantage to one side can easily magnify to a blowout victory.
I do have a few suggestions:
-China needs more cities. Chineese cities are currently so far apart that the loss of a front-line city will often lead to complete collapse, because the units holding the city's flanks will suddently be way OOS with little hope of ever reaching supply again (they will normally need 2-3 moves to come within 4 hexes of the next city). With more cities should go a reduced USE cost for taking cities.
-The setup rules are to advantageous for japan. China effectively has no internal lines, and are less mobile than Japan. Once they set up their defence, they're basically stuck in place. Japan can way to easily super-concentrate their forces against whatever weak spot there is in the chinese setup. This wasn't a huge issue in static WiFFE, but in mobile CWiF it can be disastrous. I suggest China should get some limited reaction to the japanese setup, (maybe a free pre-start land action??), perhaps coupled with a similar japanese "final adjustment")
-general balance is good, but if japan for whatever reson get's a bit on the ropes, it's also to easy for china to make japan pay. One should definately play with serious attack weakness or other similar options that would help allow japan to "hold the line" even with a reduced troop level.
btw, partisans work very nicely in CWiF, especially in china!!
-China needs more cities. Chineese cities are currently so far apart that the loss of a front-line city will often lead to complete collapse, because the units holding the city's flanks will suddently be way OOS with little hope of ever reaching supply again (they will normally need 2-3 moves to come within 4 hexes of the next city). With more cities should go a reduced USE cost for taking cities.
If a major re-balancing is done of China, this could be part of it. But a simple solution might just be to increase the number of Chinese cities, and leave USE rolls alone. Major Japanese advances would thus be a bit more difficult, and come at an increase in Entry.
Please note that I have created a new thread for play balance in China. I have moved all the comments in this thread (Maps for MWIF) to the new one. If you have comments on play balance (especially in China) using the unified scale or changes in the division breakdown rules, please post them in the play balance thread.
Thanks for all your suggestions. We have a bunch of concerns, and ideas for addressing them. In the next few weeks I expect to distill them down to something we can try to reach a consensus on. Even then there will probably be too many rules, but we can play test them to reduce the number further. And then give the players options to choose from so they can set the play balance to what they think is best.
I vote for a unified scale for the entire world. I suggest that you look into Buckminster Fuller's projection map of the world (http://www.bfi.org/map.htm), which is the most accurate flat map of the world, superimpose a hexagonal grid on that, capture the geographical info for each hex in a database and then have the computer figure out which ocean hexes on the sides of the map are continuous to each other behind the scenes so that naval units can move continuously all around the globe. The nice thing about this map is that all the land masses are already accurate shown in the same scale. From the database, the computer could then just dynamically create the map shown to the user in the user interface depending upon what region of the world the user chooses to view or scroll to. The advantage of this approach will be a uniform scale no matter what part of the globe is viewed.
.
