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

[sw30]

make it a Mac only game.

[marcuswatney]

Setting-up from scratch (i.e. entirely free deployment) can be very tedious and time-consuming.  One thing which would be incredibly useful would be the facility to start with a vanilla opening (say 'historical') with the option to tweak it by dragging units elsewhere.  This would help people who want to try changes in one part of the map but not another.  And, given the rather unforgiving nature of some aspects of WiF, it would be a boon to the complete newbie who would be able to get stuck into a game immediately, confident that his opening position didn't include some massively fatal flaw.

[ezzler]

Agree, a standars setup 'historical' is an excellent idea.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

Setting-up from scratch (i.e. entirely free deployment) can be very tedious and time-consuming.  One thing which would be incredibly useful would be the facility to start with a vanilla opening (say 'historical') with the option to tweak it by dragging units elsewhere.  This would help people who want to try changes in one part of the map but not another.  And, given the rather unforgiving nature of some aspects of WiF, it would be a boon to the complete newbie who would be able to get stuck into a game immediately, confident that his opening position didn't include some massively fatal flaw.

WIF has one important design element that works against what you propose. That is, all air units and most land units are drawn randomly from an available pool. If we were to set up historically, setting aside the fact that it would require a lot of historical research, we would be ignoring this fundamental game design element.

I have taken 3 steps to address the problem you raise:

1 - Starting setup positions for non-random units can be saved. This includes just about the entire navies, with the exceptions of transports, AMPHs, and submarines. It also includes named units, like HQs, and generic units, like fortifications and saved oil points. By having the beta testers create saved setup poisitions for all the major powers for all the scenarios, we achieve what you suggested for roughly 40% of the units.

2 - The final product will included saved games, where the save was made after all the units have been set up. Of course these positions will use roughly 60% of randomly drawn units. They will not be 'historically' accurate. If the beta testers, who will created these saved games, know what they are about, there should not be 'fatal' flaws.

3 - One section of the players manual will be written for the express purpose of apprising new players of the importance of critical decisions they have to make. Clearly, where to place units during setup is one such decision. I do not want that section to drone on and on about what to do and what not to do, but still, it should give new players a heads up for avoiding poor starting placements for their units.

[ezzler]

I don't believe he actually wanted a completely acurate 'Historical ' set up with the ACTUAL historical units in place... Rather a 'Quick set up' much as you describe in 2]

I am sure someone will Mod the Historical setup at some point.. but for me the ability to have a quicker, or partial set up would be useful.

[marcuswatney]

That's right.  I wasn't proposing an absolutely historical set-up, but rather a 'sensible' set-up in line with the historical situation, and in particular one where there are no glaring errors, so that newbies can get stuck in straight away without falling flat on their faces.  For example, the sort of questions a new player is likely to puzzle over are what sort of German garrison is required facing the Maginot Line, where should aircraft be based so that they are effective without being vulnerable, does the major port with its precious fleet need a fighter unit there too, etc. etc.?
 
Probably the most time-consuming thing for a newbie, unfamiliar with the location of all factories and resources, will be setting up efficient convoy routes.  So a routine that sets up an accepted 'standard' web of convoys, which can then be tweaked to suit the player's preference, would be very welcome.
 
This suggestion of mine probably stems from the memory of a traumatic first-ever game of Third Reich in 1974 where, as Germany, I managed to get myself defeated by the Poles in one turn!

[Norman42]

a 'sensible' set-up in line with the historical situation, and in particular one where there are no glaring errors, so that newbies can get stuck in straight away without falling flat on their faces

 
This is an excellent idea.
 
The neophyte player would probably be quite savaged by the AI repeatedly as he learns proper initial setups so as not to lose in the first turn. I don't imagine that would be fun or productive.

[marcuswatney]

I'd also like to have the option not to micro-manage, not even issuing standing orders, particularly when it comes to naval air combat.  In such a mode, the player would just order his task-force to attack a particular place and then leave it to the admiral on the bridge (the AI) to choose sensible attack formations, etc.
 
I think you could play four games in this mode in the time it would take to play one game micro-managing, which I would value.

[Charles2222]

My main wish is for more turns. I thought somebody told me before that it was every 6 weeks (10 turns a year, but somebody else on this very thread said every 2 months). Which is it? In any case I would rather have 26 or 52 turns a year. Every 2 months just won't get me buying this. Even 10 turns a year will have hesitating to buy it. I suppose that would involve a total re-scaling of the maps into smaller pieces and/or units which are slower. I just can't imagine playing a game where you pretty much get 2 turns for attacking every year (3 at most) in the case of GGWAW (seasonal turns).
 
I think the game will come with an AI, but if the turns are too sparse that won't matter to me, but yes, definitely a good AI.

[warspite1]

You cannot change the number of turns - that completely changes the game!  Rest assured one turn every two months is not as restrictive as it sounds.  There are numerous (variable) number of impulses each turn so its not as though you can only move/attack with a unit once a turn.  Try it - its a brilliant game!!   
 
 

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

I'd also like to have the option not to micro-manage, not even issuing standing orders, particularly when it comes to naval air combat.  In such a mode, the player would just order his task-force to attack a particular place and then leave it to the admiral on the bridge (the AI) to choose sensible attack formations, etc.

I think you could play four games in this mode in the time it would take to play one game micro-managing, which I would value.

I would like to ask that this be an option only and that the ability to micro manage is the default mode in the game. Given that the quality of the AI is an unknown - I would not like to have the usage of precious assets decided by the AI - its my job to waste my forces in stupid attacks - not the computer!!

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

You cannot change the number of turns - that completely changes the game!  Rest assured one turn every two months is not as restrictive as it sounds.  There are numerous (variable) number of impulses each turn so its not as though you can only move/attack with a unit once a turn.  Try it - its a brilliant game!!   

Yes, I hadn't read much of the thread before I made that comment, but I do hope I have enough time in any case where I feel like I have put a good sized effort into say an Eastern Front summer before having to bog down.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

My main wish is for more turns. I thought somebody told me before that it was every 6 weeks (10 turns a year, but somebody else on this very thread said every 2 months). Which is it? In any case I would rather have 26 or 52 turns a year. Every 2 months just won't get me buying this. Even 10 turns a year will have hesitating to buy it. I suppose that would involve a total re-scaling of the maps into smaller pieces and/or units which are slower. I just can't imagine playing a game where you pretty much get 2 turns for attacking every year (3 at most) in the case of GGWAW (seasonal turns).

I think the game will come with an AI, but if the turns are too sparse that won't matter to me, but yes, definitely a good AI.

There are 36 turns, but a turn is broken down into a variable impulse number, and the actual moments where you move your units are the impulses. So you actualy move your units a variable number per turn.
As an average, there are 125 impulses per global war game per side, that means that each side will move his units 125 times.

This is the same as if there was 125 turns, but only 36 "strategic turns" where you build units, and bring in reinforcements.

[Charles2222]

Maybe the most sensible method of getting the game strictly historical, for whatever amount any scenario designer may wish, no matter how you decide on the method of delivering that, would be to find some method, maybe ingame, in which the user is told what each nation you play had historically built on each turn/phase. This way you can go with the history if you choose, but the wide open nature of the game is still available.

[Charles2222]

Thanks, that certainly makes that clearer.

[pmath]

A lot of really good points have been made in this forum. This is a mammoth undertaking, and I would like to suggest that the final product be delivered in stamges. If we had a good shell to launch the product w/ Corps level detail the core countries and some but not all of the scenarios, future releases could address Division level detail etc. I wouldn't even mind allowing the developers to get a game out with a reasonable price tag for this leevel undertaking and creating expansion modules that would have to be purchased on top of the base game so that those who want the additional details help fund their development. As much as we want in this game it would be a shame if it became such a monster and that it was so complex, that it become almost unplayable. I think scaling down a little of the comlexity and eliminating some options is probably logical for the computer version.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: pmath

A lot of really good points have been made in this forum. This is a mammoth undertaking, and I would like to suggest that the final product be delivered in stamges. If we had a good shell to launch the product w/ Corps level detail the core countries and some but not all of the scenarios, future releases could address Division level detail etc. I wouldn't even mind allowing the developers to get a game out with a reasonable price tag for this leevel undertaking and creating expansion modules that would have to be purchased on top of the base game so that those who want the additional details help fund their development. As much as we want in this game it would be a shame if it became such a monster and that it was so complex, that it become almost unplayable. I think scaling down a little of the comlexity and eliminating some options is probably logical for the computer version.

Well, this was the primary topic when I negotiated my contract with Matrix in July 2005. I won a few of those discussions, in that Days of Decision III, Patton in Flames, and America in Flames are not part of MWIF product 1. I was also able to eliminate trying to produce a WIF Design Kit where the players would be able to modify everything under the sun. The last item is something that ADG was trying to do when they had the game under development.

But I couldn't persuade Matrix to drop Cruisers in Flames and Carriers in Flames, so they are part of MWIF product 1.

CWIF only had 3 scenarios and adding the missing 8 has requiredsubstantially more work than I originally thought it would, which included many fundamental changes to the code structure.

I have cut a few optional rules that were present in CWIF (e.g., Fog of War), but they have been replaced by others where an original optional rule fragmented into pieces. Net result, we ended up with 81 optional rules, which is pretty close to where we started.

I have held the line quite firmly on feature creep, only caving in when an addition was both important to my vision of MWIF and not too hard to implement.

I don't see things changing in regard to any of these items prior to the release of MWIF product 1.

[panzers]

I haven't read all the posts, but does that mean DOD is not going to be part of the equasion? If So, that would be tragic, because that is a huge part of this game. I highly suggest you put that option in there even if it means delaying it that much further. It would be well worth the time. Guys: please back me up in this.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: panzers

I haven't read all the posts, but does that mean DOD is not going to be part of the equasion? If So, that would be tragic, because that is a huge part of this game. I highly suggest you put that option in there even if it means delaying it that much further. It would be well worth the time. Guys: please back me up in this.

First things first. MWIF product 1 is for WIF FE. If that succeeds, then I'll be working on 2 & 3, though precisely what goes into those hasn't been worked out yet.

[Mitchellvitch]

As a long-term lurker leaving at long last the shadows, it seems to be traditional to offer at this point my congratulations on the absolute glory that is MWIF, and all of the tremendous work that has gone in to it: as a WIFer-in-exile I can only pant in anticipation of release. You will put, to quote a player from my old group, the gay back in gaming. Hats off to Steve and everyone else who has helped out.

I just had to jump in to comment on the DOD issue: who needs it? That sounds a bit brutal, but I've never seen the thrill of '37, as it were. Give me '42 any day.

Every WIFer, has, I suppose, different expansion preferences, but this game, when it comes, is going to be the greatest way to avoid work and study ever.