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

[micheljq]

The more important thing to me, being able to play with one or more human opponent(s) via internet. We are in 2008 and we cannot think of a PC game without a multiplayer version via internet.
The best would be to be able to play with as many players as five - exemple in a 4 map campaign.

The second most important thing, a game which does not chrash or chrash rarely and is stable even in multiplayer mode.

A good AI for when playing solo is important, but I find more important to be able to play against one or more human opponents via internet.

If MWiF, would be only playable in solo mode, I do not think me or my friends would buy it.

[borsook79]

Hope it's a good place to ask this:

Will the land units be only represented by Nato symbols or will it be possible to see them as icons (like air/navy in the screenshots)?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Borsook

Hope it's a good place to ask this:

Will the land units be only represented by Nato symbols or will it be possible to see them as icons (like air/navy in the screenshots)?

Warspite1

Borsook, the army units use the Nato symbols, there is no option for anything else.

[borsook79]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Borsook

Hope it's a good place to ask this:

Will the land units be only represented by Nato symbols or will it be possible to see them as icons (like air/navy in the screenshots)?

Warspite1

Borsook, the army units use the Nato symbols, there is no option for anything else.

That's really, really bad... If an alternative system will not be present I hope the counters will be in some easy to edit format (I'm one of those strange people who have been playing wargames for more than 20 years and yet cannot abide nato symbols [;)] )

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Borsook

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Borsook
Hope it's a good place to ask this:

Will the land units be only represented by Nato symbols or will it be possible to see them as icons (like air/navy in the screenshots)?

Warspite1

Borsook, the army units use the Nato symbols, there is no option for anything else.

That's really, really bad... If an alternative system will not be present I hope the counters will be in some easy to edit format (I'm one of those strange people who have been playing wargames for more than 20 years and yet cannot abide nato symbols [;)] )

Sorry but there are several good reasons for this:

1 - I want the game to match the board game as much as possible, and World in Flames Final Edition (WIF FE) uses the NATO symbols for the land unit depictions.

2 - There are 70 unit types in MWIF and most of those are land unit types. Devising a new system to replace the NATO symbols would be a lot of work and would force all the players to learn the new symbol set. And I cannot guarantee that you would like the new version any better.

3 - MWIF permits 8 levels of zoom and the unit depcitions have to be legible at most of those levels of zoom. I was unable to make zoom level 1 achieve that, and for zoom level 2 it is iffy. But for zoom levels 3 - 8, the NATO symbology works. Mostly this is because it does not rely on fine details.

As for letting players edit the graphics, from day 1 of working on this project (it is in my contract) I am not developing a WIF design kit. There is too much else to be done.

[borsook79]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
1 - I want the game to match the board game as much as possible, and World in Flames Final Edition (WIF FE) uses the NATO symbols for the land unit depictions.

Sure, that's why I have been inquiring about the existence of an alternative system, not a different default.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
2 - There are 70 unit types in MWIF and most of those are land unit types. Devising a new system to replace the NATO symbols would be a lot of work and would force all the players to learn the new symbol set. And I cannot guarantee that you would like the new version any better.

There are quite a few graphical systems already made, of course there may be copyright issues preventing their use. As for personal preference - everything is better than Nato [:)]

That said I do understand your point, and obviously there are other areas to concentrate upon than just graphics.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
3 - MWIF permits 8 levels of zoom and the unit depcitions have to be legible at most of those levels of zoom. I was unable to make zoom level 1 achieve that, and for zoom level 2 it is iffy. But for zoom levels 3 - 8, the NATO symbology works. Mostly this is because it does not rely on fine details.

Would it not be the same problem for Air/Naval units which seem to have graphical representation?

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
As for letting players edit the graphics, from day 1 of working on this project (it is in my contract) I am not developing a WIF design kit. There is too much else to be done.

Design kit? I merely hope files containing the counters will be in some "typical" format (bmp, tga, etc etc), this would be more than enough.

Concluding Nato symbols or not, the game seems to be a very promising one.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Borsook

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
1 - I want the game to match the board game as much as possible, and World in Flames Final Edition (WIF FE) uses the NATO symbols for the land unit depictions.

Sure, that's why I have been inquiring about the existence of an alternative system, not a different default.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
2 - There are 70 unit types in MWIF and most of those are land unit types. Devising a new system to replace the NATO symbols would be a lot of work and would force all the players to learn the new symbol set. And I cannot guarantee that you would like the new version any better.

There are quite a few graphical systems already made, of course there may be copyright issues preventing their use. As for personal preference - everything is better than Nato [:)]

That said I do understand your point, and obviously there are other areas to concentrate upon than just graphics.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
3 - MWIF permits 8 levels of zoom and the unit depcitions have to be legible at most of those levels of zoom. I was unable to make zoom level 1 achieve that, and for zoom level 2 it is iffy. But for zoom levels 3 - 8, the NATO symbology works. Mostly this is because it does not rely on fine details.

Would it not be the same problem for Air/Naval units which seem to have graphical representation?

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
As for letting players edit the graphics, from day 1 of working on this project (it is in my contract) I am not developing a WIF design kit. There is too much else to be done.

Design kit? I merely hope files containing the counters will be in some "typical" format (bmp, tga, etc etc), this would be more than enough.

Concluding Nato symbols or not, the game seems to be a very promising one.

For the air and naval units, which have individual bitmaps for each unit (2500+), I have devised an alternative set of 'crude' bitmaps (medium resolution) for use at the lower zoom levels. There are only a dozen or so different unit types for each or those branches of the armed forces, but even then, it can be hard to tell them apart at zoom level 2, without careful examination.

For the land units, I simply make the NATO symbol slightly larger at the lower zoom levels - as well as making all the numbers larger at the same time. What is lost is the text and other smaller symbology (e.g., R for reserve unit). But it is fairly easy to understand what type of units are ni each hex at zoom level 3 using medium resolution.

[panzers]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: ezz

Just out of interest which WIF ' extras' and 'adds' do people enjoy the most/least.

i am in the Norman42 camp for DOD 1+2 [ never tried3]. It was  great fun but we stopped using it pretty quickly and substituted politics in flames if we were to use anything.

Planes in flames .. A must have + carriers planes in flames too
mech in flames .. have it but have never used it { was this asia in flames ? ]
Patton in flames only played once and was the best ww3 strategy game ever.. would love that as an add  on
Leaders in flames .. too much chrome
Cruisers in flames dont have
convoys don't have , but did used to like the sub system from wif historical.
+ plenty of good house rules on that site http://home.earthlink.net/~devinc/wifhouse.htm
Sif ++

+ i'm sure there are more

From your list, ...

MWIF product 1:
Planes in Flames and Ships in Flames are mandatory, not optional.
Mech in Flames (Asia Aflame), Cruisers in Flames, and Convoys in Flames (optional rules)

Future MWIF products (in no particular order):
DOD III,
Politics in Flames,
America in Flames,
Patton in Flames,
Leaders in Flames.

I am very reluctant to add house rules, since they are so numerous and often go directly against the intent of the WIF game designers.

There are also a whole host of issues that I categorize as "WIF design kit".

is Africa aflame automatically incorporated into it, or is it simply left out?

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: panzers
is Africa aflame automatically incorporated into it, or is it simply left out?

Included, but options allow to not play with some of its counters components (i.e. TERR, Synth oil...).
But the map is automaticaly included.

[hjaco]

In whole and large I would prefer a copy of the existing WIF.

I am not religious to the expanded Asia/pacific scale but I am a bit nervous about the impact it makes on especially Japans ability to take necessary targets within a short time frame when extra hexes needs to be taken with an unchanged number of troops. So please evaluate the amount of available divisions in the Pacific.

Do something about the ridiculous strategic bombardment column on the lowest column. An able Japanese player will normally bomb the crap out of Chinese production with all those old 1 factor strategic factor LND by bombing each factory at 50% chance in an air impulse, reorganising some and continue the dose.

[macgregor]

Netplay will require players to be online at the same time. But they will be able to other thing as well I'm imagining, as long as it doesn't take them from earshot of the computer. Perhaps the sound of a WW2 era communications ringer will call a player to make a decision or a move. People who work from their computers could conceivably do both work and play, though I wouldn't recommend it. Undoubtedly it will happen though. I don't see why one would have to be logged into a website. As long as the designated game server has the addresses of all the players,it should be able to update the maps and call their attention by something akin to IM. No?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Netplay will require players to be online at the same time. But they will be able to other thing as well I'm imagining, as long as it doesn't take them from earshot of the computer. Perhaps the sound of a WW2 era communications ringer will call a player to make a decision or a move. People who work from their computers could conceivably do both work and play, though I wouldn't recommend it. Undoubtedly it will happen though. I don't see why one would have to be logged into a website. As long as the designated game server has the addresses of all the players,it should be able to update the maps and call their attention by something akin to IM. No?

Yes.

We fully expect players to occasionally disconnect during a game session and the program will then have to bring their copy of the game up-to-date when they re-connect. Accomplishing that is a fundamental aspect of the program design for NetPlay.

[Sgt.Fury25]

Definitly a good AI.And if this wasnt mentioned already the ability to change the end game date for us players who need the extra time.[&o]Thanks

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Ronson

Definitly a good AI.And if this wasnt mentioned already the ability to change the end game date for us players who need the extra time.[&o]Thanks

Changing the end date is already an optional rule.

One thing I haven't made a final decision on is whether the player should be allowed to change that during the game. All the other optional rules are set in stone at the beginning of the game. But changing the end date I am not so sure about. I can argue it either way.

[YohanTM2]

I think you would have to program that a change in end date needs the OK of all players...

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Ronson

Definitly a good AI.And if this wasnt mentioned already the ability to change the end game date for us players who need the extra time.[&o]Thanks

Changing the end date is already an optional rule.

One thing I haven't made a final decision on is whether the player should be allowed to change that during the game. All the other optional rules are set in stone at the beginning of the game. But changing the end date I am not so sure about. I can argue it either way.

[ptey]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Ronson

Definitly a good AI.And if this wasnt mentioned already the ability to change the end game date for us players who need the extra time.[&o]Thanks

Changing the end date is already an optional rule.

One thing I haven't made a final decision on is whether the player should be allowed to change that during the game. All the other optional rules are set in stone at the beginning of the game. But changing the end date I am not so sure about. I can argue it either way.

If its not allowed to change it during the game, I think most people would simply play with this option set. So just case you wanna go on after JA 45 you have the option of doing it. If its not a huge amount of work, why not allow it?

Besides that, I still thinks you should focus you AI programming efforts on some kinda specific set of options, or atleast put more consideration into some than others. Since several options changes strategic and/or tactical decisions by a considerable amount (imo), and afaik some options are much more frequently used than others.
That should help getting a semi-competitive AI done in a reasonable amount of time. Creating an AI that makes good decisions in most/all situations with any set of options in use seems like an almost impossible task. I will be very happy to be proven wrong, but judging by the AI's in other games (with larger budgets I asume) and the complexity of WiF, I dont think its gonna happen. Sorry to sound pessimistic.[:(]

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Ronson

Definitly a good AI.And if this wasnt mentioned already the ability to change the end game date for us players who need the extra time.[&o]Thanks

Changing the end date is already an optional rule.

One thing I haven't made a final decision on is whether the player should be allowed to change that during the game. All the other optional rules are set in stone at the beginning of the game. But changing the end date I am not so sure about. I can argue it either way.

If all players agree, why not ?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: ptey

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Ronson

Definitly a good AI.And if this wasnt mentioned already the ability to change the end game date for us players who need the extra time.[&o]Thanks

Changing the end date is already an optional rule.

One thing I haven't made a final decision on is whether the player should be allowed to change that during the game. All the other optional rules are set in stone at the beginning of the game. But changing the end date I am not so sure about. I can argue it either way.

If its not allowed to change it during the game, I think most people would simply play with this option set. So just case you wanna go on after JA 45 you have the option of doing it. If its not a huge amount of work, why not allow it?

Besides that, I still thinks you should focus you AI programming efforts on some kinda specific set of options, or atleast put more consideration into some than others. Since several options changes strategic and/or tactical decisions by a considerable amount (imo), and afaik some options are much more frequently used than others.
That should help getting a semi-competitive AI done in a reasonable amount of time. Creating an AI that makes good decisions in most/all situations with any set of options in use seems like an almost impossible task. I will be very happy to be proven wrong, but judging by the AI's in other games (with larger budgets I asume) and the complexity of WiF, I dont think its gonna happen. Sorry to sound pessimistic.[:(]

No, I agree with you. I have already marked No Zones of Control during the Surprise Impulse and Bounce as two options the AIO will not permit to be chosen. There might be others, but I will try to not eliminate any more than I feel is absolutely necessary.

The problem with being allowed to change the end date is that the AIO (and human players too) will change their production plans for naval units 2 years before the end of the game. If the game suddenly is extended 2 years, or shortened by 2 years, then production planning gets badly messed up. And consider the situation where the player changes the end date of the game every turn, just to confuse the AIO.[:)]

[panzers]

Now that I am at WiFcon 2008, and am playing the FE for the first time. I would hope that for the email game that there would be nation bidding. That was a wonderful feature about the game, and in the thread where there will be several pics of the current WiFcon, you may notice some things in there, at least in my game, that affect the overall game. It is the ultimate game balancer. I would think implementing that would be very simple to design within the game. We had a lot of hijinks and hilliarity at the con and it was a great introduction to all the players.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: ptey

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets



Changing the end date is already an optional rule.

One thing I haven't made a final decision on is whether the player should be allowed to change that during the game. All the other optional rules are set in stone at the beginning of the game. But changing the end date I am not so sure about. I can argue it either way.

If its not allowed to change it during the game, I think most people would simply play with this option set. So just case you wanna go on after JA 45 you have the option of doing it. If its not a huge amount of work, why not allow it?

Besides that, I still thinks you should focus you AI programming efforts on some kinda specific set of options, or atleast put more consideration into some than others. Since several options changes strategic and/or tactical decisions by a considerable amount (imo), and afaik some options are much more frequently used than others.
That should help getting a semi-competitive AI done in a reasonable amount of time. Creating an AI that makes good decisions in most/all situations with any set of options in use seems like an almost impossible task. I will be very happy to be proven wrong, but judging by the AI's in other games (with larger budgets I asume) and the complexity of WiF, I dont think its gonna happen. Sorry to sound pessimistic.[:(]

No, I agree with you. I have already marked No Zones of Control during the Surprise Impulse and Bounce as two options the AIO will not permit to be chosen. There might be others, but I will try to not eliminate any more than I feel is absolutely necessary.

The problem with being allowed to change the end date is that the AIO (and human players too) will change their production plans for naval units 2 years before the end of the game. If the game suddenly is extended 2 years, or shortened by 2 years, then production planning gets badly messed up. And consider the situation where the player changes the end date of the game every turn, just to confuse the AIO.[:)]

So let's have this being possible only if more than 2 years from the end when playing the AI, and anywhen if all players agree if playing real humans.