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

[macgregor]

I won't speculate as to why it was omitted from MWiF, but personally I think it represents an advantage the computer game has over the boardgame(which is probably why it's in CWiF). Why it was omitted after already being in CWiF is something I'd be interested in knowing. Am I alone in being a proponent of Fog of War? Does it not make for a more realistic game?

[Kham]

I am not sure. There is an optional rule with fleets - where you can have your opponent guessing what is in a task force. But WIF is a strategic level game and the small stuff is rolled into the dice rolls - search rolls in particular seem to account for a certain amount of naval hide and seek and the abstract air and land combat rolls could easily be perceived to include bad or no intelligence about the exact strength of enemy forces.
 
WIF does not need a Fog of War. Surprises happens all the time with all counters in plain sight.
 
 
 

[MajorDude]

ORIGINAL: Kham

... Surprises happens all the time with all counters in plain sight.

Oh, how true - lol! [:D]

[macgregor]

So you guys are essentially saying 'fog of war' is a casualty of Steve's vision and 'what's it to me?'. While I can imagine it a casualty of the plethora of information now already displayed on the pieces, I'd like to think it remains a target of a future MWiF product.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

So you guys are essentially saying 'fog of war' is a casualty of Steve's vision and 'what's it to me?'. While I can imagine it a casualty of the plethora of information now already displayed on the pieces, I'd like to think it remains a target of a future MWiF product.

I have discussed this on at least 2 occasions previously, in quite some detail.

The short story is that given the scale of the map and units, FOW is built into the game design. If the game were about infantry patrols into cities and the like, including FOW is obvious. But given that we are talking about 10,000 men, minimum, and moving them over a period of 1 - 2 weeks, the enemy pretty much always knew what was going on. Naval movement is once per turn, which simulates operations over a 2 month time period.

Surprise is implemented as a separate set of rules following declarations of war and in the search procedures when at sea. The other game element that enables surprise is the uncertainty as to who moves first in each turn and the ability of armored units to move 6 hexes in an impulse and then attack. We are talking about 540 KM (325 miles) here. Things like invasions and paradrops are not forewarned in the game - at least not as to where the attack will take place.

In summary, FOW in MWIF makes no real sense, in that it does not simulate anything. The forum discusssion on how to implement it revealed that rather clearly. For example, when can you 'see' a unit? What can you see? When does it 'disappear'? And so on. All of these questions can only be answered well if you have a fundamental design concept in place: what you are simulating. That could not be resolved in the forum discussion on this topic - for the reasons given above.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I have discussed this on at least 2 occasions previously, in quite some detail.

The short story is that given the scale of the map and units, FOW is built into the game design. If the game were about infantry patrols into cities and the like, including FOW is obvious. But given that we are talking about 10,000 men, minimum, and moving them over a period of 1 - 2 weeks, the enemy pretty much always knew what was going on. Naval movement is once per turn, which simulates operations over a 2 month time period.

Surprise is implemented as a separate set of rules following declarations of war and in the search procedures when at sea. The other game element that enables surprise is the uncertainty as to who moves first in each turn and the ability of armored units to move 6 hexes in an impulse and then attack. We are talking about 540 KM (325 miles) here. Things like invasions and paradrops are not forewarned in the game - at least not as to where the attack will take place.

In summary, FOW in MWIF makes no real sense, in that it does not simulate anything. The forum discusssion on how to implement it revealed that rather clearly. For example, when can you 'see' a unit? What can you see? When does it 'disappear'? And so on. All of these questions can only be answered well if you have a fundamental design concept in place: what you are simulating. That could not be resolved in the forum discussion on this topic - for the reasons given above.

I agree.

People interested in this, and knowledgable of the WiF FE game, can still devise a fog of war rule, that answers all the questions that such a rule carries with it (such as those listed by steve above), and I'm sure that Steve will happily add this to the future expansions of the MWiF game (MWiF 2 ?).

[macgregor]

Perhaps I should have spoken earlier. I agree that to some degree the scale would make front line engaged units fairly well-known. But if I'm the German preparing Barbarossa, the Japanese preparing 'plan Z', or even the Allies preparing the invasion of Europe, I'd like the little bit of extra secrecy such an optional rule would afford. WiF has always strived to represent the war as realistically as possible. Did the ability to obscure troop movement and weapon deployment play a factor in the war? I ask you.
I don't know. Without land reconnaissance being represented perhaps this is the logical compromise.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Perhaps I should have spoken earlier. I agree that to some degree the scale would make front line engaged units fairly well-known. But if I'm the German preparing Barbarossa, the Japanese preparing 'plan Z', or even the Allies preparing the invasion of Europe, I'd like the little bit of extra secrecy such an optional rule would afford. WiF has always strived to represent the war as realistically as possible. Did the ability to obscure troop movement and weapon deployment play a factor in the war? I ask you.
I don't know. Without land reconnaissance being represented perhaps this is the logical compromise.

Warspite1

"I'd like the little bit of extra secrecy such an optional rule would afford."

But you have that. The Germans knew the second front was coming - the only thing they did not know was exactly where and when. As the Allied player you can have your units in the UK ready for an invasion but that does not give away where - which part of France? Norway? etc; or the time the attack will take place.

Equally for operations in the Pacific - apart from extremes like Indian Ocean over Eastern Pacific, the Japanese player can diguise actual invasion points while amassing forces in say Truk or Rabaul or Manilla.

As for Stalin - he was not playing with Fog of War [:D] he had all the intelligence he needed - the Germans couldn`t have made it more clear they were massing for Barbarossa if they all stood up in flourescent jackets, each with a megaphone and screaming at the top of their voice "we are coming to get you".

I don`t think having a Fog of War option is a bad thing - I just don`t think WIF needs it.

[Orm]

Many (most?) countries had reconnaissance aircraft on divisional or corps level. They therefore had good knowledge on where the enemy was located and what type of formation it was.

With that said you could of course argue that you should perhaps not know the exact strength on the enemy units so you could calculate the odds before you attack. The die roll of the attack is fog of war enogh for me on a game on this scale.

At sea they usually knew in what sea area the enemy ships where located. Often they did not know the exact location but they did know the general area where the ship or submarines where located.

For example. During Bismarks infamous sortie to the Atlantic CW knew that Bismark sailed from the Baltic towards the North sea. From then on they knew exactly in which sea area Bismark was untill she was sunk. During this sortie most of the time CW had no idea of exactly where Bismark was but they sure did know in what sea area Bismark was in.

[brian brian]

I don't think the game needs very much in the way of Fog of War, either.

Some day I hope future designs with computer assistance can help implement simultaneous movement instead of the I-Go-You-Go approach, especially for naval movement.

[IKerensky_alt]

I played CWiF with FoW in solo and frankly it is a good riddance... FoW didn't add anything to WiF, it only make the attack most costly and stupid...

[Skanvak]

Hi,

I wonder if there will be a way to edit the CRT? One of our house rule is to modify the CRT to have result that required to lose a corps (or 2 division) even if there is a division to take the lose. Or that consider that a corps is 2 divisions for loss purpose. I wonder if it is possible to easily mod the final to have this result?

Don't bother if it is complicated, but it something I want to be able to do if that can be acheive easily.

As someone say a good fog of war with intelligence rules is really a must for a computer game, but I guess that such rules should be remade from scratch for the computer game. The original intelligence rules was here to simulate the advantage of intel in a no FoW envirronnement, where as with a computer you can really simulate the result (good, false or none) of intel and let the player try to make decision with imperfect information. That is a possibility to add another level of historicity as the allied intel services were generally better than the axis' one.

I guess that the CwiF FoW was total. I think that a FoW should never be total for unit on the front line (and in range on recon aircraft). That why I advocate a rethink fog of War. I mean a real one (the one where the German can see the Patton fake army as a real one or the Allied be able to know the location of all German sub in the atlantics). A good FoW is not a situation where you know nothing, but a situation where you know whatever your intel can tel you (right or wrong).

So I still advocate for a new FoW rules.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

Hi,

I wonder if there will be a way to edit the CRT? One of our house rule is to modify the CRT to have result that required to lose a corps (or 2 division) even if there is a division to take the lose. Or that consider that a corps is 2 divisions for loss purpose. I wonder if it is possible to easily mod the final to have this result?

Don't bother if it is complicated, but it something I want to be able to do if that can be acheive easily.

As someone say a good fog of war with intelligence rules is really a must for a computer game, but I guess that such rules should be remade from scratch for the computer game. The original intelligence rules was here to simulate the advantage of intel in a no FoW envirronnement, where as with a computer you can really simulate the result (good, false or none) of intel and let the player try to make decision with imperfect information. That is a possibility to add another level of historicity as the allied intel services were generally better than the axis' one.

I guess that the CwiF FoW was total. I think that a FoW should never be total for unit on the front line (and in range on recon aircraft). That why I advocate a rethink fog of War. I mean a real one (the one where the German can see the Patton fake army as a real one or the Allied be able to know the location of all German sub in the atlantics). A good FoW is not a situation where you know nothing, but a situation where you know whatever your intel can tel you (right or wrong).

So I still advocate for a new FoW rules.

Modifying the CRT falls into the category of what I consider WIF Design Kit, which is not part of MWIF product #1.
------
We reached a similar conclusion about fog of war. It needs to start with a philosophy about what is being simulated. Without that you are just making a bunch of ad hoc decisions. The time frame of multiple impulses per 2 month turn and the scale of 90 KM per hex makes FOW a very difficult idea to conceptualize for MWIF.

[Skanvak]

Is it the right place to ask if we can have an AI that has the historical leader psychology? I reckon it might too much work for now though but I think about it I would like to see it. I will developp if needed.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

Is it the right place to ask if we can have an AI that has the historical leader psychology? I reckon it might too much work for now though but I think about it I would like to see it. I will developp if needed.

I believe that will weaken the AIO too much, since it would then be very predictable.

We know what actually happened historically (though there are differring viewpoints on that). During the war, the historical leaders did not know what the other side was going to do (Enigma aside). When players say they would like to play against historical leaders, it just seems to me that they want to have a calendar of the enemy actions in advance.

Small things caused major changes in policy and decisions during the war. In retrospect we view them as "what Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Churchill/... decided" with the expectation that that would have been true regardless of what had gone before. If the Belgians had spotted the Germans about to paradrop into Liege and mounted a successful defense of the fortress, how would the rest of that campaign worked out? You can plug in any of hundreds/thousands of instances of small things that made a huge difference. The Japanese slacked off in their attacks in China, but if their earlier attacks had gone especially well, they might have increased their effort there enormously.

To restrict the AIO to always behaving in a set way: strategically, operationally, and tactically, regardless of other events in the war seems less than reasonable. Historically, the Axis made no effort to take Malta. So, if I am playing against an historical Axis AIO, there is no need to defend Malta at all. And be sure to put a strong defense in the Ardennes, so the Germans get crushed trying to force their way through there. Don't worry about an invasion of England, the Germans aren't going to attempt it; they are just going to hope the Brits sue for peace. And so on.

If you want more of an historical flavor, you could start the war at different points using one of the 6 scenarios that start later than Sept/Oct 1939. But even then don't expect the AIO to just plod along following a predictable historical course.
===
Perhaps I seem too harsh here, and if so, I apologize. But I keep having players ask for the AIO to play like 'historical' leaders. This is the first time I have buttressed my reasons so substantially with prose.

[composer99]

A common saying among WiF players is that we do not expect players to be forced to make the same mistakes that the real-life political & military leaders did (players will make their own mistakes instead). Playing Germany in my current table-top game, I would be upset if there was an expectation that I had to actually run my army into the ground the way Hitler did.

An AIO that was 'straitjacketed' into historical play would be easy to beat, from either side, which would reduce the historical value of the game even more than an AIO that attempted to play optimally.

[brian brian]

one can always play both sides and make them both do whatever you want

[brian brian]

I will say though that this 'historical AI' has been a very common feature request over the years of development. I'm not sure anyone really wants an AI opponent to follow a purely historical script. But I do think it would be and should be, without too much trouble in the script programming, for it to be possible for the AI choices to preclude really wild decisions like Japanese appearances in western Europe or the 'No-USA' gambits in either main theater; things that are possible within the rules of course but probably not all that plausible in history. This could actually be a way to strengthen the game and people's enjoyment of it....allowing the _possibility_ of the AI to pick such a wild strategy with no promises that it will happen, with as strong as possible grand strategy script to implement it; while disallowing some of the more extreme choices in most games. No one should tell the player just exactly what those are, just that they can turn off crazy game-only strategies. I don't think it would be hobbling the AI much to disallow the three strategies I mentioned, as they are ones only ever selected by experienced players looking for variety (and they are far from certified game-winners). Whereas if the AI were to make such a call against an unsuspecting human player, that would not be too popular.

[CSSS]

As far as FOW, if I am playing the German can I inspect the Russian stacks, or only see the top unit, unless I ground strike it?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: CSS

As far as FOW, if I am playing the German can I inspect the Russian stacks, or only see the top unit, unless I ground strike it?

No fog of war except for chits/markers (neutrality pacts and US Entry).