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

[YohanTM2]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

Wif always had problems with stacking too many units (land + air + naval) in the one hex. Hamburg was always a nightmare as were other key ports in the Pacific. Could Matrix consider a filter option that lets players display just air or just naval counters on the map? That would make life easier when hunting around for another uncommitted air unit to help the Panzers reach 3:1 for the final attack on Paris

Excellent idea [&o]

[Mziln]

[:)] In the demo you would click on the stack and a window would pop up. This window had a filter for land, air, special units, and naval units (by CV, BB, CA, Submarines, transports, and convoys). [:)]

What I think would be an improvement would be to show resources available in countries to make spotting of the convoy pipeline bottlnecks eaiser. Or maybe highlight convoys that have more resources reaching them than they can handle so you would see the bottlenecks.

[BumMcFluff]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski
...Second, this is not fantasy land or Bizarro World. I would look with disfavor on any attempt to build "alternate history" like 1933 starting dates or wholesale unit scale changes into this simulation. It should still be "WiF," not "WWII Era War Construction Kit."

If that option is there, isn't it then up to the individual player whether they wish to use it?

[pasternakski]

You're not getting my point. The game has a design. It is intended to offer a simulation of a particular historical situation. It can't do everything. It has to be built within the framework of the design decisions.

Here, WiF starts you off in fall 1939 as it was historically. It is built around that start date and those historical conditions. If the game accommodates other start dates or situations, it has to be a different design. I suspect that the ADG variants (and others) will come along eventually as add-ons or scenarios, but these will not be part of the core game that is now being created.

You can have a focused historical simulation, or you can have a blurry kiddie game. I choose the former.

[BumMcFluff]

I don't see it as "a blurry kiddie game". I see it as an alternative history. A version of a "what if?" scenario.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Timeline.

I hear that Matrix Games is going to take up the attempt to get involved with seeing World in Flames brought to the computer.
This I like.

Then the game becomes a forum topic, and much discussion ensues.

Then it becomes clear everyone expects cWiF to be better than sliced bread.
This is unfortunate.

Given a choice, if I was in charge, I would make the attempt to bring computer World in Flames into creation based off the basic game only, with at best a very modest attempt at an AI.

I would soundly and firmly refuse to attempt to release the game encompassing every single module or concept variant every made or thought up. I would not defacto assume an AI was going to be possible. I would likely settle for making all the maps a unified consistent image and be happy if the game ran true to the actual game design.

Now I have been following the various comments, and I think collectively we are all asking for the moon here.

Glad I am not in charge.

I bet Gary is having less trouble with his game

[Mziln]

[:)] Just because the thread is tytled "What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game" dosn't mean its going to happen.

This is not a demand for everyones requirements for the game it's a request by the readers of this board interested in this particulart game. [:)]

The game wouldn't need all the bells and wistles all at once. It's just what you think would enhance the game.

[BumMcFluff]

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

If 9 out of 10 persons demand an AI, and the need of an AI kills the game, then 9 out of 10 people will have killed the game.

Simple as that.

If 9 out of 10 persons demand an AI, and the need of an AI doesn't kill the game, then 9 out of 10 people will have been right!

Who are you to say that AI will kill the game? Just because you don't like it, we have to suffer?

Simple as that.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

It's a half full vs half empty argument to simply reverse what I said BumMcfluff

As for who am I, why of course I am the legendary Les the Sarge

Of course you have to suffer if I wish it

[ASHBERY76]

If they release this game with no or very basic A.I it wont just kill the game but kill matrix, because nobody will buy it! apart from a couple of boardgame diehards..

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76

If they release this game with no or very basic A.I it wont just kill the game but kill matrix, because nobody will buy it! apart from a couple of boardgame diehards..

I don't know if it would kill Matrix, but it would definitely kill this game. Every survey of wargamers ever done, from the SPI feedback back in the '70s to PCGamer's poll that I saw sometime in 2002 shows one thing: at least three out of four games played are played solitaire. We can strut around here and do PBEM AARs and call for TCP/IP play all we want, but we are in a small minority of the customer base for games such as this.

An object lesson is the huge success of "Galactic Civilizations" last year. This game is playable exclusively by one player. To date, it has shipped over 100,000 copies ($40 American per). A competent AI was a #1 design emphasis. I don't have the figures on "Railroad Tycoon 3," but it has done extremely well. While this game can be played by more than one human player, when you look at it, the obvious emphasis is on solitaire play - and again, AI development took up as much design time as anything else, and competent AI play is a feature that is emphasized in the advertising.

Time to wake up and smell the coffee...

[Greyshaft]

It's a half full vs half empty argument to simply reverse what I said BumMcfluff

As for who am I, why of course I am the legendary Les the Sarge

Of course you have to suffer if I wish it

Scientific studies have shown that 9 out of 10 posts made by Les the Sarge are made to offend people and in 9 out of 10 cases he succeeds. [:D][:D][:D]

(You might think that his 9_1 tag is a reference to Advanced Squad Leader but it is actually an obscure reference to this little known fact. )

[Greyshaft]

Can CWiF be equipped with a numeric victory scale so that we can compare our performance for each game? For example, rather than getting a "Decisive Victory" three times in a row we could then see that we had scores of (say) 92, 96, then 94 which gives us something to aim for next time. Making the scale logarithimic will add to the challenge.

[pasternakski]

Yeah, I asked les one time if he ever wanted to be promoted to a 10-2 (which in ASL is a commissioned officer), and he said no. I guess a sarge is a sarge is a sarge.

Legendary? I dunno. There've been a lot of sarges out there...

[BumMcFluff]

I haven't played the demo for a long time, so please bear with me if this is already included...

Large groups of ship in a sea area should be able to be combined into a single Task Force icon.
Similarly, groups of land units should be able to be combined into groups (with the smallest number of movement points counting for the whole). This would add up to easier handling of units.

[BumMcFluff]

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

It's a half full vs half empty argument to simply reverse what I said BumMcfluff

As for who am I, why of course I am the legendary Les the Sarge

Of course you have to suffer if I wish it

I think AI should be included, and you don't have to use it. And it's not a half full vs half empty argument. Your initial statement was just a manifestation of your bias. You don't want it, so you'll pretend to have statistics on your side. [:(]

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

I made no pretense at statistics, the phrase 9 out of 10 is a turn of a phrase and nothing more.

What I was stating when I said that, was if 90% of those clamouring that an AI is imperitive get their way, and it is likely it will be so, then the 10 percent will have the opportunity to say I told you so. If indeed, the AI accomplishes nothing.

It might even be less than an actual 10%, but the phrase is normally termed "9 out of 10". Hence the reason I used it. It is no different than the cliche 4 out of 5 (you don't really think they actually interview 5 dentists and get those 4 out of 5 results do you ).

Oh and by the way, when was the last time anyone did a "scientific study" on you hehe eh eh eh

I'm clearly awesome (and I intend to remind you if I have to, besides it makes the post more funny when I do this).

Oh point of note, I am probably more likely a humble 8-1 in real life, but I chose 9-1 to honour Sgt Kelso, who is a hero to any Squad Leader player hehe.
10-2 sounds to much like an officer and a gentleman, and that gentleman part gives me the shudders.

[Cheesehead]

I think AI should be included, and you don't have to use it. And it's not a half full vs half empty argument. Your initial statement was just a manifestation of your bias. You don't want it, so you'll pretend to have statistics on your side.

I think Sarge would be thrilled if CWiF came out with a decent AI. He's just afraid that AI will kill the project because he is a skeptic. [:)]

[Greyshaft]

BumMcFluff:
(All of this discussion is irrelevent since Matrix has already promised that there will be an AI, but please continue the discussion. I enjoy a good bitch session.) Don't make the mistake of taking Les seriously. His post are divided 50/50 between rational discussion and seeing which newbie he can tease. Looks like he's got you well and truly hooked [:D]

Actually I think the reason Les doesn't want an AI is because he's afraid it will beat him 9 out of 10 times [;)]

[SeaMonkey]

"Actually I think the reason Les doesn't want an AI is because he's afraid it will beat him 9 out of 10 times" .

Amen to that Greyshaft, Les is still struggling with the SC AI. Well Sarge, how about it, a little humble pie maybe, ...I know its a "Slow Ride".