Matrix Games Forums

You're right about WiF naval being abstracted Stretch, but at least Wif gave you some feeling about control over the actual combat... actually handling the counters while you were counting up the attack factors...deciding which attacking planes to abort because of AA... selecting which ships were sunk/damaged etc all gave a YOU ARE THERE feel to the game which was sadly lacking with HOI naval.

As far as abstracted searching is concerned, I reckon that it works a whole lot better that way. You create a couple of Battle Groups and tell them to go out and find the enemy in that particular area... sounds like the way it actually happened. The High Level Command Control is certainly more realistic than Third Reichs count out the hexes method

The reason why I eventually put down HOI (I reinstalled it recently on my new PC, but after loading it once I shut the whole peace down again and decided it was not worth relearning that game) is mostly linked to its ridiculous naval warfare aspect.

The first time you have the combine German submarine fleet together with their surface raiders and surface fleet (a dozen sub squadrons, half a dozen heavy and another half dozen light cruisers as well as 2 or 3 battleships) try and fight face to face against the combined british Home Fleet and Channel Fleet you see that at least the ai is greatly flawed (for one thing it didn't seem to send out it's subs and raiders out well in advance of war, then once war was declared it send every single seaworthy ship along the same route). On the other hand, you can also notice some more serious issues once this situation arrises, which is that the combined Home and Channel fleets get trashed in this action, they win but the first vessels engaged are almost certainly destroyed (oh I forgot to mention that the french usually come to help as well, so it's 3 major fleets) and most others beat up beyond recognition. HOI uses pure attrition warfare for naval combat which simply does not reflect reality. Add to this that with all versions I used (probably not the latest), aircraft carriers were of little if any use, also small carriers like HMS Hermes have as much capacity as a late war Midway when it comes carrying aircraft (yes the Midway will be faster, better armoured etc.). This problem with carrier airpower is bad enoiugh for European operations, I don't want to imagine how it would be for the Pacific conflict (I only played the 36 and 39 scenarios, and never beyond early 41 or so).

When it comes to land warfare, the game seems to do reasonably well, though much could be improved yet (I think I wrote some sugestions for HOI2 on the paradox boards, can't remember it all now). As to airwarfare, it works somewhat and is definitelly not as game wreaking as the naval aspect. The tech and construction parts of the game are nice, but like the rest of the game not entirely thought out I feel. So mostly I feel HOI has potential, but that at this time it's not worth spending much time on. My past experience with Paradox games is also such that I won't try to mod HOi or take part in such a team (you will sooner or later find the limits of the design, I did so within days of trying to create a decent Revolutionary-napoleonic scenario for EU2, or during my attempt to mod the EU2 Grand Campaign to allow for a realistic early game, all the material for serious moddying seem to be present, but eventually you will find the hardcoded material you can't mod past). Additionally, after having bought EU (a more or less faithful copy of Azure Wish's board game), EU2, Legion (they never even credit GMT and Richard Berg for copying large parts of his game rules and tables (I think even commentaries directly taken from rule or scenario books)) and HOI, I don't trust Paradox sufficiently to buy another product before it has undergone some major public testing (all those games have potential but appear to be little tested if at all, they just aren't finished products, and unlike a board game you can't fix serious problems in a computer game). I think the people at Paradox wish to provide serious and quality games, but somewhere along the line marketing wins out (which might explain their use of real time gaming based on old turn based games).

And like Les the Sarge I greatly prefer turn based gaming. The Paradox games were probably the only so called real time games I spent many hours playing. The reason for that is obviously the modulable speed of play and pause option (which is not an option in multi player though, so the most challenging games would be unpauseable except for emergencies). Another reason is that I know that the EU engine is really turn based and only has a semblance of real time mechanics superimposed (I wish they just left it turn based).

I think I'll start studying WiF rules again and start preparing myself for a hopefully soon to arrive WiF board here at Matrix:-) Now I'll only need a serious computerised division scale game about WWII (and WWI) (I won't call it computer Europa, but that's roughly what I'm thinking of).

Marc aka Caran... only playing beer and bretzel games these days as good monster games just take too much time and space

OK guys let's forget about this HoI fiasco and talk about what we want for WiF, the computer version. I love the concept of grand strategy, directing the economics and politics of a region/country. I also prefer the operational level of combat on the TOAW scale or sort of like SC presents it. I guess I'm saying I want control over the combat units, moving them and engaging them in combat. I also want to attach and detach various elements of the unit, kind of like a TO & E but not necessarily the equipment, possibly an organization(squadron, squad, etc) of the equipment. I'm not talking about a specific model of tank for instance but say something like "light tanks", medium tanks, heavy tanks, etc. with possibly a level of technological advancement connected. Now for combat, I would prefer a zoomed in screen of the area with terrain to deploy the various units that make up the one general combat icon represented on the strategic map. I have never played AA RDoA but I've been monitoring the HttR forum and it seems to me this RT game system works pretty well on the scale that is represented. I'm also impressed with what "Battlefields" is proposing to deliver as a combat model. Is it possible that we could deviate from the strategic concept of WiF to fight the battles on more of an operational/grand tactical scale without to much micromangement? It seems to me the only way to connect the large scale battles of Europe with the small scale island invasions of the Pacific is to have some way of presenting the battles at various scales. If you imagine a large hex is nothing more than a large grouping of smaller hexes in a concentric arrangement is seems we could scale the battles to the appropriate size of the combat units involved. Is this clear or does it seem like a ramble, do y'all get this idea? Can a computer code be written to accomodate such an idea? Would it be to difficult for an AI?

James:
I'm not keen on your complex economy idea . WiF uses factory and oil hexes with convoys to move the build points to the homeland. It's simple but it works and anything more than that would distract the AI from the more important work of planning/fighting a war. HOI had a much more complex economy but I don't feel it added anything to the game. I did like their convoy model.

I can't see the megahex idea working out for combat. Too much data needed and too many problems in resolving casualties... how do you make your single 5-4 infantry counter take the 30% casualties inflicted in the tactical combat?

However there does seem a common thread from most HOI players... the naval game for cWiF needs to work. Matrix, are you reading this?

Thank you for bringing an excellent game to our computers! My 10 cents:

* Keep it a faithful adoption of the original board game!
- RAW 7m
- All kits

* Put focus on PBEM/online gaming rather than AI.

* Take advantage of the WIF community in
- beta testing
- developing the AI (why not release the AI module for beta testers/equivalents to develop modules for various countries?)

* Add-ons:
- Days of Decision III
- Patton in Flames/America in Flames

Also, a minor suggestion to the now-longer-no-existing CWiF v0.7.7.1:

- While displaying the map with the units toggle on, show the sea boxes and naval units in the sea boxes on the map, not only in the "unit window below". In that way it is easier to spot where all countries have their naval assets.

Despite its abstractness, I feel the naval area of WiF works well. You start with the need to transport resources to factories and to keep a presence in zones to trace supply, then add protection for the convoy points needed to move resources, and add in transporting troops, planning for invasions, and provding bombardment and air support for land units and amphib ops, and you have a whole lot going on. Add in the granualrity mentioned earlier with picking ships to damage and abort, and the air combat choices, and the whole thing feels pretty darn fun.

Can it be improved? Perhaps, but we take the chance of making it less fun... and I honestly don't know how I would improve it.

Well, how about adding in a strategic naval movement. Otherwsie it takes like 6 months for a british BB to leave Portsmouth, arrive in Ceylon, and move again to take up station in a combat zone in the pacific. THen again its been 3 years since I've read the RAW so maybe that's been added.

Diamond:

What do you mean by "faithful adaption"? I thought one of the main reasons for the failure of cWiF1 was that it tried too hard to shoehorn a 100% "faithful adaption" of WiF into a computer and the animal just didn't fit into the box... too many sharp corners that added flavor in FTF gaming but couldn't be described in computer code. Keep the map and counters 100% accurate... add in PiF and SiF with LiF as an optional rule(not so keen on Convoys in Flames, but that's just MHO).

But after that I'd rather see a gaming model that takes advantage of the computer. I've got no preconceived notions of what that is, but I just get concerned that people want Matrix to just digitise the RAW rulebook and shove it on a CD. Why does the player need to click through all of the RAW phases if the computer can do the job for him? For example, I liked HOI AA model where you invested $$$ into an area/hex and a year later it became deadlier for enemy planes to fly there. Would a "faithful adaption" prevent Matrix from incorporating this HOI concept if they prefered it to the WiF model for AA? Why not take the best of both systems to give us the best possible gaming experience?

I'm not having a go at you... I just want to understand what people mean by "faithful adaption"

Diamond wrote:Also, a minor suggestion to the now-longer-no-existing CWiF v0.7.7.1:

- While displaying the map with the units toggle on, show the sea boxes and naval units in the sea boxes on the map, not only in the "unit window below". In that way it is easier to spot where all countries have their naval assets.

Yeah one of the things about CWiF that really bugged me was how the land and air theaters are right there in your face but the naval side of things seems buried a level down and is difficult to track. Ship names on the counters would be nice, instead of just BB with the name in the information panel way to the left, but of course there is already MUCH more detail on a WiF counter than can be put on the computerized counter.

How about the ability to select the small counter on the map and have it display a much larger version in a second window (Do i hear double monitor setup!) that looks like the WiF counter with a nice picture of the unit and all the numbers. Wow those WiF counters are just beautiful.

Greyshaft,
This is not about the economics as I do prefer a convoy system. I'm talking about the combat model. Let's face it the politics and economics are nice but the combat model is what makes or breaks a wargame. I'm in agreement about the complexity of a reduced scale combat model being overwhelming for the AI, but was hoping that some genius programmer out there might figure something out. As far as casualties, they are reflected in a reduction of the TO&E of the parent unit, based on the losses sustained by its broken down subunits in the battle. The problem I have with sea area/boxes is it seems to detract from the search mechanism of naval warfare. Naval warfare in WW2 was about who found who first, stealthy technology vs counter stealthy tech. One of the most enjoyable things about naval combat is the anticipation of "The Search" and the rewards of a successful one. How does WiF handle naval FoW and present the gamers with an enticing "Search" mechanism?

Are there any screen shots anywhere?

There seem to be none - not even on the ADG site.

James:
You have a valid point about Fog of War in Naval searches. We always had a house rule about not being allowed to examine enemy Naval stacks until actual combat. Had to trust your enemy wasn't lying about the movement factors on his ships

Joe98:
Can't really expect Matrix to post screenshots of cWiF1. They are doing their version of the game and it would be counterproductive to emphasise the previous incomplete version.

James:
Don't get me wrong... I like your idea for incremental losses to land units but I'm not sure how you represent that on screen. Does my "5-4" infantry become a "3.5-4" after the battle?


Has anyone else seen the land combat system for SSG Ardennes Offensive/Matrix Games Korsun Pocket. I love the way it lets you focus on the hex under attack and advises you of all possible artillery/airpower which could assist your attack. That's the value add you get from computers. Way to go!

Greyshaft wrote:Has anyone else seen the land combat system for SSG Ardennes Offensive/Matrix Games Korsun Pocket. I love the way it lets you focus on the hex under attack and advises you of all possible artillery/airpower which could assist your attack. That's the value add you get from computers. Way to go!

This game has gre4at potential.

But it needs a SSG type Combat Advisor. Without one it will lose me immedaintly.

It is not compulsory to use it. We must take advantage of computers to improve wargaming.

Just some comments,

Even if we found some screenshots of CWiF1 (Chris), it would not reflect what the finished game would have looked likeIt was always clear that iroved graphics would be created after beta. As to Matrix's CWiF, I expect it's nowhere near showing screenshots.

Coming to combat casualties, WiF would portray something around 30% casualties in a unit as flipping. A bit more casualties would be represented by a S or B (shatter or breakthrough) result. Beyond a certain level of casualties it's simply gone. In the end I'm not sure I'd like a tactical module to CWiF (which is essentialy what we are talking about). If one could be added as an option, I wouldn't mind it I might actually use it at times. But this should not be part of the main goals for the design of CWiF. If it's at all possible it could be introduced with a later patch, or possibly with America and Patton in Flames (assuming those modules won't be part of CWiF itself).

One thing to consider would be making much of the order of battle and other elements modifiable via text files (instead of having to dig through code which limits moddying to programmers). That would allow for some customisation like most WiF players are used to (modding via a text files and/or scripts is easy to learn (at least if a minimum of documentation exists). Graphic files likewise should if possible be either in conventional graphic formats, or the game should ship with an extractor. But all these considerations about moddying should not take precedence over the actual game design and best way to program the game. If customisation would take too many resources or seriously hinder some design features, just leave it out. But if it's no problem, consider including some simple system uderstandable by all.

Marc aka Caran...

P.S.: You might find some photoes of the actual game (WiF) on the web. I know the entire countersheets exist as scanned pictures somewhere on the web (last I checked they were up to Leaders in Flames (around which time the WiF CD came out and tere was little use for external files of that type). You should be able to find some tournament pictures too. This also reminds me, one of the areas that will probably see modding (or an option provided by matrix) will be the map graphics. I think quite a few users might prefer old style WiF graphics to the newer ones (mountains were always a big issue iirc), though I myself would probably continue to use the new graphics (they aren't that bad).

I have the downloads of cWiF current right to the day it was pulled from the link. Trouble is, those downloads will now have about as much relevance as my copy of the AA demo that will look totally different from the AA game Matrix Games is going to be releasing.

So in the end, what's the point in looking at them.
I would figure I would get more mileage out of looking over my copy of the board game and commenting on it potentially.

As for scans, well same thing basically. I would be genuinely surprised if Matrix Games used identical images, so consulting the scans will only show you what was, not what will be.

For example, I have PanzerBlitz. MMP wants to someday (read not for sometime:) probably ) release the game as Panzerblitz II. At any rate, I have seen revised the graphics planned for the game. Suffice it to say, the differences are striking and like night and day. Games rarely get re released in the way they originally were if better is no problem.

I think the counter images for cWiF will likely look a lot nicer, simply because it will be fairly easy to do so. Not because it is needed of course, just because it is an easy thing. I just hope they don't expend to much effort on cute animations. Leave those in the silly wargames.

I'd expect cWiF will have moddable scenario files. That's pretty standard these days. I'm more concerned about how the units will be portrayed. Why show a stack of square cardboard counters on a screen? Remember how computer Axis & Allies had little 3D icons for units (yes... I once played A&A... sob... I was desperate!). I'd love to see 3D representations of units like that. I agree with Les to forget the animations, but it'd be great to move your "Hurricane" icon to intercept the enemy "ME-109" icon.

I also liked the HOI model where you could build up subunits (Divisions became Corps etc) and then just move the major unit. This makes sense where there is limited maneauver area like North Africa or invading Pacific Islands.

Les the Sarge 9-1 wrote: I just hope they don't expend to much effort on cute animations. Leave those in the silly wargames.

Hi Les, can you give an example of a cute animation in a wargame?

Two reasons I play and enjoy WIF are:

1. It has been thoroughly play-tested over the last two decades and its model therefore proven in many (but not all of course) ways.

2. Although a campaign, much like HOI, takes a large amount of time to complete, WIF is played in a more chess-like manner (no RTS here..) allowing me to plan my actions in advance before our gaming group meets and performs our impulses.

If I wanted to play a "lose only 30% of a unit", "division level", "continuous economy/resource planning" game I would play HOI.

- I don't.

Three reasons I look forward to a computerised version of WIF:

1. The computer does all the calculation, and rules reading.

2. It requires no space and is portable.

3. It will allow planning during for example week-days before our gaming group gathers and play further.

====

If I were Matrix I would concentrate on producing first and foremost a computerised WIF version adjusted to take advantage of the computerisation but only altering (optionally) rules that obviously would hamper gameplay.

Only thereafter I would look at other "improvements" since such "improvements" would be new and not tested. I would use my beta testers and/or the WIF community for evaluating improvements and add those as upgrades, v2.0 etc of the game to add revenue streams thereafter.

Cute animations hmmm.

Well I guess just loading up Sudden Strike 2 would provide you with an endless supply hehe. The whole game is one long continuous silly animation hehe.

But even some of my well liked games had some elements I thought offered nothing important.
TOAW for instance displays units in animation in a window at the top right. And it serves no purpose at all.

Animation belongs in some games and not other is all.

The further the game strays from Tactical, the further the merit of animations becomes to the game. By the time you reach grand strategy, there is no need for animations at all in my opinion.

-
As for the counters, I have no idea what they look like. But they need to hold information in the same manner as the counters used in Korsun Pocket.

If instead, the counters resemble Advanced Squad Leader, this is a sign that we are not taking advantage of computers to make better wargames.

And the game will need information screens similiar to those found in Uncommon Valour. The columns can be sorted like a database.

As I said in a post above, this game has great potential but it also has the potential to lose me.

-