Matrix Games Forums

I have been following the development of this version of WiF for many months and must say that I am very impressed with the attention to detail that is being displayed. This game is huge it would seem. Even though I have no prior experience with WiF I believe that this game could fill a void for strategic TURN-BASEDWWII era gaming for years to come. Do others feel the same way or is there another simular product that is coming down the line?

mo reb

I have played WiF for about ten years - Global War campaign with all the additions except LiF. As a 20-yr veteran of A3R/RS, I was instantly impressed with the elegance of WiF and completely converted to its design and system. It is the best grand-strategic WW2 game available. [&o]

With the possible exception of HOI2/DD, which has enthralled me for three years now. [8D]

(ducks) INCOMING! [:'(]

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

I have been following the development of this version of WiF for many months and must say that I am very impressed with the attention to detail that is being displayed. This game is huge it would seem. Even though I have no prior experience with WiF I believe that this game could fill a void for strategic TURN-BASEDWWII era gaming for years to come. Do others feel the same way or is there another simular product that is coming down the line?

mo reb

I think MWiF will "own" the turn-based strategic WW2 market for years. It'll probably only be superseded by MWiF 2: Double the Flames. [:'(]

Cheers, Neilster

"The toasty time." WW I - Pre World in Flames

Or possibly

Red Flames Rising (cold war gets hot)

or

Sands Aflame Modern Islamic World Ignites WWIII

Once the engine is done think of all the variants we could beg for. [:D]

I own the Paradox titles but really don't care for real-time at this level. I do however enjoy CotA because to me it is managable. Not so for Hearst of Iron etc.

I would like to eventually see a modern version of WiF. The possibility to have an editor with it to create some cool what if scenarios.

Maybe one day. Getting my mits on MWiF would be enough.

I wonder if there would be room for a newbie beta tester? Could be a good indication as to how well a newb can pick up on the game.

What say ye?

mo reb

Personally, I'd love to see Sands Aflame.

Steve, assuming:

1) sequence of play and action limits are same structurally
2) most of changes for Trenches Aflame/Sands Aflame, etc. are implemented by creating or removing optional rules

What proportion of effort would be required to create a major new module like that?

Fred

Not so for Hearst of Iron etc.

Is that a newspaper empire building game? [:'(]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Randolph_Hearst

Cheers, Neilster

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

I have been following the development of this version of WiF for many months and must say that I am very impressed with the attention to detail that is being displayed. This game is huge it would seem. Even though I have no prior experience with WiF I believe that this game could fill a void for strategic TURN-BASEDWWII era gaming for years to come. Do others feel the same way or is there another simular product that is coming down the line?

mo reb

Short answer: yes, this is the game to end all games.

I have been a beta tester since March 18, 2001 (my 40th birthday ..., when Harry Rowland kindly added me to the CWIF beta list ...)

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman
Personally, I'd love to see Sands Aflame.

Steve, assuming:

1) sequence of play and action limits are same structurally
2) most of changes for Trenches Aflame/Sands Aflame, etc. are implemented by creating or removing optional rules

What proportion of effort would be required to create a major new module like that?

Fred

The program structure I inherited from CWIF does not lend itself to modularity.

I have been revising/replacing large portions of code over the last year, since I require a clearly defined and implemented structure to handle moves coming in from PBEM, Internet, and the AIO. However, whenever possible I leave the code as is. So, there is still a lot of confusing bits off in the corners of this multi-story multi-room mansion. Cleaning up all the nooks and crannies may happen someday and that is what would be needed to do what you envision.

From a more philosophical viewpoint, I believe any game design performs best when it does what the designers originally intended. The farther afield you go from the original framework, the more likely you are to have to make unpleasant compromises. This has to do with vision. The designer 'sees' something when he creates a game, and he builds the game within the scope of that vision. Usually the vision is narrowly defined (an exception is the Operational Art of War, of course).

Hearst Of Iron...hehe...ooops. Meant Hearts of Iron of course, but the former could apply [;)]

* I need to research ink and quills before I can get my 39 uberpaperboyinschmidts*

mo reb

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

I would like to eventually see a modern version of WiF. The possibility to have an editor with it to create some cool what if scenarios.

A year or so ago, in the Matrix forums, the idea was discussed of creating a world map with hexes projected onto an icosahedron. Wouldn't such a map serve more purposes than a cylindrical projection such as WiF uses? If the map is to be purely rectangular, then area movement would be more accurate for extreme latitudes.

WiF maps, even in MWiF, are created with WWII in mind, and serve incredibly well to simulate the likely theatres of combat in that particular conflict. If hexes are to be used in a modern game, you would have to account for polar distances (bombers, missiles, subs, etc...), and using an icosahedron would provide that.

ORIGINAL: coregames

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel
I would like to eventually see a modern version of WiF. The possibility to have an editor with it to create some cool what if scenarios.

A year or so ago, in the Matrix forums, the idea was discussed of creating a world map with hexes projected onto an icosahedron. Wouldn't such a map serve more purposes than a cylindrical projection such as WiF uses? If the map is to be purely rectangular, then area movement would be more accurate for extreme latitudes.

WiF maps, even in MWiF, are created with WWII in mind, and serve incredibly well to simulate the likely theatres of combat in that particular conflict. If hexes are to be used in a modern game, you would have to account for polar distances (bombers, missiles, subs, etc...), and using an icosahedron would provide that.

There is also the need for enabling submarines to travel underneath the polar ice pack.

[font="times new roman"]If the game scale is two months per turn and each hex is approximately 100km (approximately 62 miles). [/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]Assuming there are 4 weeks per month with 7 days per week that comes to 56 days per turn.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"] (Movement Points x Kilometers or Miles) / 56 days = Kilometers or Miles per day.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]A Land unit with a movement of:[/font]
[font="times new roman"]6 would be able to move approximately 11 kilometers or 7 miles a day.[/font]
[font="times new roman"]5 would be able to move approximately 9 kilometers or 6 miles a day.[/font]
[font="times new roman"]4 would be able to move approximately 7 kilometers or 4 miles a day.[/font]
[font="times new roman"]3 would be able to move approximately 5 kilometers or 3 miles a day.[/font]
[font="times new roman"]2 would be able to move approximately 3 kilometers or 2 miles a day.[/font]
[font="times new roman"]1 would be able to move approximately 2 kilometers or 1 mile a day.[/font]

But each turn consists of a number of impulses (the number varying depending on weather and the time of year). So if you multiply your numbers with the number of impulses for a given turn you would get the correct result. Assuming that a unit with 6 MP can move for five impulses in a turn, that unit will be able to move 6 MP x 100 km x 5 / 56 = 53,6 km/day.

If the game scale is two months per turn and each hex is approximately 100km (approximately 62 miles).

Each hex is about 90 km (calculated from 63 measurements compared to Google Earth distances).

Each turn has a variable number of Impulses.
Here are the average number of Impulse per side per turn, calculated over nine 1939 campaign games (2 incomplete) :
J/F : 2,5
M/A : 3,0
M/J : 4,2
J/A : 4,8
S/O : 3,5
N/D : 2,9

Global average number of impulse per side per turn : 3,5
There are about 125 impulses per global game (36 turns) per player.

Read closely I gave an exact situation. More than 1 impulse was never mentioned or implied.

If you use my numbers as a base your statement should read:

A land unit with a movement of:
6 would be able to move approximately from 11km to 53km a day depending on 1 to 5 impulses and other veriables.

And from the ADG site.

World in Flames Rules Aug 2004
 
1.2 Scale
 
Map

Each hex is approximately 100km on the European maps, 230km on the Asian, Pacific, African and Scandinavian maps, and 650km on the America mini-map.

ORIGINAL: Mziln
Read closely I gave an exact situation. More than 1 impulse was never mentioned or implied.

If you use my numbers as a base your statement should read:

A land unit with a movement of:
6 would be able to move approximately from 11km to 53km a day depending on 1 to 5 impulses and other veriables.

And from the ADG site.

World in Flames Rules Aug 2004
 
1.2 Scale
 
Map

Each hex is approximately 100km on the European maps, 230km on the Asian, Pacific, African and Scandinavian maps, and 650km on the America mini-map.

You're dealing with math here, so I can't let this just drift on by.[:)]

6 turns per year, 365 days per year, yields 61 days per turn (exact only during leap years).[:-]

Distance covered = (unit's movement points) * (hexes/movement point) * (miles or kilometers per hex) * (number of times the unit moves during a turn).
When I teach this stuff I always point out that the units of measure eliminate each other: the MP in the numerator cancels the MP in the denominator and so do the hexes, which leaves simply the miles or kilometers as the final unit of measure.

The last factor in the above equation is usually the # of impulses in which the unit is permitted to move during a turn. So, Patrice's averages of impulses per bi-month period are relevant. However, another consideration is whether the player has taken a Land or Combined Action, since that determines whether a land unit can move. You might want to throw a percentage number in there like 80% to represent the effect of taking Naval and Air impulses.

I prefer Patrice's 90 KM/hex since that is based on multiple measures taken on the world map rather than ADG's one number guideline. Note that the KM/hex changes drastically the farther from the equator you are. The upper reaches of Norway have fewer KM/hex, which was one of the problems we had with creating a map for that area.

The hexes per movement point are important too since there is a distinct difference when travelling over mountain hexes or across clear hexes - and armor versus infantry versus cavalry.

---
Edit addendum
---

So if you want miles per day, you need to do the calculation for distance per turn at the top of this post and then divide by 61. Or you could be more precise and use the impulses per Jan/Feb divided by 59.25, impulses per Mar/Apr divided by 61, etc., then average those over the 6 bimonth periods.

ORIGINAL: Mziln

Read closely I gave an exact situation. More than 1 impulse was never mentioned or implied.
If you use my numbers as a base your statement should read:

A land unit with a movement of:
6 would be able to move approximately from 11km to 53km a day depending on 1 to 5 impulses and other veriables.

Problem is units move more than once each turn, so you need to take care of that if you want to calculate an average number of kilometers moved per day.

And from the ADG site.

World in Flames Rules Aug 2004
 
1.2 Scale
 
Map

Each hex is approximately 100km on the European maps, 230km on the Asian, Pacific, African and Scandinavian maps, and 650km on the America mini-map.

Mzlin, I wanted to share with you the real numbers, those that I have from the map review I'm doing (I'm not only drawing coastlines, I'm also checking distances and scale all around), if you prefer making calculations on wrong arbitrary numbers, no problems.

I agree that impulses are a factor, a veriable factor. Again more than 1 impulse was never mentioned or implied.


If you use my numbers as a base your statement should read:

A land unit with a movement of:
6 would be able to move approximately from 11km to 53km a day depending on 1 to 5 impulses and other veriables.



I did not mention your maps due to them not being part of the RAW. Most people only have the ADG rules to study the game. 

So your map scale has never been an issue.

I am surprised that no one has questioned why I used 4 weeks per month. Management calculates 4 weeks to a month here in the US.