Something Matrix needs to change...

[GamerBill]

When I played this "World at War" game, I found the combat portion to be simple, engaging and fun. However, I found the production/research portion of the game to be confusing, needlessly complex, and not very fun.

In all Matrix games I have played, I find the logistics side of the games to be needlessly cumbersome, reminding me of the behemoth "rules monster" SPI and Avalon Hill boardgames of the 1970's and 1980's.

We're in the computer age now. Players should not have to figure how many "resource", "population" and "production" points they have and balance them. This kind of stuff is tedious, Matrix.

Now it's not that the intellect of the player isn't there; I have played the 50 page rulebook boardgames of the past and have held up with the best of them. But production in a computer game ought to be as simple as spending in a bank account. Run out of points, run out of new production, and not this balancing act nonsense about still building units while resource points go into negative territory (and not really knowing what this entails).

As far as in-game research goes, I think you should adopt the model that CDV's "Strategic Command" took: simply have research cost a lot, and the purchase of a point in any category (i.e., tanks, planes, whatever) means that category is actively being researched and may or may not advance at random during the future. That method is cool, and much, much more fun than your World at War system of "gradually spend 7 total points in a category to automatically advance." Research just isn't always that predictable.

In summary, I'm asking you, Matrix, to get out of the mindset of old boardgames and to ditch the headache rules systems of the past. The only challenge a gamer ever need face is in what strategy to choose. A gamer should never be challenged by cumbersome, complex game mechanics.

[Grotius]

Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I think the Production and Research systems are two of the best parts of this game. It's really not that complicated. You need factories and resources to produce stuff -- you can't do anything about manpower, so don't worry about it -- and if you're lacking, you'll know when you try to produce things. Same with research: the choices are simple and clear.

I personally prefer this research and production system over that of Strategic Command. And I do think this system takes advantage of the computer quite nicely. It tells you whether you can produce something; you don't need to do the math yourself.

[hakon]

I agree with Grotius. The best parts of the game are supply (in particular) and production. I like the tech system too, but it's impact is slightly to big for a simulation game.

Here is a system that would increase simplicity, but reduce the tendency to overtech one unit:

- A player may choose to increase a tech by 1, 2 or 3 points (not levels) each turn, regardless of the current level.
- One point costs 1 production point
- Two points cost 3 production point
- Three points cost 6 production points

[sveint]

You can let the AI manage research and production.

You can play with simple supply.

What's there not to like?

[aletoledo]

[sarcasm]with the age of computers we should be able to play games with a simple push of a button. why should we have so many different aspects to manage, when one single button is all we need. please make the button red. [/sarcasm]

[hakon]

Lol, that red button reminded me of the joysticks of the C64 and Amiga days, when some games were centered around who could push that red button the most times per second. (Some even came with an autofire-switch, so you wouldn't have to.)

[Wayllander]

As Sveint mentioned you can play with simple supply rules and/or have the cpu manage those functions for you....

For me, the game seemed overly simple without the advanced supply rules. I love the fact that I have to include plans on feeding and supplying my forces in addition to positioning them for combat. It truly adds an additional layer to the game.

--way

[dobeln]

Yea, imho, the supply system is the true beauty of this game - it takes care of the (unrealistic) phenomenon in other similar games, where you should always strive to use all available forces to the max.

[pyrhic]

actually, if i understand him correctly, i think he makes a very good point.

There's no need for the game mechanism to display 'negative production', or to let you produce units that put you in negative production. It's counter-intuitive. Why not just freeze the add buttons when your available PP=0? If brought below zero by damaged units, why not a more pro-active screen(pop-up?), "There are too many items in your queu, you need to remove/hold some before continuing". Similar issue with population points - it'd be simpler to understand if these would be expended when you place an item in your queu as opposed to when the unit is produced. These are more design/game interface problems rather than gameplay problems.

[5cats]

The game lets you negatively produce because you can usually 'fix' the production by reducing another area's production.
Once you click on the Advance to next phase button, that's a good time for a pop-up warning. But really, it's not that hard to notice you're over-committed, is it? And the computer handles the problem, just not the exact way you may like.
And regarding supply trucks: An army marches on it's belly! It does add a LOT of realism in a very simple way

[VI66_slith]

In my opinion without supply/production, GGWaW would only be a more colorful version of A&A. It is indeed the supply and production aspect of the game that, for myself at least, makes it truly unique. As stated earlier, all you need to do is click that magic "red" button in the set-up screen, and Walla! The computer will handle all as if it were a faithful lieutenant.

[pyrhic]

Design and game interface is about making the game accessible, intuitive and playable. I've said this before on another issue, but every time a designer/programmer puts something in their interface that confuses/misleads a player, they detract from the players enjoyment of the game. You do that enough times and the player doesn't play anymore, doesn't tell their friends to buy, etc etc etc.

You and I have learned how to do it (and yes, it isn't that hard), but we were likely committed to learning and playing this game. Matrix/2by3's goal in this game was to achieve 'greater market penetration' (prob not in those words ), and that's harder to do when you force players(particularly those outside the niche) to 'learn the interface'.

The game lets you negatively produce because you can usually 'fix' the production by reducing another area's production.

The game LETS you do this so you can FIX it? OMG that's funny...why not save everyones time and not let you do it in the first place - and i think that's the point the thread's author is trying to make...

[Scott_WAR]

If I am in Germany's production phase and am adding to production, I may realize that I wish to make less units elsewhere, so I can make more units i W Germany. If I could not go in the negative, I would have to go to the other area, take away from it, THEN go back to W Germany to add units. Since I CAN go negative, I dont have to go to the other area. I can add the unbits (going negatiive) then I can go to the other area and take away the units. That Saves me an extra trip between areas. Making it easier AND saving time

[Joel Billings]

We did not want to block people from going negative for two main reasons. First, as just mentioned it is more convenient to be able to run in the negative when making adjustments. Second, the system of sending damaged units back to the production que will often force a player into the negative. The only way to avoid this is to automatically place some items on hold. We decided it was better to let it go negative and let the player adjust his production as needed to bring themself back to 0 (again with that being eaiser if we let the numbers go negative). If you leave things negative, the computer will be happy to adjust your production. I suppose we could have added code that provided a warning if the player was ending their turn in the negative, while also making the adjustments to place things on hold that the computer will not produce if you continue and end your turn. That way, if you decided not to end the phase when given the warning, you could see exactly what was going to be placed on hold by the computer and what was going to be built. This would give the beginning player more information (but it would also be a chunk of coding time). Perhaps just the warning message. I'm open to suggestions (although I can't say we'll be able to patch them into WaW), especially since we are beginning to work on Civil War which uses a similar production system.

As for the original post regarding logistics. Sorry, we think the supply model in GGWaW is what sets it apart from boardgames and something that fully utilizes the computer to do something you wouldn't do in a boardgame. As for research, aside from a few of the issues people have raised about super units, I was very happy to find that Gary and Keith's research system was something that was actually important for gameplay and was not random. I've played many WWII games where research is very expensive for the limited return and thus ignored. This system makes researching your units (if only some of them), an integral part of the game. This adds another moving piece of the strategy puzzle that gives the game a much greater depth than some of those lacking a worthwhile research system. As for the production model, no, this isn't Axis & Allies where you can buy a battleship in 3 months if you want to spend your production points that way. We do abstract things in GGWaW, but not that abstract. It's always a tradeoff between abstraction/simplicity and complexity/realism. Everyone has an opinion about where those tradeoffs should fall out, and everyone is entitled to that opinion. Our goal was to make a game that was not much more complicated to learn and play than Axis & Allies but had much greater depth and realism.

[pyrhic]

actually, seems like a wash scott... let's look at it this way...

EG: 4pp, 4 arm
WG: 10 pp, 3 sup, 3 res

Now you decide you only have pop for 4 units and you'd rather them in WG, well since you're in WG, you just click 4 arm. 3+3+4=10 pp, so you're fine. You're still in neg in terms of Pop (more on that later). To finish, you would just go to east germany, and minus your armor and you're good to go. Now lets say you add a fifth armor to WG...well since you've only 10 points as soon as you tried to add the fifth, the system might say "hey, you only got 10 points, deduct elsewhere before adding more)", you'd still be in WG, you'd just have to pull the unit from your WG queu and change it - the negative system(in use now) allows you to add the unit, and then you have to subtract your other unit - two actions. The system i'm advocating, you have to subtract your unit first, then add your new unit - two actions.

The neg pop is the harder of the two problems. The more i think of it, the more i think 1 pop should get added when you build, ie anything in the queu has one point of pop 'bought' into the unit. The second 'finishing' pop point is 'bought' when the unit is actually produced. If you have 20 items in your queu, you have 20 pop points built in and you can get those back when/if you cancel the item(but not on hold). Likewise if a unit is damaged, and you decide you don't want it, since it's in your queu, you get the pop point back if you cancel it. But I'd say if you don't have enough pop points to finish your build the system lets you know(either msg or visable display)...

as it is now, the system is a little awkward....has anyone tested this yet? if you have a damaged unit, when it comes back does it consume 2 pop points or just one? If you cancel it, do you get the pop point back? Does the system actually distinguish between damaged queu units and produced ones?

[Joel Billings]

There is no difference between a damaged unit returned to the production track and a new one. When the damaged unit is placed on the track, 1 population is added to your total available. When the unit is built, it will use up 2 population just as any new unit would. You don't have to use it on that unit. In fact, often I find that my German planes that return to the que are disbanded in late war and the population is used up building ground units (same goes for some naval units). I think this is a good thing. We could have forced the player to spend 1 Pop on placing a unit in the que, and 1 pop upon completion, but for a number of reasons during development we didn't atempt this and doing so now would alter the game quite a bit.

[Scott_WAR]

Hmm, I wonder...Why does a damaged unit still require the FULL 2 pop when it is placed? Like resources, it ahould cost less since it has already consumed 2 pop when it was created to begin with. Shouldnt some of the crew have survived if it is a damaged unit? So shouldnt it cost just 1 pop to put it back on the board not 2 as if it were a "new" unit.



Then again, if this type of change were made, what would it do to balance? Would the game be affected at all? If it were would be both sides be affected equally? I think they would but, thinking something will happen, and it ACTUALLY happening in real life doesnt always happen.

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: Scott_WAR

Hmm, I wonder...Why does a damaged unit still require the FULL 2 pop when it is placed? Like resources, it ahould cost less since it has already consumed 2 pop when it was created to begin with. Shouldnt some of the crew have survived if it is a damaged unit? So shouldnt it cost just 1 pop to put it back on the board not 2 as if it were a "new" unit.

The net is it does only cost 1 to build back, because 1 was added to your population reserves when it was damaged and placed on the production track. Cost of 2 to build - 1 put back in your reserve means that the net cost of the damaged unit being rebuilt is 1 population point. By putting 1 population back in the pool, you have the choice of never finishing the unit and thus effectively using the 1 manpower returned for something else. It actually gives the player more flexibility than might not be justified, but we thought it would be easier this way and some flexibility was desired. Just as in real life, you can impress your unneeded air and naval cadres into ground units if needed when the units are damaged.

[Scott_WAR]

Oh. OK. Thanks.

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: aletoledo

[sarcasm]with the age of computers we should be able to play games with a simple push of a button. why should we have so many different aspects to manage, when one single button is all we need. please make the button red. [/sarcasm]

Actually, you can pretty much do this with GGWAW. Just put all powers on AI and hit "go"!

For the record, I think the level of detail in this game is perfect. The production and supply rules are as good as I can imagine, abstract enough to be playable but real enough to capture the essence. The research is good, but I have some qualms about the lack of "spill-over" and the effects on obtaining super-units, though I am uncommitted about my final feelings on this.

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

We did not want to block people from going negative for two main reasons. First, as just mentioned it is more convenient to be able to run in the negative when making adjustments.

I had a post on this exact subject a couple of weeks ago, simply because it is initially very confusing with no warning from the UI. After playing more though, I admit I wouldn't want it very much different at all. For the experienced player (meaning at least 1/2 game under the belt) it is pretty good.

I think that some warnings are all that is needed. A warning for negative pop/res/ind when the player attempts to exit the production phase, and also a warning for unused but purchased research points (yes, I've bungled that).

Also, to reiterate a previous post, I really think that the res/ind/pop pools should be visible on the production screen even during the movement phase. I sometimes find myself saving the game in the movement phase and ending the phase, just so I can see those numbers bottom-lined for me. Then I reload the saved game and continue the movement phase with that new knowledge. It's just something a player shouldn't have to do.