I Go U Go

Nordic Twilight · Post by **Nordic Twilight** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 3:18 pm

How on earth are the team going to get round the IGO UGO aspect of air interception within the game??

This is the one aspect ( apart from the AI ) I would think would give the Matrix Development Team [&o][&o] a real headache. I've thought about the problem many times but being a mere footslogger when it comes to programming, I can't see a solution with my limited brain power[8|]

Anyone got any thoughts on this intresting little conundrum??

Cheesehead · Post by **Cheesehead** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:06 pm

This issue was discussed thoroughly in another thread (WiF on the computer) from October through December of last year. You might want to go back and read some of those comments. We are all concerned about this issue. Some of us are very skeptical that cWiF can be made for PBEM unless you make some major changes in the interactive features of the game. My own feelings are to simplify WiF for the computer by streamlining some of these activities. I recognize that when you make a major change in a game of this size and quality, there will be a dominoe effect of unforseen consequences. I would like to see Matrix start from scratch, make a hex based WWII turn-based game, follow some of the ideas of WiF (sea zones, 2 month turns with impulses, production, HQs to name a few) but don't handcuff yourself to the original game eliminating any possibility of PBEM. You could still call it WiF, but make it clear that the computer version is "based on the boardgame," not an exact replica.

coregames · Post by **coregames** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:30 pm

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead
...You could still call it WiF, but make it clear that the computer version is "based on the boardgame," not an exact replica.

Simplification is great if it helps sell the game, but I still question the necessity of only offering one mode of play. Why would WiF over-the-board be more sophisticated and nuanced in its play than the computer version? Is it common for computer versions of board games to be simpler than the over-the-board forms? I am certain some agree that the possibility (not the requirement) of playing a faithful adaptation increases the usefulness of the game dramatically, as a training tool as well as for a computer alternative to over-the-board play. Others doubt the synergy factor, but I believe MWiF could help create a boom for all forms of this game, just as internet chess increases interest in over-the-board play. Isn't it possible too much divergence could harm sales of the board game? If a simpler mode must be available for PBEM, then obviously that should be the case. Even so, I believe a "faithful adaptation" mode would make the game much more appealing, even if that mode did not have A.I.

Cheesehead · Post by **Cheesehead** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:23 pm

I wouldn't argue with making multiple versions of WiF (WiF for PBEM, WiF for purists, WiF for solitaire play). But that is the ideal in a perfect world scenario. When you consider that putting WiF on the computer has been 10 years or more and we're still a looooooooooong ways from a finished product, I'm trying to send a message to Robert that I will settle for less than the ideal. And considering the difficulties in producing a decent AI, the difficulty in finding local opponents, I think PBEM is the method of play that will attract the most people and produce the greatest replayability. Think of it, even if the AI is above our expectations, how many times will you play it before you're beating it regularly? And then it sits on your "shelf" untouched like those old Avalon Hill games in your attic. With games like Civilization, at least a random world was recreated making for a reason to play again and again. Games like Strategic Command are only being played PBEM. I assume GGWaW will also be a strictly PBEM game after you've played all the countries against the AI once or twice.

Nordic Twilight · Post by **Nordic Twilight** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:32 pm

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead

I'm trying to send a message to Robert that I will settle for less than the ideal. And considering the difficulties in producing a decent AI, the difficulty in finding local opponents, I think PBEM is the method of play that will attract the most people and produce the greatest replayability. Think of it, even if the AI is above our expectations, how many times will you play it before you're beating it regularly? And then it sits on your "shelf" untouched like those old Avalon Hill games in your attic. With games like Civilization, at least a random world was recreated making for a reason to play again and again. Games like Strategic Command are only being played PBEM. I assume GGWaW will also be a strictly PBEM game after you've played all the countries against the AI once or twice.

I must say I'm in total agreement Cheesehead. Unless you have large amounts of free time, a middle sized room taken over by maps and charts, and regular reliable opponents who are as mad about the game as myself, PBEM must be a prime requisite for the game.

A decent AI is great for learning/ trying out new tactics, or when you are just plain bored, but the game sets itself alight when human opponents are involved, and a game of this magnitude and complexity really needs PBEM IMHO[:)]

coregames · Post by **coregames** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 8:42 pm

ORIGINAL: Nordic Twilight
... a game of this magnitude and complexity really needs PBEM IMHO[:)]

That's the problem... a game with the complexity of WiF as played over the board is so complex that PBEM is problematic. I'm not arguing against PBEM, I'm just lobbying for a faithful adaptation mode. I am unlikely to spring nearly as much for MWiF if I can't use it to help prepare for my over-the-board games. Perhaps I am unique in this regard. I suspect many WiFers will share my opinion however.

Cheesehead · Post by **Cheesehead** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 9:02 pm

Perhaps I am unique in this regard. I suspect many WiFers will share my opinion however.

You're not unique in this regard. It seems like the WiFers who have played for 10+ years all want what you want, a faithful recreation of the board game. I've even read many comments about keeping the same map scale as the board game. I respect your opinion because the board game is a work of art...I just want to play more and there aren't too many WiFers in my area.

fahdiz · Post by **fahdiz** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:24 am

ORIGINAL: coregames

ORIGINAL: Nordic Twilight
... a game of this magnitude and complexity really needs PBEM IMHO[:)]
That's the problem... a game with the complexity of WiF as played over the board is so complex that PBEM is problematic. I'm not arguing against PBEM, I'm just lobbying for a faithful adaptation mode. I am unlikely to spring nearly as much for MWiF if I can't use it to help prepare for my over-the-board games. Perhaps I am unique in this regard. I suspect many WiFers will share my opinion however.

Agreed 100%.

stretch · Post by **stretch** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:01 am

Of course, IP based play would fix all the issues with I GO YOU GO, eh?

Even if its limited to 2 players.. wow.

coregames · Post by **coregames** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:51 pm

ORIGINAL: stretch

Of course, IP based play would fix all the issues with I GO YOU GO, eh?

Even if its limited to 2 players.. wow.

If one person hosts, you should still be able to play multiplayer using TCP/IP, and obviously this is the format that would allow a faithful adaptation of the game to be played, as long as everyone is online together at the same time. I agree with the sentiment that a streamlined mode is probably the only way to achieve PBEM, a much-needed feature. I hope very much Matrix can find a way to achieve both, with appeal to hard-core WiFers and newbies alike. If more people on this forum speak out in favor of a multiple-mode solution, maybe that is the approach Matrix will opt for.

Griffitz62 · Post by **Griffitz62** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 11:01 pm

I am one of those people who would like to see multiple options, but I would most like to see a faithful adaptation of the boardgame.
I am in complete agreeance with coregames here.
Just my two pennies worth. [:)]

meyerg · Post by **meyerg** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:41 am

As I have stated my preference for allowing computer WiF to become the best computer strategic level WW2 game and not become shackled to a boardgame paradigm, I now realize I am in the minority. Do we want to roll dice and type our rolls into the computer, or can we allow the computer to do the die rolls?

Just want to point out that there are things we can allow the computer to do. Maybe we should let the computer do more things and CHANGE/SHORTEN the sequence of play to allow for PBEM. I do not want to play networked and wait for the German player to decide if he wants to abort his front fighter or bomber. When will 5 Wif players be at the computer at the same time?

Finally, the AI required for this game gets harder as the interactions increase.

Greg

coregames · Post by **coregames** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 8:36 am

ORIGINAL: meyerg
...I have stated my preference for allowing computer WiF to become the best computer strategic level WW2 game and not become shackled to a boardgame paradigm...

I like the idea of a game that is the best computer strategic level WWII game, but would this necessarily be WiF? A game that takes unique advantage of the computer's features could be more realistic, and even more complex yet, than World in Flames, and be a fun challenge. But to attach the name WiF means it is a computer version of the board game.

I expressed my desire a few months ago in these forums that the name World in Flames not just be used as a marketing gimmick. This to me requires that MWiF stay as true to the board game as possible. If the name is not a major selling point for MWiF, and they wish to depart substantially from ADG's design, then why use the name? They could design a computer game that fulfills your wishes and call it something else.

I feel, however, that the award-winning aspect of WiF will be a selling point for MWiF, and I hope the game offers at least the option of as faithful an adaptation as possible, even if it means that mode does not have AI. Perhaps offering a streamlined mode for better PBEM suitability could also include AI, and the general feeling of WiF, while acting as a primer for the more sophisticated (and less PBEM/AI suitable) complete version that is best suited to TCP/IP. I realize this dual-mode approach is a tough row to hoe; maybe I'm just dreaming, but I hope not.

pasternakski · Post by **pasternakski** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:50 pm

They could call it "Hearts in Flames."

I agree with what you say except for one thing: you try selling this without an AI and you'll go broke. That goes for computer wargames in general. As much as we all try to ignore it, and as much as we say "PBEM is the best way to play the game," the vast majority of wargames of all types are played solitaire. Marketing research over the years demonstrates this quite forcibly.

Remember that computer wargaming became mildly popular in the first place because it appealed to those who could not find opponents for their cardboard-and-paper games (or didn't want to).

coregames · Post by **coregames** » Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:29 am

I agree with what you say except for one thing: you try selling this without an AI and you'll go broke.

Of course people will want AI... For a dual-mode approach, I was suggesting that Matrix might have AI and PBEM for the streamlined mode, but I would also appreciate AI in a faithful mode that could play at least passably well. However, if AI is the stumbling block for faithfulness, I would rather have that option even if AI was not available for the more advanced mode.

macgregor · Post by **macgregor** » Sun Jan 16, 2005 6:41 pm

The problems faced with UgoIgo do not outweigh the benefits (all I gotta do is look at the traffic on the roads outside). Certainly, a high-speed connection would minimize these problems. I can commmunicate as fast over the net as I can verbally (just about).Meanwhile,you're saving time with setup,calculations,and moving units.Ever play against someone with a shaky hand? It's not a pretty sight watching them demolish a front. I've looked at some of the pics from these after action reports -most wiffers keep entirely too sloppy of a board for my liking. I don't know how the rest of you retain all those rules,but I can say that a large part of each night I've spent playing the boardgame has been devoted to rules clarification. There's also the ability of one to cheat -and not always intentionally.'Oh,-I thought I could do that.' I suppose it'll be Matrix's job to find the best way to portray the data as to speed up the decision-making process. I predict that while the game should move along much faster, it's still going to take several months to finish. Bottom line- UgoIgo is a go.

c92nichj · Post by **c92nichj** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:35 pm

I have spent a great deal of my time playing PBEM of the Beta version during the last two years. To get it at all playable we are doing it impulse by impulse. ie I am doing all the decisions for the allies during my impulse when playing the axis, where shall he intercept with how much shall he abort an airfight use HQ support etc.

Even with this option I find an impulse taking longer than in the real game mostly because of the strict order of play, when playing using the board game we usually play it front by front ie do all groundstrikes land moves etc for west europe then do east front etc.

I've been waiting for this game for years now and I look forward to the release but I don't think it would be possible to play without some decent AI to handle intercept ground strikes or a new order of play.

coregames · Post by **coregames** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 1:54 am

ORIGINAL: c92nichj
I've been waiting for this game for years now and I look forward to the release but I don't think it would be possible to play without some decent AI to handle intercept ground strikes or a new order of play.

I think to preserve as much of the game flow as possible, Matrix's team will have to use both AI and scripting, as has been discussed elsewhere. Even if used, scripting contingencies for air and sea units will not completely solve the UGoIGo issue for PBEM, so some AI with options set by the non-phasing player could help handle some of the issues.

For example, a good compromise could be to reserve aircraft for various types of interception and defensive ground support, with a priority system to help the computer choose from among targets, then let the AI handle the actual air combat once the units are declared, based on settings chosen by the player. A similar approach could be applied to naval search, interception and combat options for the non-phasing side.

A strong push is underway to alter the turn sequence dramatically, to make it much more PBEM suitable. This would make the game simpler, no doubt, and make it easier for an impulse to be resolved without feedback from the non-phasing side, speeding it up a lot. This vision of the game is ideal UGoIGo stuff, impulse-by-impulse, based on WiF, but with much less fine control for the players tactically. I have mixed feelings about this; I want MWiF to be a success, and PBEM is essential to this. Meanwhile, I also want to be able to recognize the game I love in what is finally released, and to apply what I learn to games I play over the board.

macgregor · Post by **macgregor** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 10:26 pm

Full control of air units -or a programmable AI. I sympathize those wanting to move the game along faster. What's wrong with a wif-based instant messenger capable of updating the gamefile? Provided all players are running the game simultaneously , could protect the flow. Some people feel that they lose an advantage when they let someone take all the time they want to email an impulse and therefore are opposed to Igougo. Perhaps the turns could be timed by the game(as set by the players). Igougo should still be available for when a player(s) is unavailable. Another option would be to have the updated gamefile on a website and have players login to move. With all wiffers now connected by the net, large games featuring teams of players thus allowing selected substitutes could be possible.

c92nichj · Post by **c92nichj** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 5:04 pm

The website option is interesting, then you could time the intercept resonse etc and if you didn't get an answer from a player in time the ai/script would take over.

Believe me this game takes long to play PBEM we started our latest game in August and by mid december we had only reached July 43, now we are having a bit of a break. And that is we still only exchange one email/ impulse and maybe a few around the turn end. I'm abit anxious at the moment as I commited a big fleet to bay of bengal successfully putting the Japaneese in india out of supply, but the IJN have a huge uncommited CV fleet that just waits for a decisive battle (China is conquered).

In Europe I've been more succesful and have a shot at paris from the north after a successful landing near to Lille. I'm anxious to start the game again.

I Go U Go

I Go U Go

RE: I Go U Go

RE: I Go U Go

RE: I Go U Go

RE: I Go U Go

RE: I Go U Go

RE: I Go U Go

RE: I Go U Go

RE: I Go U Go

RE: I Go U Go

RE: I Go U Go

RE: I Go U Go

RE: I Go U Go

RE: I Go U Go

RE: I Go U Go

RE: I Go U Go

RE: I Go U Go

RE: I Go U Go

RE: I Go U Go

RE: I Go U Go