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

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

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

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/9/2007 1:19:43 AM

Jimm

Posts: 607
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: York, UK
Status: offline

Absolutely agree. There would be nothing worse than rushing out a game to market,receive a huge amount of hype and response from the big WIF community out there, and it be a disappointment. I share the desire to see it in actuality- but its far more important to make sure its worth the wait.

(in reply to Ballista)

Post #: 301

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/26/2007 3:36:12 AM

sunshines

Posts: 1
Joined: 11/16/2006
Status: offline

One of the things I enjoyed the most about TOAW game was that you could let the AI play itself. (Select AI to play both sides anytime in the game).

It is so fun sometimes to just sit back and let a war unfold quickly on the screen while you stuff you face and root for one side like a sports event.

Sometimes I would like a quick play out of a possition that I had played to as a human player if I felt lazy and wanted to see how things could turn out. Either way this option for me is the single nost wanted feature usualy lacking in a war game. Will MWIF have a AI vs AI setting that can turned on at any time????

Sunshines

(in reply to Jimm)

Post #: 302

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/26/2007 5:01:34 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sunshines

One of the things I enjoyed the most about TOAW game was that you could let the AI play itself.� (Select AI to play both sides anytime in the game).

It is so fun sometimes to just sit back and let a war unfold quickly on the screen while you stuff you face and root for one side like a sports event.

Sometimes I would like a quick play out of a possition that I had played to as a human player if I felt lazy and wanted to see how things could turn out. Either way this option for me is the single nost wanted feature usualy lacking in a war game.� Will MWIF have a AI vs AI setting that can turned on at any time????

Sunshines

Welcome to the forum.

There have been several other forum members requesting this. It is not high on my priority list of features to add, but if it can be done with little effort, I will. At this point I haven't given it much thought.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to sunshines)

Post #: 303

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/26/2007 5:16:12 AM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
So I'll just say that I am designing for 1024 pixels wide by 768 pixels high, with support for larger widths and heights. The program 'reads' from the operating internals what resolution you have the screen/monitor(s) set for, rather than imposing a resolution.

With any luck, the support for "larger widths and heights" is accomplished by showing more of the map instead of just scaling up and making it larger. Please please please. I have a 30" monitor that I run at 2560x1600 and that screen real estate is put to much better use giving a broad view of things instead of just getting a staring at the same tiny little micro-view presented in giant fonts.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 304

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/29/2007 6:35:05 AM

coregames

Posts: 470
Joined: 8/12/2004
Status: offline

Some think it would be cool if both the old and new naval OCs were available, and the players select which before each scenario. This is from two players in our local WiF group (not me, I prefer the old version).

_____________________________

"The creative combination lays bare the presumption of a lie." -- Lasker

Keith Henderson

(in reply to Jimm)

Post #: 305

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/29/2007 7:09:24 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jchastain

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
So I'll just say that I am designing for 1024 pixels wide by 768 pixels high, with support for larger widths and heights. The program 'reads' from the operating internals what resolution you have the screen/monitor(s) set for, rather than imposing a resolution.

With any luck, the support for "larger widths and heights" is accomplished by showing more of the map instead of just scaling up and making it larger. Please please please. I have a 30" monitor that I run at 2560x1600 and that screen real estate is put to much better use giving a broad view of things instead of just getting a staring at the same tiny little micro-view presented in giant fonts.

The program has 8 levels of zoom, so how big each hex is depends on your preference and it is easily changed using the + and - keys on the numeric keypad (one of several ways to do that).

The program adapts the map display to a base of 96 pixels per inch, and then uses whatever monitor(s) you have available. I run two 19 inch monitors side by side and one of the beta testers uses 3 monitors across. There should be no problem making full use of your large monitor. By the way, you now have me interested in obtaining two 30" monitors (previously I had been lusting after two 24" monitors).

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 306

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/29/2007 7:12:59 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: coregames
Some think it would be cool if both the old and new naval OCs were available, and the players select which before each scenario. This is from two players in our local WiF group (not me, I prefer the old version).

I will probably end up doing that. The old Naval OC rules are already coded, so that will definitively be included. As for making the new version available, I should do that to make the program conform to the August 2004 (Patrice, do I have the dates right on this?) version of RAW I am designing to. But I have not promised that (yet).

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to coregames)

Post #: 307

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/29/2007 8:17:10 AM

paulderynck

Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

Another suggestion on the Yahoo list was to allow the player to choose either the old or the new flavor of Naval OC when he played one.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 308

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/29/2007 8:27:58 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Another suggestion on the Yahoo list was to allow the player to choose either the old or the new flavor of Naval OC when he played one.

Not to my taste. I prefer having this as an optional rule (old or new Naval OC), chosen/set before the game starts and used accordingly throughout the game. Increasing the flexibility of how Offensive chits can be used doesn't strike me as necessary - nor as an improvement.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to paulderynck)

Post #: 309

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/29/2007 8:33:05 AM

paulderynck

Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

Yeah.

I just thought I'd mention it. Its not even a molehill to die on.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 310

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/29/2007 8:49:12 AM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

I will probably end up doing that. The old Naval OC rules are already coded, so that will definitively be included. As for making the new version available, I should do that to make the program conform to the August 2004 (Patrice, do I have the dates right on this?) version of RAW I am designing to. But I have not promised that (yet).

RAW7 august 2004 is the latest RAW, tha's it.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 311

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/4/2007 6:44:14 PM

lomyrin

Posts: 3741
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline

I just saw a message on the regular Wiflist that ADG has just released a 2007 set of unit counter sheets that includes a number of changes and additions to the existing counters.

The changes appear to add, change, and otherwise modify planes, ships, land units, SUB's, and Minor country units. An example is addition of Portugal forces that makes the unopposed invasion of Portugal no longer possible.

What is the prognosis for inclusion of these changes in MWiF product 1 ?

Lars

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 312

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/4/2007 8:26:29 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

I just saw a message on the regular Wiflist that ADG has just released a 2007 set of unit counter sheets that includes a number of changes and additions to the�existing counters.

The changes appear to add, change, and otherwise modify�planes, ships, land units, SUB's, and Minor country units. An example is addition of Portugal forces that makes the unopposed invasion of Portugal no longer possible.

What is the prognosis for inclusion of these changes in MWiF product 1 ?

Lars

I would have to understand what the changes are in detail to make an informed decision. If they are small, adding them is a no-brainer. But if they are sbustantial, then I would have to give it serious thought. One of the problems, Chris ran into repeatedly was that ADG keeps coming up with improvements/add-ons to the WIF system of games. Keeping up with the changes means the product design document is a moving target.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to lomyrin)

Post #: 313

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/4/2007 8:53:27 PM

lomyrin

Posts: 3741
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline

I have not seen the details, only the general descriptions. Apparently there are some strength changes and a few additional planes and ships as well as Minor country units and Volunteer units. SUB's seem to have a lot of changes. The Mech in Flames counter sheet is said to have quite a few changes.

I would defer to Patrice for details as I am convinced that he will check it out.

Lars

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 314

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/4/2007 11:44:28 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

I have not seen the details, only the general descriptions. Apparently there are some strength changes and a few additional planes and ships as well as Minor country units and Volunteer units. SUB's seem to have a lot of changes. The Mech in Flames counter sheet is said to have quite a few changes.

I would defer to Patrice for details as I am convinced that he will check it out.

Lars

I already saw the playtest versions of those countersheets, but not yet the production versions. I'll run donw a comparison when I'll have them, and publish the result on my website when done. I'll also publish reduced scans of them for people to see them.

CS7-8 (PiF) only have a couple planes changed, the Sunderland getting a white cirle & NO PARA symbol, and the CW LL C47 changed from 1938 to 1941, and the Ansons not ATR any more, and a new ATR, the Harrow in 38 or 36. If these had to be included in MWiF, there would be 1 new plane graphic to add to the counters bitmaps (the Harrow) and a couple of counters to change their values, and the Sunderlands to add the No PARA symbol.

CS18-22 (SiF) only have Subs changing their arrival years and some of their factors, to go with the change initiated in 2003 about SUBs philosophy. If they had to be included in MWiF, there would only be a couple of dozens of SUBs to change in value & some combat factors. I would volunteer happily to do them.

CS24 only have 6-7 US Entry Chits changing values. This make the overall average & standard deviation of the whole lot of US entry counters (CS24 + CS14) change a bit :

Previous values (CS24 from 2000 & CS14 from 2003) :
Averages :
1939 2,27
1940 1,35
1941 3,47
1942 4,21
1943 5,08

Standard Deviations :
1939 1,39
1940 1,15
1941 1,41
1942 1,19
1943 1,00

2007 counters values (CS24 from 2007 & CS13 from 2003)
Averages :
1939 2,33
1940 1,35
1941 3,53
1942 4,21
1943 5,08

Standard Deviations :
1939 1,30
1940 0,93
1941 1,41
1942 1,19
1943 1,00

If they had to be included in MWiF, there would only be the values of the US Entry chits to change.

And finaly the new CS23 has no new type of units, only
- Units reprinted from CS25 (already included in MWiF),
- Ship Units reprinted from CS30, but with SiF values now (they had WiF values).
- New City Based Volunteers (for which rules already exist, or should exist in MWiF)
- 4 New GBA unit (totaling 12 now), plus 4 GBA DIV, obtained either by propoting a DIV in combat to GBA, or by breakdowning a GBA.
- 1 Portugese GAR (3-1) from way before 1939.
- The regular ENG and DIV that the old CS23 also had (the ENG are the same and in the same numbers, and the DIV are changed a bit).
- The regular Supply units that the old CS23 also had (the CW have only 2 now, and the Chinese have 1 for each faction).
- The regular FORT units that the old CS23 also had.

If they had to be included in MWiF, there would only be half a dozen aircraft bitmaps to add to the game (most of them being duplicates of already existing ones), half a dozen ships graphics, and some new units data to add to the game. Not much to do either.

To sum up, if there is a will to add them, I volunteer to add them all, there is not much to do.

< Message edited by Froonp -- 4/4/2007 11:53:53 PM >

(in reply to lomyrin)

Post #: 315

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/5/2007 12:00:06 AM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

Here is ADG announcement, posted at comsimworld & the WiFlist.

*********************
ADG is pleased to announce the release of its latest kits:

2007 Planes in Flames (PiF, CS 7-9)
2007 Ships in Flames (SiF, CS 18-22)
2007 Mech in Flames (MiF CS23 & non-leader counters from (LiF) CS 25)
2007 WiF countersheet set (all of the above & CS 13, 17 & 24)

All kits have been revised with the latest errata. In the case of PiF,
this includes new aircraft and some revised capabilities of some
others but overall not dramatic changes.

SiF has more substantial changes particularly amongst the subs which
have all been dramatically revised to base their availability date on
speed and range (which changed dramatically during the war) rather
than actual firepower (which didn't). Thus advanced building subs
becomes a major option to get those long range subs early that can do
the most damage to the vulnerable supply lines.

Finally Mech in Flames has been completely overhauled to make it
totally compatible with WiF Final edition, both graphically and
conceptually. Thus all those superfluous (and ugly) garrison, mech and
motorised units have been replaced or deleted. As a nod to the kit
name we have updated the late-war ARM, MECH and MOT of each major
power to WiF: Final standards as well as all the other units included
in the original Mech in Flames (e.g. supply units are now depicted as
what they are, motorised divisions and forts have also of course beenr
etained).

Some of the spare units created by deleting the obsolete units were
used to move across all the non-leader counters from CS 25 (Leaders in
Flames), which is not being reprinted (so get in quick if you want one
of the last hundred).

This meant we also got to upgrade the Guards Banner Army units both
extending the numbers and types of them, but also adding a new unit
type, Guards Banner Divisions (which can only be brought into play by
breaking down a Guards Banner army unit). As you can imagine, the
Guards Banner divisions are pretty good, so not only does this
increase the flexibility of the Russian player, it also increases
their decision making and staying power (not to mention the counters
themselves look pretty schmick).

With the rest of the spare counters, we have added extra city based
volunteers for many more major powers giving them historical
objectives to head towards, some early and late war aircraft, some
extra minor units to stop naughty invasions (no more Lisbon on a free
I'm afraid) and also some ship what-ifs (e.g. British monitors, the
actual Japanese CV Shinano class conversions, upgunned Scharnhorsts
and French CVL conversions) in both WiF Classic and WiF Deluxe versions.

All these kits also include a kit identifier, a single character on
the back of the counter that tells you which kit the counter comes
from. In the case of MiF, there is sometimes a second character that
tells you that not only does the counter come from MiF, but it is only
to be employed if you are also playing SiF.

The 2007 WiF countersheet set includes all the above plus one copy of
CS 13, 17 & 24. CS 13 & 17 are the DoD counters printed unchanged
while CS 24 has had 2/3rds of the '0' US entry chits upped to 1 making
US entry slightly earlier and minimising the chances of picking a 0 US
entry chit (only 2 left now).

**************************

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 316

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/5/2007 2:02:58 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

Patrice,

If we can do this without going back to Rob for more graphics, then fine. Perhaps we can reuse some of the existing air unit graphics for the new units?

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 317

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/5/2007 2:25:08 AM

Neilster

Posts: 2890
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline

This all sounds good. The sub stuff especially so. Given the time in development and attention to detail shown so far on this project, my vote would be to not scrimp on this.

Cheers, Neilster

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 318

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/5/2007 3:48:32 AM

Mziln

Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline

quote:

I would suggest that you check with Matrix Games first. Remember we are using RAW7 august 2004 while the 2007 constitutes new product.

Can�product developed by ADG in 2007 be used by Matrix Games�in MWiF �

Or did the aggrement�between ADG and Matrix Games�limit creation of�MWiF�using RAW7 the Final Edition august 2004

�

Since you decided to ignore this post. Here are some new terms for you "Copyright Infringement" and "Theft of intellectual property". Now does Matrix Games have the legal rights to use property created by ADG for WiF in 2007?

< Message edited by Mziln -- 4/5/2007 5:43:06 PM >

(in reply to Neilster)

Post #: 319

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/5/2007 4:03:55 AM

wfzimmerman

Posts: 660
Joined: 10/22/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

This all sounds good. The sub stuff especially so. Given the time in development and attention to detail shown so far on this project, my vote would be to not scrimp on this.

Cheers, Neilster

Strongly agree. It was always inevitable that ADG would release new revenue opportunities ////// //////// products before MWIF completed. We need to stay in sync with 2007 WIF.

_____________________________

Contribute to the Steve H. thank you book! http://www.nimblebooks.com/wordpress/2009/04/contribute-to-the-wargamers-wwii-quiz-book/

(in reply to Neilster)

Post #: 320

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/5/2007 7:28:32 AM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Patrice,

If we can do this without going back to Rob for more graphics, then fine. Perhaps we can reuse some of the existing air unit graphics for the new units?

There is a D.500 and an I-5 I believe in CS23, as well as a couple of new ships. They all would need new graphics.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 321

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/6/2007 12:44:53 AM

composer99

Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln

quote:

I would suggest that you check with Matrix Games first. Remember we are using RAW7 august 2004 while the 2007 constitutes new product.

Can�product developed by ADG in 2007 be used by Matrix Games�in MWiF �

Or did the aggrement�between ADG and Matrix Games�limit creation of�MWiF�using RAW7 the Final Edition august 2004
�

Since you decided to ignore this post. Here are some new terms for you "Copyright Infringement" and "Theft of intellectual property". Now does Matrix Games have the legal rights to use property created by ADG for WiF in 2007?

Frankly, this is a rather disrespectul tone to be setting.

I can understand people who are impatient (goodness knows I am) and who would be willing to forgo certain features of MWiF (AI, NetPlay, whatever) to see it arrive sooner, and who are vocal in expressing their impatience.

This goes beyond that to insulting people's intelligence and their integrity. As such, I do not understand it, and I do not feel I should avoid posting a rebuke.

If you wanted an answer to your question, all you had to do was ask again.

I do apologize for being harsh if this comment was actually meant with some humour, but simply reading it as is, it felt like a sarcastic cheap shot to me.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Mziln)

Post #: 322

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/6/2007 1:02:07 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln

quote:

I would suggest that you check with Matrix Games first. Remember we are using RAW7 august 2004 while the 2007 constitutes new product.

Can�product developed by ADG in 2007 be used by Matrix Games�in MWiF �

Or did the aggrement�between ADG and Matrix Games�limit creation of�MWiF�using RAW7 the Final Edition august 2004
�

Since you decided to ignore this post. Here are some new terms for you "Copyright Infringement" and "Theft of intellectual property". Now does Matrix Games have the legal rights to use property created by ADG for WiF in 2007?

The details of legal agreements between Matrix Games and ADG are not open to pubilc review.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Mziln)

Post #: 323

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/6/2007 4:22:29 AM

Mziln

Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
The details of legal agreements between Matrix Games and ADG are not open to pubilc review.

Exactly. Before everyone starts screaming for the changes they may not be possiable due to the agreements between ADG and Matrix.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 324

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/17/2007 5:22:33 AM

paulderynck

Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

Will LOC Vichy be an option for MWIF?

(in reply to Mziln)

Post #: 325

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/17/2007 6:07:59 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Will LOC Vichy be an option for MWIF?

This has been discussed previously. No, it is not part of RAW August 2004.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to paulderynck)

Post #: 326

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/18/2007 10:11:20 AM

JagWars

Posts: 121
Joined: 7/1/2000
From: Eureka, Missouri, USA
Status: offline

It is probably too late in the process and although I have read through all of the posts, I may repeat what has already been mentioned;

1.) Axis subs should not be permitted to leave the Med; they should be permitted to enter, but not leave. Because of the high evaporation rate in the Med vs the Atlantic, the German subs could cut their engines and let the current pull them into the Med without detection. However, the inverse was not possible, in fact the current worked against them.
2.) German Aux Cruisers should only be able to sink CPs. Once found, they should automatically be sunk or aborted, dertermined by die roll. The Merchant raiders were lightly gunned and lightly armoured ships. They would have had a tough time sinking a destroyer, let alone a cruiser.
3.) Random production of CVPs should be controlled so that CVPs are not produced with class ratings greater than available CVs. I have played several games where I have pulled class 4 and 5 CVPs when I have no class 4 or 5 CVs. This is particularly critical for the Japanese as the war wears on; the proportion of 4 and 5 class CVPs increase with each year, but the number of 4 or 5 class CVs do not, as the Japanese rarely have an opportunity to build them.
4.) When Italy is conquered / surrenders, the fleet should be disbanded. This is a better representation of what happened historically.
5.) US entry should be much less variable. I have played games where the US has entered the war in Jul/Aug 1941 (much too early) and as late as Mar/Apr 1943 (much too late). The US should not be able to voluntarily enter the war before Jan/Feb 1942, but should enter the war no later than Sep/Oct 1942. While the argument that the US might never have entered the war if the Japanese had not bombed Pearl Harbor has merit, the fact is the Japanese did bomb Pearl Harbor. The same arguement could be made that had Germany not invaded Poland, France and the UK would not have declared war on Germany. The Japanese certainly beleived that US entry into the war was imminent.
6.) Subs should be able to search for combat ships without having to get four or more suprise points. The surprise points should be used to determine who gets to fire first, the sub or the combat ship.

While WiF is the best strategic WWII wargame that I have played, there are many unhistorical elements of the game; the ones listed above are the ones I find most irksome. A few of the others that I find irksome are:
a.) With the possible exception of Militia and Garrison units, there should be no non-motorized units in the British or US force pools. The German and Japanese force pools have way too many motorized units.
b.) While changing it would have a dramatic effect upon game balance, the German production is too great in relation to UK production. At the height of the Stalingrad campaign, the Commonwealth was producing more planes and more tanks per month than the Germans. Throughout the war, in almost every production catagory, the Commonwealth production was equal to or greater than German production.
c.) The Germans should not start the game with any AMPHs or TRSs. At the time of the SeaLion Planning, the German's did not have sufficient sea transport capacity to ship two divisions accross the channel. The plan was to use river Rhine boats. Anyone that thinks that SeaLion was a realistic plan in 1940, I would encourage you to read the following two essays Sealion Essay and Iam Montgomerie's article
d.) There is absolutely no reason in the game for the German's to go to Norway or for the Italians to go to Greece. These were real historical events that had a significant impact upon the war. There should be penalties / rewards for going or not goint to these places. Similarly, there should be penaties against the Allies if they do not attempt to support these minor countries when they are invaded.

(in reply to David Heath)

Post #: 327

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/18/2007 11:42:09 AM

Frederyck

Posts: 427
Joined: 12/7/2005
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline

All of your comments have a lot of merit; but the object of MWiF is to use the rules for the board game, as far as that is possible. Changes to game structure/rules is not part of the mission objective for this project.

As for point number 6, you can already do this. You can just choose not to invoke Sub combat if you want to.

Raw7m 11.5.7 Choosing combat type
"3. If it is not a naval air combat, you can choose to make it a submarine combat (active side decides first) if you have a SUB included and your opponent has any convoy points included;"

Ie, if your subs are part of a combat with an enemy that has CONVs in the area, and no-one has chosen air combat, you can always call Sub-combat *if you want to*. If you don't want to, a surface combat will take place.

< Message edited by Frederyck -- 4/18/2007 11:44:06 AM >

(in reply to JagWars)

Post #: 328

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/18/2007 12:15:34 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frederyck

All of your comments have a lot of merit; but the object of MWiF is to use the rules for the board game, as far as that is possible. Changes to game structure/rules is not part of the mission objective for this project.

Yes.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Frederyck)

Post #: 329

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/18/2007 1:41:40 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jaguar
2.) German Aux Cruisers should only be able to sink CPs. Once found, they should automatically be sunk or aborted, dertermined by die roll. The Merchant raiders were lightly gunned and lightly armoured ships. They would have had a tough time sinking a destroyer, let alone a cruiser.

Read this :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_auxiliary_cruiser_Kormoran

quote:

4.) When Italy is conquered / surrenders, the fleet should be disbanded. This is a better representation of what happened historically.

German had to bomb the Roma IIRC, so that it didn't join the allies.
I think that WiF FE does a pretty good job at representing history, as you usually see a couple of BB join the Allied fleet when Italy surrenders.
http://www.bobhenneman.info/roma.htm

quote:

5.) US entry should be much less variable. I have played games where the US has entered the war in Jul/Aug 1941 (much too early) and as late as Mar/Apr 1943 (much too late).

There is a step in that direction with the new 2007 counters from CS24, who have half a dozen US Entry markers with their value changed in that direction. Hopefully, MWiF will integrate these new counters.

(in reply to JagWars)

Post #: 330