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 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/18/2007 4:59:42 PM

composer99

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

There is a reward for Germany to invade Norway - the SS MECH corps. It's usually not enough of a reward to hand over 1-2 TRS and 6-10 convoy points to the CW. The Germans also don't usually have the action limits (or the units, or the time) to go into Norway the way they did historically, and while historically they managed to evict the CW and France from Narvik, in the game that can be made impossible by starting the Norwegian ski div up there (that + a notional will surely be too strong for whatever forces the Germans can invade with) and then shuttling in a corps (or two).

However, the Axis often do invade Greece - just not in the way the Italians did in the war (it is asking too much of players to deliberately replicate the failures and incompetencies of the past, after all). Either they want the extra resource or they want to get Yugoslavia on side.

And while many of the lesser irksome things are indeed (very) ahistorical - they are probably critically important, game-balance wise. Without starting with as much sealift as it does, Germany could not hope to launch a Sealion in WiF, let alone a Norwegian campaign. Likewise, if Allied production were anywhere near historical levels, the Axis would almost certainly never make it to 1945.

There are many ways WiF could be improved, to be sure, and you have touched upon some of them. But that will be a decision for Harry & the folks at ADG to make, not us rubes here nor Steve & Matrix Games.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 331

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/18/2007 5:46:10 PM

JagWars

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

I realize that the scope of the project is to re-create the boardgame in a computer-based system. Over the past four years, I have read 90-95% of the posts in the forum. Perhaps I have misinterpretted or have experience perception of convenience, but it appeared that minor tweaks had already been decided.

While some may disagree, ADGs constant revisions and additions to the rules and game structure to improve play functionally or in an attempt to better represent the history is, I beleive, what has kept the game active for the past twenty years and is one of the game's strengths.

Yes the subs can attack SCSs in the manner you describe, but from my perspective, it is not a good representation and does not feel like sub combat. When I think of surface combat, I picture the sub on the surface firing their deck gun at CAs and BBs. I realize, of course, that that is not what is represented. My point was more that the subs should have an opportunity to fire first if they are not detected (found). There were several spectacular sinkings done by undetected subs; the Ark Royal and the Royal Oak come to mind immediately.

(in reply to Frederyck)

Post #: 332

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/18/2007 7:00:03 PM

Frederyck

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

I think that those spectacular sinkings are supposed to be represented by the "use 3 surprise points to choose any target" of sub or surface combat. WiF really isn't granular enough, I think, to simulate "subs fire first" and stuff like that on a more tactical level.

I agree with you that those minor (and sometimes major) tweaks that are being done certainly keeps the game alive in a way that most other games aren't. I believe though, that most tweaks being done in MWiF represents the difficulty of stream lining the rules for another medium that for example allows for the same scale everywhere, and unlimited chits etc.

(in reply to JagWars)

Post #: 333

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/18/2007 7:19:03 PM

JagWars

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

Yes the German Aux Cruiser Kormoran did sink the CL HMAS Sydney. However, this was an isolated and unusual case. The battle as at close range because the HMAS Sydney was completely fooled by the Kormoran. However, the HMAS Sydney landed four hits on the Kormoran which was subsequently scuttled.

The German Aux Cruiser Stier sank the US armed freighter Stephen Hopkins, but again was so badly damaged itself that she had to be abandoned and scuttled after the engagement. The German Aux Cruiser Thor managed to sink the Aux Cruiser HMS Voltaire and was able to continue on its voyage. So while the German Aux Cruisers were capable of giving equal battle with ships similarly armed and armoured, in every confict with allied cruisers (excepting the HMS Sydney), they lost the battle. The German Aux Cruisers best defense was disceipt and deception. When they were spotted by allied combat ships, their first defense was escape, not engagement.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 334

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/18/2007 8:20:39 PM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jaguar

Yes the German Aux Cruiser Kormoran did sink the CL HMAS Sydney. However, this was an isolated and unusual case. The battle as at close range because the HMAS Sydney was completely fooled by the Kormoran. However, the HMAS Sydney landed four hits on the Kormoran which was subsequently scuttled.

The German Aux Cruiser Stier sank the US armed freighter Stephen Hopkins, but again was so badly damaged itself that she had to be abandoned and scuttled after the engagement. The German Aux Cruiser Thor managed to sink the Aux Cruiser HMS Voltaire and was able to continue on its voyage. So while the German Aux Cruisers were capable of giving equal battle with ships similarly armed and armoured, in every confict with allied cruisers (excepting the HMS Sydney), they lost the battle. The German Aux Cruisers best defense was disceipt and deception. When they were spotted by allied combat ships, their first defense was escape, not engagement.

This is the same in WiF FE. They have 1 or 2 combat factor and 9 or 10 in defense, so they generaly get damaged or aborted if fighting something else than CP.
Have you played with these counters ? We did, thrice, and I feel they are doing a good job representing the actual Raiders. They get to sing 4-10 CP for all the game (they sank 6 historically), and generaly are not a match for real warships, except when achieving high surprise, such as the Kormoran achieved on the Sydney (we also had a case like this in one of our game).
But their best effect is the dispersal of the Royal Navy all around he world, to chase them, and the paranoia achieved amongst the allies. You just need to build 2-3 to see some effects.

(in reply to JagWars)

Post #: 335

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/18/2007 8:40:36 PM

JagWars

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

Well, I must need to find a new group of competitors. In sixteen WiFFE games, I am yet to see an Axis invasion of Greece.

(in reply to composer99)

Post #: 336

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/18/2007 9:59:27 PM

JagWars

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

I prefer to use them, but not everyone in my group does.They do an outstanding job of dispersing the CW navy. However, they generally have little impact upon the CPs unless the CW foolishly does not escort the convoys. I generally build five or six early in the game.

My issue is that I rarely sink a CP, which I think I should be doing, but I damage a good number of British Cruisers (5 or 6 a game) which should not happen.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 337

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/18/2007 10:45:56 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jaguar
Well, I must need to find a new group of competitors. In sixteen WiFFE games, I am yet to see an Axis invasion of Greece.

I prefer to use them, but not everyone in my group does.They do an outstanding job of dispersing the CW navy. However, they generally have little impact upon the CPs unless the CW foolishly does not escort the convoys. I generally build five or six early in the game.

My issue is that I rarely sink a CP, which I think I should be doing, but I damage a good number of British Cruisers (5 or 6 a game) which should not happen.

Your comments made me think that one benefit of MWIF will be to enable players to play against a variety of opponents who make different choices about:
- which rules to use
- how to interpret rules
- strategies
- operational decisions (e.g., Greece and convoy protection)
- tactics.

For example, your experience with the auxiliary cruisers seems to be mainly due to how the Allied player(s) react(s) to their presence. Rather than attacking unprotected convoys, you end up engaging enemy cruisers.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to JagWars)

Post #: 338

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/19/2007 1:13:23 AM

composer99

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

As the CW, I'd gladly trade damaged CLs for damaged/sunk CXs if it saves convoys - chances are I might make good on repairing the CLs, but the Germans probably won't make good on their losses, at least not at the same rate.

Perhaps CXs need to be treated as subs for the sake of the combat they can call? That would guarantee they hit convoys first but get damaged/sunk if there are any convoy defences.

This would be something to take up with ADG rather than Matrix, of course.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 339

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/19/2007 9:35:31 AM

JagWars

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

In my group, it is rare that there is an opportunity to attack an unescorted CW convoy. Really, the few CPs sunk and CL/CAs damaged do not make the CXs worth their cost or make up for the opportunity cost lost by choosing a naval or combined acton. The real benefit is forcing the CW to spead out his cruiser forces and force him to take more naval or combined actions himself trying to hunt down the CXs. FtF wargames are as much about psycology as they are about sound strategy and tactics. Convice your opponent that he has a disadvantage, and he is much more likely to beat himself. Perception is frequently as dangerous as reality.

I know that the discussion concerning the AI is elsewhere in the forum, but if you have not considered having the AI escort the Australian to UK and India to UK convoys, I would suggest reconsidering, particularly if the AI is permitted to review the Axis production. Sending a pair of German CXs to the east African costal areas to attack the "Food in Flames" convoys from Austalia and India can be quite disruptive to the CW production for very little cost.

While MWiF presents an opportunity to widen my opponent list, my previous experiences with distance or online / PBEM wargaming has been disappointing. Several of the opponents have been lacking in courtesy, integrity, or reliability.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 340

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/19/2007 10:50:50 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jaguar
While MWiF presents an opportunity to widen my opponent list, my previous experiences with distance or online / PBEM wargaming has been disappointing. Several of the opponents have been lacking in courtesy, integrity, or reliability.

Interesting, but not unexpected.

Perhaps a central war game clearing house could be created, where players register for games and after the game is over submit evaluations of each other in regard to 4 or 5 items (you listed 3 candidate items). My idea is that players would have a reputation/history that other players could examine before committing to playing a game with/against them. the system should be both extremely simple and uncorruptable. The more mindless, the better, in my opinion.

I use to play tournament chess and the rating system was very dependable in evaluating the skill level of an opponent (though not his courtesy et al).

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to JagWars)

Post #: 341

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/20/2007 5:05:06 AM

Neilster

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

quote:

While MWiF presents an opportunity to widen my opponent list, my previous experiences with distance or online / PBEM wargaming has been disappointing. Several of the opponents have been lacking in courtesy, integrity, or reliability.

I think WiF players are better than average in this regard. The Matrix forums; the MWiF one especially, are extremely courteous and populated by intelligent folks.

Thanks for informing me about the U-boats' Med entry. As has been mentioned, some of your other points touch on the topic of how inevitable historical events are in WiF. IMHO, when in doubt, MWiF should be open-ended. This will aid replayability and we don't know how things would have turned out if history was replayed. Just as soon as I perfect the time machine I'm building in my shed (the miniature fusion reactor is proving more difficult to perfect than I expected), I'll nip back to Aug 31 1939, kill a butterfly, and we'll find out. Unless none of you are born because of the new path history will take. Nazi colony ships leaving for the outer Solar System etc

Cheers, Neilster

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 342

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/21/2007 1:28:37 AM

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 listed the changes, except for the new CS23.
Here they are :

CS7 :
No change, except the Kit Identifier (Pl) added.

CS8 :
No change, except the Kit Identifier (Pl) added.

CS9 :
Kit Identifier (Pl) added.
CW LND 1938 : Anson --> 1935 : Range no more in white circle
CW LND 1936 : Anson (0-*-1-1-5) white circle --> 1936 : ATR Harrow (0-1-2-2-9) white circle
CW NAV 1939 : Sunderland (3-1-2-1-20) --> 1939 : Sunderland (3-2-2-1-20) white circle no para
CW ATR 1938 : C-47 (0-*-*-*-15) --> 1941 : C-47 (0-*-*-*-15)
Japan NAV 1941 : D4Y1 (4-3-3-1-6 ext) --> 1943 : D4Y1 (4-3-3-1-6 ext)
France ATR 1938 : C-47 (0-*-*-*-15) --> 1941 : C-47 (0-*-*-*-15)

1 new graphic is needed here, for the Harrow.

CS18 :
No change, except the Kit Identifier (S) added.

CS19 :
Kit Identifier (S) added.
USA SUB (5-7-0-0-6-3) --> (3-7-0-0-6-3) Second Cycle Cost 1 (was 2)
USA SUB (3-8-0-0-4-4) --> Dated 1934 (was 1928)
USA SUB (5-8-0-0-5-4) --> (5-7-0-0-5-4) dated 1943 (was 1941) Second Cycle Cost 2 (was 1)
USA SUB (2-8-0-0-5-3) --> Dated 1938 (was 1922)
USA SUB (3-8-0-0-6-5) --> Dated 1944 (was 1938) Second Cycle Cost 2 (was 1)
USA SUB (4-8-0-0-6-4) --> (5-8-0-0-6-4) dated 1944 (was 1940) Second Cycle Cost 2 (was 1)
USA SUB (4-6-0-0-7-5) --> (3-6-0-0-5-3) dated 1941 (was 1943) Second Cycle Cost 1 (was 2)
USA SUB (6-7-0-0-4-3) --> (4-7-0-0-4-3) dated 1932 (was 1944) Second Cycle Cost 1 (was 2)
USA SUB (4-7-0-0-5-2) --> Dated 1939 (was 1935)
Italy SUB (3-8-0-0-4-3) --> Dated 1933 (was 1935)
Italy SUB (5-8-0-0-5-3) --> (4-8-0-0-5-2) dated 1940 (was 1941) Second Cycle Cost 1 (was 2)
Italy SUB (2-8-0-0-5-2) --> Dated 1935 (was 1927)
Italy SUB (3-8-0-0-6-3) --> (4-8-0-0-6-3) dated 1943 (was 1939) Second Cycle Cost 2 (was 1)
Italy SUB (4-7-0-0-6-4) --> (3-8-0-0-5-4) dated 1941 (was 1940)
Italy SUB (6-7-0-0-4-2) --> (5-7-0-0-6-2) dated 1943 (was 1942)
Italy SUB (3-7-0-0-3-2) --> (3-7-0-0-4-4) dated 1938 (was 1922)
Italy SUB (4-7-0-0-3-2) --> Dated 1928 (was 1937)
China SUB (3-8-0-0-5-2) --> Dated 1942 (was 1939)
China SUB (4-8-0-0-4-3) --> Dated 1938 (was 1942)

CS20 :
No change, except the Kit Identifier (S) added.

CS21 :
Kit Identifier (S) added.
CW SUB (2-7-0-0-4-4) --> (3-7-0-0-4-4) dated 1938 (was 1927)
CW SUB (3-7-0-0-6-4) --> Second Cycle Cost 2 (was 1)
CW SUB (2-8-0-0-3-2) --> (2-8-0-0-4-2) dated 1925 (was 1915)
CW SUB (5-7-0-0-4-3) --> (3-7-0-0-5-3) Second Cycle Cost 1 (was 2)
France SUB (3-7-0-0-6-3) --> Dated 1943 (was 1938) Second Cycle Cost 2 (was 1)
France SUB (2-7-0-0-4-2) --> Dated 1928 (was 1922)
France SUB (5-8-0-0-5-3) --> (4-8-0-0-5-2) dated 1941 (was 1940) Second Cycle Cost 1 (was 2)
Germany SUB (6-6-0-0-6-4) --> (5-6-0-0-6-4)
Germany SUB (5-7-0-0-7-4) --> Walter SUB
Germany SUB (3-6-0-0-4-2) --> (3-6-0-0-5-2) dated 1938 (was 1936)
Germany SUB (6-7-0-0-4-3) --> (3-7-0-0-6-3) dated 1940 (was 1942) Second Cycle Cost 1 (was 2)
Germany SUB (4-7-0-0-6-3) --> Second Cycle Cost 1 (was 2)
Germany SUB (3-7-0-0-6-5) --> Dated 1942 (was 1940)
Germany SUB (4-6-0-0-7-5) --> Walter SUB

CS22 :
Kit Identifier (S) added.
USSR SUB (2-6-0-0-5-3) --> Dated 1938 (was 1931)
USSR SUB (2-8-0-0-6-4) --> Dated 1942 (was 1933)
USSR SUB (4-7-0-0-5-4) --> Dated 1943 (was 1937)
USSR SUB (3-8-0-0-6-5) --> Dated 1944 (was 1940)
USSR SUB (5-8-0-0-4-3) --> (5-8-0-0-5-2) dated 1941 (was 1943)
Japan SUB (2-7-0-0-6-3) --> Dated 1939 (was 1935)
Japan SUB (4-7-0-0-6-4) --> Dated 1943 (was 1942) Second Cycle Cost 2 (was 1)
Japan SUB (3-6-0-0-7-4) --> Dated 1944 (was 1943)
Japan SUB (5-7-0-0-5-5) --> Dated 1942 (was 1941) Second Cycle Cost 2 (was 1)
Japan SUB (5-6-0-0-3-3) --> (4-6-0-0-3-3) Dated 1934 (was 1940)
Japan SUB (6-7-0-0-4-4) --> (5-7-0-0-4-4) Dated 1940 (was 1944) Second Cycle Cost 1 (was 2)

CS24 :
The difference between the 2000 and 2007 WiF Classic countersheet 24 is that some US Entry Chits are changed :
1939
0 --> 1
0 --> 1

1940
0 --> 1
0 --> 1
3 --> 2
4 --> 3

1941
3 --> 4

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

CS23 will be listed next.

You can see reduced pictures of the new CS at the links accessible at http://perso.orange.fr/froon/WiF/counters/index.htm

All in all, there are not much changes, only the SUBs that are made coherent with the 2003 ones (changed in the CS1-6), and the US Entry made a little less random.

There will be at most a dozen new graphics to add to the game, most of them being on CS23 (only one is in those 9 CS, the Harrow). Not much to do for the gain IMO.

(in reply to lomyrin)

Post #: 343

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/21/2007 1:29:14 AM

JagWars

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

There are advantages to a computer-based game, particularly at the complexity level of WiF.
- it eliminates rules arguements and discussion; after twenty years and thirty some-odd games of WiF, we still incur rules disagreements and misinterpretations.
- resolves terrain and movement issues; are Venice and Trieste invadable hexes; what is the terrain on Eniwetok Island; can you move a fleet from Port Said directly into the Red Sea or must you move into the Eastern Mediterranean first, is Batavia a port on both the South China Sea and the East Indian Ocean?
- handles supply paths; no accidental mis-counting of hexes, forgetting a desert hex counts as two hexes for supply purposes, failure to notice the weather line.
- regulates resource trasportation; no more "there was a CP there, someone must have bumped or moved it".
- regulating game mechanics; returning air missions are turned face down, rebased ships are turned face down, etc.
- control production and prevent errors; for some reason I have developed an annoying habit of placing my produced motorized and mechanized units four turns ahead on the production / re-inforcement wheel instead of three.

However, several aspects of face to face play are abdicated.
- fellowship and camaraderie
- the psychological impact of body language and dice rolling
- the best breakfast in the county

That is why while I am as anxious as everyone else on the forum to get my boney fingers onto an hard copy of MWiF, it is mitigated by the desire to save enough money to buy two big-screen flat panel monitors onto which to launch the game. Then our wargame group can garner the advantages of a computer-based system without sacrificing the benefits of face to face play.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 344

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/21/2007 1:39:25 AM

JagWars

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

After a cursory review of the new CS23, it appears that the Mech, Mot, Arm units form LiF has replaced the Mech, Mot, Arm units that were previously on CS23. Does that mean the units that are no longer on CS23 should be excised from the game?

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 345

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/21/2007 1:51:35 AM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jaguar

After a cursory review of the new CS23, it appears that the Mech, Mot, Arm units form LiF has replaced the Mech, Mot, Arm units that were previously on CS23. Does that mean the units that are no longer on CS23 should be excised from the game?

Yes.
Most of the players I know of already had trashed those old counters (designed in 1993 for WiF5, not WiF FE) out of WiF FE. They are not included in MWiF neither.

The best meat on CS23 are the new city based volunteers, especially for the Japanese IMO. Those ARM / MECH & MOT units that are from LiF are not new, they are already in MWiF.

(in reply to JagWars)

Post #: 346

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/21/2007 9:45:20 AM

coregames

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

I know this has been mentioned on the boards before, but might a future expasion include the option of playing at the variable scales of the board game? This would facilitate compatibilty with it, for trying out strategies and also for keeping track of over-the-board games, in case the pieces get knocked over, or so players can take a 'snapshot' of the game home with them between sessions.

I look forward to the unified scale, but an expansion with that additional feature would be welcomed I think.

_____________________________

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

Keith Henderson

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 347

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 5/7/2007 2:04:27 AM

Sewerlobster

Posts: 330
Joined: 5/7/2007
From: Reading, Pa. USA
Status: offline

Yet another vote for staying close to the board game in regards to how it plays.

I am less keen on unlimited divisions for 2 reasons:1) The scale is supposed to be corps/army and the original limited divisions and 2) much more importantly -- the AI will almost certainly suffer with unlimited divisions, literally it would almost certainly lean towards producing and using only divisions to the point of changing the flavor of the game. Even at 2 div per corps a human player would have an unmanageable(or less playable) number of units.

(in reply to coregames)

Post #: 348

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 5/8/2007 12:28:13 AM

fallgelb

Posts: 28
Joined: 5/8/2007
Status: offline

As a WIF Board Gamer for me MWIF could have three functions:
1) Playing WIF vs. the AI if no human player is avilable or to test new strategies in a "laboratorium".
2) Setting up "mikro-plans" and start some impulses to see what could happen.
3) To play via Internet or email vs. human players "far away".

For the first funtion I would need a good AI but for me thats the greatest problem in nearly all the computer games on the market. In most games on a higher difficulty level the AI only gets more production and plays not really better.
An idea (or a wish): on a higher difficulty level the AI could use some not common "evolved" strategies to surprise the human player. Example: the german AI could attack poland and parallel try to get france out of the game early; the allied AI could attack with france, cw and russia japan in MA40 simultanously; there could be some tactical actions too: french CAs in the Baltikum in SO39, cw landings early in the game with a div in OOS hexes.
In the contrary the AI should be able to identify not only the common "poland-france-barbarossa" strategy but also most of the other possibilities. Not an easy task i'm sure...
I don't know if some kind of "scripts" could be the right answer at least for the active aspects of an evolved AI.

The second function I would like to have some kind of "editor" to create your own scenarios and to set up all the units you like. Then you could test some of your plans on the machine from any starting point.

The third function needs a support of some multiplayer usability.
In the "field" it could be of importance to be able to "overtake" resigned allies if someone drops out for whatever reasons.

(in reply to Sewerlobster)

Post #: 349

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 5/8/2007 3:19:20 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: fallgelb
As a WIF Board Gamer for me MWIF could have three functions:
1) Playing WIF vs. the AI if no human player is avilable or to test new strategies in a "laboratorium".
2) Setting up "mikro-plans" and start some impulses to see what could happen.
3) To play via Internet or email vs. human players "far away".

For the first funtion I would need a good AI but for me thats the greatest problem in nearly all the computer games on the market. In most games on a higher difficulty level the AI only gets more production and plays not really better.
An idea (or a wish): on a higher difficulty level the AI could use some not common "evolved" strategies to surprise the human player. Example: the german AI could attack poland and parallel try to get france out of the game early; the allied AI could attack with france, cw and russia japan in MA40 simultanously; there could be some tactical actions too: french CAs in the Baltikum in SO39, cw landings early in the game with a div in OOS hexes.
In the contrary the AI should be able to identify not only the common "poland-france-barbarossa" strategy but also most of the other possibilities. Not an easy task i'm sure...
I don't know if some kind of "scripts" could be the right answer at least for the active aspects of an evolved AI.

The second function I would like to have some kind of "editor" to create your own scenarios and to set up all the units you like. Then you could test some of your plans on the machine from any starting point.

The third function needs a support of some multiplayer usability.
In the "field" it could be of importance to be able to "overtake" resigned allies if someone drops out for whatever reasons.

1 - Probably not. Writing the AIO to play well is complex and I do not want to limit what I code to a design style that someone not intimately familiar with that code could modify.

2 - Not in MWIF product I. I made this decision before I agreed to program MWIF. I am coding the game, not a game design kit.

3 - Yes. This is a major concern of mine too, and there will be provisions for the Axis & Allied "team leaders" to reassign who is playing which major powers.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to fallgelb)

Post #: 350

RE: WEGO the best way - 6/4/2007 2:51:37 AM

borner

Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline

I would like to see the game stay as close to WiF as possible, with a good AI. The ability to add or delete "extras" such as leaders in flames, and/Or any others would be outstanding

(in reply to amwild)

Post #: 351

RE: WEGO the best way - 6/4/2007 3:16:57 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: borner

I would like to see the game stay as close to WiF as possible, with a good AI. The ability to add or delete "extras" such as leaders in flames, and/Or any others would be outstanding

There is an entire thread (12 pages) on the optional rules for MWIF.

For an overview, see post #23 of this thread:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1082338

That is pretty accurate, though as development proceeds, tweaking has been occurring to specific rules based on discussions in this forum.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to borner)

Post #: 352

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 6/6/2007 2:57:00 AM

willycube

Posts: 95
Joined: 1/24/2005
Status: offline

I have not played the board game World In Flames, must be a great board game. I played Third Reich for many years and enjoyed it. One gentleman stated he did not care if the AI was implemented or not as he played by mail all of the time. My feeling is follow the board game as best you can, if possible. If you attempt to do an AI, DO IT RIGHT OR NOT AT ALL! I don't have time for e-mail or whatever, if there is no AI I would never buy the game period. I have grave doubts about an AI in any computer war game, sorry to be pessimistic about this but after the debacle of implementing an AI in the conversion of Third Reich from a board game to the computer. Also you need very good playtesters to make a good AI, people who look hard for mistakes. The playtesters stunk in the making of Third Reich, if they had done their jobs right the game would have never came to market before it should have. I wasted my money on the game as many others did also.
Most of us gamers trust you Matrix please don't let us down.

thank you

Willycube

(in reply to David Heath)

Post #: 353

RE: Variable AI - 6/6/2007 10:06:15 PM

Jeffrey H.

Posts: 3154
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

I'm a longtime wargame collector and student (not really a "gamer" - I'm into learning and experimenting with history). I've actually owned the boardgame for years and year, but never managed to actually "play it" due to lack of space, lack of time etc etc. I have a copy of the original pre-alpha demo version and managed to play a few rounds with it back in 2002. So.. I don't pretend to be a real expert on the game.

I do have a personal development technique that I would like to share based on my experience as a business software developer of a product that was based on AI.

My entire product was driven by dozens of database tables that allowed us to configure the product to meet different state regulatory requirements by changing tables, not reprogramming. Even the menu options and screen headers were all from a database, not hard coded into the program. This provided a LOT of flexibility.

Now, I am thinking in wargame terms of developing an AI system that would be driven by accessible database tables to allow users to develop AI Mods exploring different strategies and objectives. I've never seen a computer wargame yet where the AI wasn't hidden away in the code somewhere and completely out of reach (a "trust me" situation).

Examples: A table of objective cities with value points. Change Moscow to a very high value and the German AI will tend to drive on Moscow without splitting forces to seize the southern oilfields and so forth. Want a traditional German AI, then equalize the points encouraging the split... and so forth.

Something similar for tactical preferences such as concentration of armor vs distribution in a supporting role and so forth. Table values for types of weapons production to steer the AI into LRB production vs U-boats and so forth.

These are all decisions commonly built into AI systems, but always out of sight and untouchable. Break some new ground and get an AI system that is accessible and completely customizable. Give us more options than "Easy - Historical - Hard".

It would be like finding a new opponent for each game with fresh challenges and new strategies.

Yes, this is very much needed and would break new ground. This would also allow players to develop their own AI styles for each nation and then pit them against each other in full AI vs. AI tournaments.

Talk about your alternate historical variants ! This would really open things up.

(in reply to rhondabrwn)

Post #: 354

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 7/19/2007 11:47:32 AM

coregames

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

Steve
From what I've seen in the various AIO posts, you're using conditional strategies, triggered by certain concrete situations that occur during typical WiF games. Wouldn't the AIO get stronger subsequent to release if users could refine the conditions that trigger such strategic decisions? Perhaps an editor could be provided in a future release, if not right away.

_____________________________

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

Keith Henderson

(in reply to David Heath)

Post #: 355

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 7/19/2007 6:49:45 PM

brian brian

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

going way back to the CX Merchant Raiders, I have seen other proposals to limit them from combat results. One of the strengths of WiF is that it allows for the flukes of war. Maybe a CW CL/CV task force stops an unidentified merchant ship on the high seas; at the last minute the Germans run up the colors and launch those hidden torpedoes but then at the last minute the CL right in front of it swings it's stern just enough for the torpedo to miss, sending it straight at the CV a few hundred yards further along. Never happened of course, but could it?

What needs to be in WiF? Whatever has made it to cardboard so far. But in general all that and nothing else that would slow it down. A great consensus has developed on that idea and that is why I have never opened this thread that I can recall.

A brief history of the game with some pictures of the old components might be some nice bonus material for the DVD version, or a replay with director's commentary from Harry would be pretty cool. Deleted counters from the past too? An easter egg of a barbershop quartet singing Lili Marlene? An easter egg of the Nimitz counter playing the double-CV plane option with F-14's and A-6's?

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 356

language - 8/10/2007 11:43:13 PM

pbt

Posts: 2
Joined: 9/7/2004
Status: offline

Will it be possible to choose between different languages in the game and in the helpfile? I'm thinking of danish, german, french etc.

(in reply to David Heath)

Post #: 357

RE: language - 8/11/2007 12:05:11 AM

bredsjomagnus

Posts: 141
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Sweden
Status: offline

Yes. And swedish would be nice too

/Magnus

(in reply to pbt)

Post #: 358

RE: language - 8/11/2007 12:50:36 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: pbt

Will it be possible to choose between different languages in the game and in the helpfile? I'm thinking of danish, german, french etc.

The code has been set up to support that but the files would have to be created. The way Delphi (the program development system I am using) handles this is that all text for messages (e.g., not on counters and not map labels) is placed in a "resource strings" file. All that is needed is a substitute/replacement file were each string has been written in another language; no other programming change is necessary.

Don't hold your breath though. To create the replacement file would take some work and without a doubt, Matrix will want to see some nice sales numbers before paying for that to be done. [You certainly do not want me doing the translations!]

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to pbt)

Post #: 359

RE: language - 8/14/2007 9:27:15 PM

Ballista