Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Short scenarios?

 
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 >> Short scenarios? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Short scenarios? - 9/29/2006 9:25:07 AM   
Fred98


Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline
Does the game have any short scenarios?

I generally feel that a PBEM game should have no more than 60 emails per player. After that a scenario just gets too long.


_____________________________

Post #: 1
RE: Short scenarios? - 9/29/2006 12:17:29 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

ORIGINAL: Joe 98
Does the game have any short scenarios?

I generally feel that a PBEM game should have no more than 60 emails per player. After that a scenario just gets too long.


Well, it is difficult to judge. The two short scenarios both have 5 turns but within each turn there is a variable number of impulses, with a die rolled at the end of each impulse to determine whether a turn has ended.

Without looking up previous calculations (there is a separate thread on PBEM that discusses virtaully everything about MWIF PBEM in great detail) I would guess around 50-70 emails for the short games. The Barbarossa scenario would be towards the low end because is doesn't have much naval combat (if any). The Guadalcanal will be towards the high end because the PBEM design supports more detailed decision making during naval combat - because the risks and rewards are so large.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 2
RE: Short scenarios? - 9/30/2006 11:21:23 AM   
pak19652002

 

Posts: 280
Joined: 1/2/2005
Status: offline
The standard game has 36 turns so it is unrealistic to think the number of emails can be restricted to anything like 60 emails per player. But, you know that already. I don't know how it will compare to MWIF, but I've played 33 turns on CWIF and sent...are you ready for this...325 emails. It sounds scary when you write it down like that. But, it amounts to almost exactly 10 per turn, which matches up well with Steve's estimate.

In our CWIF games, we allowed the opposing player to make almost all reaction decisions. We ran naval combats and A2A completely unilaterally, with perhaps some general instructions given before each combat. This was essential in CWIF, because I estimate the number of emails would have grown by a factor of 5 if players were constantly stopping to ask their opponents which plane to abort or whether they wanted to stay for another round of combat. I haven't studied it closely, but I think a five-fold increase is not unreasonable if one wanted to send an email reflecting each and every reaction decision possible over the course of a turn. It doesn't matter, though, what the multiple would be because any increase would be intolerable.

Even restricting the emails to 10 per turn using this method and playing diligently, it took us (Lars and me) 9.5 months to play 33 full turns. Is that shocking? All I can say is that time flies when you are having fun...

If you think that is bad, consider our CyberBoard games. Generally, players exert much more control over these games in that they want to make most reaction decisions themselves (I don't know why). This greatly multiplies the number of emails---GREATLY.

For example, in a two player game with John Reynen, we played 25 turns (through SO43). We started the game on 8 May 2005 and I retired on 17 July 2006. So, we played 25 turns in 14 months.

We sent around 270 move files each. That doesn't sound too bad, but CB is very different than CWIF or MWIF. Move files are only sent out after a significant amount of action has taken place...action that requires loads of emails.

2,986 of them to be exact (this includes move files so it's more like 2,400 additional emails total for both players).

Now, some of these were ACTS die rolls, rule disagreements, and other things irrelevant to MWIF, but the majority were reaction decisions. These emails were mostly short messages, but nevertheless each one was written, sent, received and read! Ugh.

All in all, the CB game in which players exercised full decision-making required almost 7 times the number of emails than my CWIF game (corrected for the different number of turns played). So my five-fold estimate is probably reasonable after all.

Anyway, how this all relates to MWIF I haven't the faintest idea. I've had this question in the back of my mind and this email gave me an excuse to run some numbers. I haven't studied the PBEM thread closely so I can't say how MWIF will compare to CWIF or CB. Still, I imagine one has to expect full, 36 turn games to consume at least 6-9 months and require several hundred emails. It will be interesting to see how Steve's system works and whether it can help players compress this timeline.

GOOD LUCK!





(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 3
RE: Short scenarios? - 10/2/2006 6:57:42 AM   
c92nichj


Posts: 440
Joined: 1/14/2005
Status: offline
Having played both CWIF and CB in pretty much the same way as Peter, and folowing the PBEM thread closely.

I believe that MWIF will be closer to the CB experience.
The airfights will get shorter thanks to the AIA, naval fights will be somewhat longer I think as when playing CB we usually bundle question up like I initiate combat in Italian coast, East Med, West Med and North atlantic, how do you react?
In MWIF each of those will require a separate mail and combat resolution.

In CB the end of turn is usually done out of order for each player, that is each player does his return to base, building and reinforcements in one move file instead of waiting for all players to complete return to base before starting the build or US Entry options. If the US would've choses say oil emargo we correct the japanese build afterwords. I belive MWIF will have stricter following of the sequence of play so this mean that end of turn will take longer.

But it is hard to say until we can start to beta test the PBEM part.

Nicklas


< Message edited by c92nichj -- 10/2/2006 8:09:32 AM >

(in reply to pak19652002)
Post #: 4
RE: Short scenarios? - 10/2/2006 7:57:32 AM   
pak19652002

 

Posts: 280
Joined: 1/2/2005
Status: offline
Well, if Nicklas is right, then playing MWiF by email will take some time and a lot of emails. I don't think there is any getting around that. I've said many times before that I don't mind that especially and compensate by playing more than one game at a time.

Nicklas, your naval search example could be short-circuited by announcing all searches in one email and asking for air interceptions up front. That is the way we do it in CWiF. I think it would be unbearable to do it otherwise. I don't have to tell you that this creates some conflicts, especially when a plane could fly to more than one sea area, but it's an accommodation worth making. If you don't, you could have to suffer a dozen or more email exchanges...one for each naval air interception. I don't want to do that! Just tell the searching player what you want to fly into each sea area and let him run the darn combat...that's what I say. So what if he doesn't react in exactly the same way you would have. I'll bet real admirals' instructions often get distorted in the fog of war.

It will really be interesting to work on all this during the PBEM beta testing.

Peter



quote:

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

Having played both CWIF and CB in pretty much the same way as Peter, and folowing the PBEM thread closely.

I believe that MWIF will be closer to the CB experience.
The airfights will get shorter thanks to the AIA, naval fights will be somewhat longer I think as when playing CB we usually bundle question up like I initiate combat in Italian coast, East Med, West Med and North atlantic, how do you react?
In CB each of those will require a separate mail and combat resolution.

In CB the end of turn is usually done out of order for each player, that is each player does his return to base, building and reinforcements in one move file instead of waiting for all players to complete return to base before starting the build or US Entry options. If the US would've choses say oil emargo we correct the japanese build afterwords. I belive MWIF will have stricter following of the sequence of play so this mean that end of turn will take longer.

But it is hard to say until we can start to beta test the PBEM part.

Nicklas



(in reply to c92nichj)
Post #: 5
RE: Short scenarios? - 10/2/2006 10:15:18 AM   
Froonp


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

Even restricting the emails to 10 per turn using this method and playing diligently, it took us (Lars and me) 9.5 months to play 33 full turns. Is that shocking? All I can say is that time flies when you are having fun...

Interesting experience.
Face to face games I usually run, last for 9-10 months, so this amount of time is not exagerated for me for an email game of MWiF.

(in reply to pak19652002)
Post #: 6
RE: Short scenarios? - 10/3/2006 8:43:56 AM   
pak19652002

 

Posts: 280
Joined: 1/2/2005
Status: offline
I am a boy in a bubble. I never get to play FTF, not since 1986 anyway. When I returned to the game in 2005, I really grew to enjoy the flexibility of playing whenever I wanted to, like tonight, for instance. It's 1:37AM on the east coast and I'm excanging emails with California and and Indonesia, at least I think Nicklas is in Indonesia. I'm never really quite sure where he is. Tomorrow, I'll be interacting with Scandanavia and New York. It's great. I'd never get to play with these guys otherwise. In fact, I'd never get to play at all!




quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

Even restricting the emails to 10 per turn using this method and playing diligently, it took us (Lars and me) 9.5 months to play 33 full turns. Is that shocking? All I can say is that time flies when you are having fun...

Interesting experience.
Face to face games I usually run, last for 9-10 months, so this amount of time is not exagerated for me for an email game of MWiF.


(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 7
RE: Short scenarios? - 5/22/2008 3:03:42 AM   
Fred98


Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline
Can we please have a list of the different scenarios.

I have done a search but they don't seem to be listed anywhere

k

(in reply to pak19652002)
Post #: 8
RE: Short scenarios? - 5/22/2008 3:47:02 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

Can we please have a list of the different scenarios.

I have done a search but they don't seem to be listed anywhere

k

Barbarossa:
May/June 1941 to January/February 1942; 5 turns.

Operation Barbarossa was the greatest land campaign in the
history of the world.

This scenario starts with Germany poised to launch its drive
against the massive Soviet army in May/June of 1941.

---

This is the best introductory scenario because it involves
only two major powers, lasts 5 game turns, and includes
few, if any, naval operations.
=========================================
Guadalcanal:
May/June 1942 to January/February 1943; 5 turns.

This scenario starts with the Japanese, having so easily
conquered much of the Pacific, pondering whether they
should take it all.

Meanwhile, the United states is gathering its forces for
the inconclusive battle of the Coral Sea, the decisive
carrier action at Midway, and the long struggle on
Guadalcanal.

---

This scenario is the best introduction to the use of naval
units.

It only lasts 5 turns and is limited to just the Pacific -
it does not include any combat in mainland Asia.
=========================================
Fascist Tide:
September/October 1939 to July/August 1945; 36 turns.

This scenario covers the full war in Europe from
Germany's invasion of Poland in September 1939 until
the end at the battle for Berlin in May 1945.


The Axis powers have the initiative for roughly the
first three years of the war before the Allies gradually
gain the upper hand.

---

This scenario is restricted to the European conflict and
does not include action in the Pacific and Asia.
=========================================
Day of Infamy:
November/December 1941 to July/August 1945; 23 turns.

The Day of Infamy scenario covers the full war in Asia and
the Pacific from November/December of 1941 until the
dropping of the atomic bombs in August 1945.

It starts with Japan ready to bring the USA and the other
western Allies to war with a stunning strike on Pearl Harbor
and rapid expansion into southeast Asia.

---

This scenario is limited to the conflict in the Pacific and
does not include action in Europe, the Atlantic, and
Northern Africa.
=========================================
Global War:
September/October 1939 to July/August 1945; 36 turns.

This scenario covers the full war, from Germany's
invasion of Poland in September 1939 until the dropping
of the atomic bombs in August 1945.

It is the longest and most challenging of all the scenarios.

The Axis powers have the initiative for roughly the first
three years of the war before the Allies gradually gain
the upper hand.
=========================================
Missed the Bus:
July/August 1940 to July/August 1945; 31 turns.

Fall Gelb, Germany's 1940 offensive against France and the
Lowland countries, has been a stunning success.

All of Europe lies at the feet of the Axis.

But where to attack? And how can the Allies survive the
onslaught, wrest the initiative, and start the long drive to
victory?

This scenario includes all the major powers, begins
immediately after the declaration of Vichy France, and
continues until the end of the war.

---

The advantage of this scenario is that the players can skip
over the first 10 months of the war and instead start
immediately after the fall of France.
=========================================
Lebensraum:
May/June 1941 to July/August 1945; 26 turns.

France lies prostrate. The Commonwealth is bloodied but
unbowed. Germany is ready to unleash Operation
Barbarossa against the unsuspecting Soviets.

This scenario starts with the second phase of Germany's
offensive: the attack on the USSR in September/October
of 1941.

---

This scenario expands on the first scenario, Barbarossa, by
including the full world map with all the major powers, and
running until the conclusion of the war.
=========================================
Waking Giant:
November/December 1941 to July/August 1945; 23 turns.

This scenario starts with Germany's offensive in the USSR
stalling as winter arrives in November/December of 1941.

Japan is ready to bring the United States and the other
western Allies to war with a stunning strike on Pearl Harbor
and rapid expansion into southeast Asia.

---

This scenario uses the full world map and involves all the
major powers, although France is in a much reduced state,
having been partially conquered and a Vichy government
installed.
=========================================
Brute Force:
May/June 1942 to July/August 1945; 20 turns.

The Brute Force scenario starts with Germany's summer
offensive towards Stalingrad and the Caucasus in May/June of
1942.

The Japanese are considering their next move after their
unexpectedly successful sweep through southeast Asia and the
Pacific.

Meanwhile, the United States is preparing to land in North
Africa and, in the Pacific, is gathering its forces for the
long struggle on Guadalcanal, the inconclusive battle of the
Coral Sea, and the more decisive event at Midway.

---

This scenario is an expansion of the second scenario,
Guadalcanal, to include the entire world map, all the major
powers, and continue until the end of the war.
=========================================
Darkness Before the Dawn:
July/August 1943 to July/August 1945; 13 turns.

This scenario covers the final third of the war. While the
Axis controls most of Europe, the Allies have rebuilt to
become the stronger side.

The USA's entry into the war has given the Allies enormous
industrial might, which they've converted into war matériel.

But first, the Germans prepare for one last gamble: Kursk.
If that fails, the Soviets will start their irresistible
drive on Berlin.

Meanwhile, the western Allies have cleared North Africa
and are ready to land in Sicily.

In the Pacific, the Japanese imperial dream is
evaporating. Losses at Midway, Papua, and Guadalcanal
have them on the defensive. The USA begins its leap
across the Pacific to liberate the Japanese conquests.
=========================================
Decline and Fall:
May/June 1944 to July/August 1945; 8 turns.

This scenario covers the last stages of the war. The Axis
still controls vast empires and enormous quantities of
matériel. Historically, within 16 months their power was
destroyed and their cities in ruin.

The incompetence the Allied commanders displayed time
and time again during the first half of the war was
replaced by a series of stunning successes under the
command of some excellent leaders.

Could the Axis have put up stronger resistance? Or the
Allies have done even better?

---

This is a good scenario to play if you don't normally get to
this point in your games, or if the Allied players just want
a good time. For the Axis players, it is very difficult.





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 9
RE: Short scenarios? - 6/1/2008 8:07:21 PM   
Orm


Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline
It would be nice if it was possible to put an earlier endate to at least one scenario.

For example

Fascist Tide: (short game)
September/October 1939 to Nov/Dec 1943; 26 turns.

Victory conditions would have to be set for such a scenario.

I would be willing to make a suggestion on victory conditions if it is possible to ad it to the game.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 10
RE: Short scenarios? - 6/1/2008 8:47:50 PM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Orm

It would be nice if it was possible to put an earlier endate to at least one scenario.

For example

Fascist Tide: (short game)
September/October 1939 to Nov/Dec 1943; 26 turns.

Victory conditions would have to be set for such a scenario.

I would be willing to make a suggestion on victory conditions if it is possible to ad it to the game.

The Annual 2000 had a list of all objective cities at all turns of the game, and listed who controlled them.
Using that, it is easy to come up with new numbers of objective cities for each major power at any turn of the game, to replace those of 24.1.2.

For example, the number of objectives for N/D 43 for each major power is :
Ch 1
CW 17
Fr 1
Ge 18
It 4
Ja 10
USA 10
USSR 6

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 11
RE: Short scenarios? - 6/1/2008 9:01:25 PM   
Jimm


Posts: 607
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: York, UK
Status: offline
Is it worth considering including at least one additional scenario- of very limited scope, perhaps for training purposes?

Barbarossa and Guadalcanal are still pretty intense introductions to the game. You could perhaps just have Germany- Poland for instance, or the Norwegian campaign, to introduce naval rules. These might only be say 3 turns long with very limited unit lists but just to make the introduction to the game for newbies a bit less daunting than the biggest land invasion in history...


(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 12
RE: Short scenarios? - 6/1/2008 9:26:54 PM   
Orm


Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimm

Is it worth considering including at least one additional scenario- of very limited scope, perhaps for training purposes?

Barbarossa and Guadalcanal are still pretty intense introductions to the game. You could perhaps just have Germany- Poland for instance, or the Norwegian campaign, to introduce naval rules. These might only be say 3 turns long with very limited unit lists but just to make the introduction to the game for newbies a bit less daunting than the biggest land invasion in history...




I learned the land mechanics of the game by just playing the invansion of Poland (Just the Poland front and one turn). Then my veteran friends that introduced me to WIF said that I was rready to play for real. I objected that I had no idea how the navy worked. They just said that I should play Germany and don't worry about the fleet since Germanys use of it was so limited and pick it up as the game progressed. That was back in the 3rd edition when the game was "simple". It went fairly well. Paris fell in early 42...

In a computer game you can learn most of the mechanics by tutorials and then by playing a turn to get a feel for the game.

(in reply to Jimm)
Post #: 13
RE: Short scenarios? - 6/1/2008 9:30:30 PM   
peskpesk


Posts: 2347
Joined: 7/17/2003
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

You could perhaps just have Germany- Poland for instance

Yes , that would be very good for training. I like it!


(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 14
RE: Short scenarios? - 6/1/2008 9:35:19 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

It would be nice if it was possible to put an earlier endate to at least one scenario.

For example

Fascist Tide: (short game)
September/October 1939 to Nov/Dec 1943; 26 turns.

Victory conditions would have to be set for such a scenario.

I would be willing to make a suggestion on victory conditions if it is possible to ad it to the game.

Without making any commitments, I am willing to entertain suggestions for alternative end dates for scenarios.

Right now there is a single optional rule for entendnig the game for 3 years (from 1945 to 1948), or at least I am pretty sure that is the extension. What I am willing to consider is modifying the optional rule. Right now it is one line of code in the program.

By adding a data file listing which major power holds each objective city for each turn of the game (as Patrice alluded to) that information could be referenced.

Suggestions?

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 15
RE: Short scenarios? - 6/1/2008 9:38:38 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimm

Is it worth considering including at least one additional scenario- of very limited scope, perhaps for training purposes?

Barbarossa and Guadalcanal are still pretty intense introductions to the game. You could perhaps just have Germany- Poland for instance, or the Norwegian campaign, to introduce naval rules. These might only be say 3 turns long with very limited unit lists but just to make the introduction to the game for newbies a bit less daunting than the biggest land invasion in history...



I see no need to make this a 'scenario', which has a tremendous amount of baggage associated with it.

We could simply have a saved game (of, say, Fascist Tide) with Germany about to attack Poland, and let the Player start with Germany having already chosen a Land Action.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Jimm)
Post #: 16
RE: Short scenarios? - 6/1/2008 9:41:35 PM   
SLAAKMAN


Posts: 2725
Joined: 7/24/2002
Status: offline
quote:

After that a scenario just gets too long.

Sacrilege!!!!

_____________________________

Germany's unforgivable crime before the Second World War was her attempt to extricate her economy from the world's trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit.
— Winston Churchill

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 17
RE: Short scenarios? - 6/2/2008 1:41:55 AM   
Jimm


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimm

Is it worth considering including at least one additional scenario- of very limited scope, perhaps for training purposes?

Barbarossa and Guadalcanal are still pretty intense introductions to the game. You could perhaps just have Germany- Poland for instance, or the Norwegian campaign, to introduce naval rules. These might only be say 3 turns long with very limited unit lists but just to make the introduction to the game for newbies a bit less daunting than the biggest land invasion in history...



I see no need to make this a 'scenario', which has a tremendous amount of baggage associated with it.

We could simply have a saved game (of, say, Fascist Tide) with Germany about to attack Poland, and let the Player start with Germany having already chosen a Land Action.


That might work . I think it would need to be signposted as a Tutorial or Beginners scenario, and if there was a way to limit the scope of the scenario it would be an advantage.
I appreciate suggestions like this add work, but accessibility to new players (or lack of) is one of the biggest risks to the success of the game IMO.


(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 18
RE: Short scenarios? - 6/2/2008 2:11:40 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimm


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimm

Is it worth considering including at least one additional scenario- of very limited scope, perhaps for training purposes?

Barbarossa and Guadalcanal are still pretty intense introductions to the game. You could perhaps just have Germany- Poland for instance, or the Norwegian campaign, to introduce naval rules. These might only be say 3 turns long with very limited unit lists but just to make the introduction to the game for newbies a bit less daunting than the biggest land invasion in history...



I see no need to make this a 'scenario', which has a tremendous amount of baggage associated with it.

We could simply have a saved game (of, say, Fascist Tide) with Germany about to attack Poland, and let the Player start with Germany having already chosen a Land Action.


That might work . I think it would need to be signposted as a Tutorial or Beginners scenario, and if there was a way to limit the scope of the scenario it would be an advantage.
I appreciate suggestions like this add work, but accessibility to new players (or lack of) is one of the biggest risks to the success of the game IMO.



This is no new work.

I already want to have a saved game for each scenario (for different sides & modes of play?) so new players can jump right into moving units around without having to set them up, scrap units, figure out lend lease, etc..

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Jimm)
Post #: 19
RE: Short scenarios? - 6/2/2008 1:32:25 PM   
marcuswatney

 

Posts: 279
Joined: 2/28/2006
Status: offline
I do feel that very small stand-alone introductory scenarios, just a few impulses long, will be needed to complement the tutorials.  It takes a lot of self-discipline to read tutorials hour after hour and not actually try out in a game what one has just learnt.  The trouble is that if Barbarossa and Guadalcanal are the only 'small' scenarios on offer, there is a real danger that a newbie will dive in prematurely, suffer information overload and then just give up entirely.

I think a mini-scenario on the Norwegian Campaign would be superb for introducing the naval mechanics painlessly.  It's a campaign that could easily have been an Allied victory, so fun for both sides.

To introduce the land rules, how about featuring the Italian invasion of Greece?  Or the Winter War?  And for introducing the air rules, perhaps the invasion of Crete?

If such mini-scenarios feature operations that could have gone either way (so not the German attack on Poland) and are themselves well-balanced, they could also be used for an evening's tournament play.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 20
RE: Short scenarios? - 6/2/2008 1:39:27 PM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

I do feel that very small stand-alone introductory scenarios, just a few impulses long, will be needed to complement the tutorials.  It takes a lot of self-discipline to read tutorials hour after hour and not actually try out in a game what one has just learnt.  The trouble is that if Barbarossa and Guadalcanal are the only 'small' scenarios on offer, there is a real danger that a newbie will dive in prematurely, suffer information overload and then just give up entirely.

I think a mini-scenario on the Norwegian Campaign would be superb for introducing the naval mechanics painlessly.  It's a campaign that could easily have been an Allied victory, so fun for both sides.

To introduce the land rules, how about featuring the Italian invasion of Greece?  Or the Winter War?  And for introducing the air rules, perhaps the invasion of Crete?

If such mini-scenarios feature operations that could have gone either way (so not the German attack on Poland) and are themselves well-balanced, they could also be used for an evening's tournament play.

These sure are good ideas, as is a campaign of Poland 39, but Steve has said that creating scenarios was a nightmare, nothing easy to add to the game, so I think that we will stay with the tutorials and the Barb 41 scenario, which is already real good for starters.

(in reply to marcuswatney)
Post #: 21
RE: Short scenarios? - 6/2/2008 1:42:44 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

I do feel that very small stand-alone introductory scenarios, just a few impulses long, will be needed to complement the tutorials.  It takes a lot of self-discipline to read tutorials hour after hour and not actually try out in a game what one has just learnt.  The trouble is that if Barbarossa and Guadalcanal are the only 'small' scenarios on offer, there is a real danger that a newbie will dive in prematurely, suffer information overload and then just give up entirely.

I think a mini-scenario on the Norwegian Campaign would be superb for introducing the naval mechanics painlessly.  It's a campaign that could easily have been an Allied victory, so fun for both sides.

To introduce the land rules, how about featuring the Italian invasion of Greece?  Or the Winter War?  And for introducing the air rules, perhaps the invasion of Crete?

If such mini-scenarios feature operations that could have gone either way (so not the German attack on Poland) and are themselves well-balanced, they could also be used for an evening's tournament play.

Marcus,

The main obstacle to creating new scenarios is the amount of diverse data required for even the simplest of scenarios. Control of territory worldwide is needed, political relationships between all 250+ governed areas/countries is needed, and the list is much longer.

While as a player, looking at the paper map, it is easy to say, let's take these 2 dozen units and push them around on the map. But for the program to do that, it has to have filled out all the parameters necessary for all the rules. You can open the rule book at random, close your eyes and point to a paragraph on the page. I will bet that there is data that has to have been read in at the beginning of play to implement that rule. No data, program go boom.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to marcuswatney)
Post #: 22
RE: Short scenarios? - 6/4/2008 11:45:04 PM   
Orm


Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

It would be nice if it was possible to put an earlier endate to at least one scenario.

For example

Fascist Tide: (short game)
September/October 1939 to Nov/Dec 1943; 26 turns.

Victory conditions would have to be set for such a scenario.

I would be willing to make a suggestion on victory conditions if it is possible to ad it to the game.

The Annual 2000 had a list of all objective cities at all turns of the game, and listed who controlled them.
Using that, it is easy to come up with new numbers of objective cities for each major power at any turn of the game, to replace those of 24.1.2.

For example, the number of objectives for N/D 43 for each major power is :
Ch 1
CW 17
Fr 1
Ge 18
It 4
Ja 10
USA 10
USSR 6



If the objectives each side controled historically each turn is added to MWIF you could get a comparison on how your country does in MWIF compared to how it was that month during the war. It would be nice to have a screen for "victory progress" that lists this.


(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 23
RE: Short scenarios? - 6/5/2008 12:23:19 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

It would be nice if it was possible to put an earlier endate to at least one scenario.

For example

Fascist Tide: (short game)
September/October 1939 to Nov/Dec 1943; 26 turns.

Victory conditions would have to be set for such a scenario.

I would be willing to make a suggestion on victory conditions if it is possible to ad it to the game.

The Annual 2000 had a list of all objective cities at all turns of the game, and listed who controlled them.
Using that, it is easy to come up with new numbers of objective cities for each major power at any turn of the game, to replace those of 24.1.2.

For example, the number of objectives for N/D 43 for each major power is :
Ch 1
CW 17
Fr 1
Ge 18
It 4
Ja 10
USA 10
USSR 6



If the objectives each side controled historically each turn is added to MWIF you could get a comparison on how your country does in MWIF compared to how it was that month during the war. It would be nice to have a screen for "victory progress" that lists this.



More appropriate as a reference document (e.g., PDF) than as part of the code.

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 24
RE: Short scenarios? - 6/5/2008 1:00:34 AM   
Mingus Roberts

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 8/28/2007
Status: offline
Whatever happened to the Spanish Civil War mini-scenario with DOD? It had limited land, sea and air play with invasions and all that jazz. I learned before WIF 5, but I used the Spanish Civil War as a teaching tool for several players (including my wife) and it worked great as a contained theatre.

I suppose you'd have to code in the Republican forces to use the units.

mr

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 25
RE: Short scenarios? - 6/5/2008 1:16:55 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mingus Roberts

Whatever happened to the Spanish Civil War mini-scenario with DOD? It had limited land, sea and air play with invasions and all that jazz. I learned before WIF 5, but I used the Spanish Civil War as a teaching tool for several players (including my wife) and it worked great as a contained theatre.

I suppose you'd have to code in the Republican forces to use the units.

mr

The units are not a problem; they are already in the unit data. It is all the other stuff.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Mingus Roberts)
Post #: 26
RE: Short scenarios? - 6/5/2008 6:55:21 PM   
WarHunter


Posts: 1207
Joined: 3/21/2004
Status: offline
Any added short scenarios along the lines of Barbarossa and Guadalcanal, will only be played at best a few times. Not really worth the time to code them.

MWiF is meant to be played Full Map. Its why i will buy it, 99.99% of the people who will purchase it dive into the Global war scenario before fully understanding the game complexity, completly. Even as a boardgame it was that way. That is wargame human nature.

Barbarrossa takes the Russians and Germans, pits then against each other with "Historical" forces and within 5 turns is resolved. But as i know having played it, you want more. You want to change those forces whichever side you play. You want more.

Same with Guadalcanal, Japan vs USA. You want more. Working the Air/Sea angle requires patience. You find out quickly there is never enough naval forces for everything wanted. But the shortness of the scenario is an appetizer for the Global war. You want more.

I would expect many who are new to the game will head for the Global war scenario. Play it a few times as any nation they want. Learn and start over. At some point the single-player will give way to the Multiplayer. Then the learning starts again.

Why?
Because you want more.

_____________________________


“We never felt like we were losing until we were actually dead.”
Marcus Luttrell

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 27
RE: Short scenarios? - 6/5/2008 7:17:15 PM   
Grapeshot Bob


Posts: 642
Joined: 12/16/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
How about a Battle of Britian scenario?

Unless you could make a limited version of Lebensraum for this purpose.

Another good scenario would be the Axis conquest of Yugoslavia, Greece and Crete.

That is unless these are already included.



GSB

(in reply to WarHunter)
Post #: 28
RE: Short scenarios? - 6/5/2008 8:24:28 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
I think the way to go for learning the game would be to give players an already set-up version of Barbarossa and Guadalcanal. Maybe even a fairly historical set-up, with everything in supply at start. Then they could try out moving the units directly from the Ground-Strike phase, rather than having to take time to set up the units themselves. That would require only creating a saved game file. An even simpler scenario does sound appealing from a newbie point of view, but if you can't handle taking command of the German army at the launch of Barbarossa or the whole USN in the Pacific before Midway, you'll never be able to play World in Flames anyway. How many pieces do the Germans have in 'Barb? 75? That sounds like a lot...but it is one of the smaller totals you will ever be in charge of while playing WiF. Or you can start out playing the Russians against the AI, and the piece total drops off very quickly. That would be my educational advice to learn the game ... play the historical set-up Russians against an AI German in the Barbarossa scenario. Decision-making would be quite manageable for anyone.

(in reply to Grapeshot Bob)
Post #: 29
RE: Short scenarios? - 6/5/2008 10:27:12 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I think the way to go for learning the game would be to give players an already set-up version of Barbarossa and Guadalcanal. Maybe even a fairly historical set-up, with everything in supply at start. Then they could try out moving the units directly from the Ground-Strike phase, rather than having to take time to set up the units themselves. That would require only creating a saved game file. An even simpler scenario does sound appealing from a newbie point of view, but if you can't handle taking command of the German army at the launch of Barbarossa or the whole USN in the Pacific before Midway, you'll never be able to play World in Flames anyway. How many pieces do the Germans have in 'Barb? 75? That sounds like a lot...but it is one of the smaller totals you will ever be in charge of while playing WiF. Or you can start out playing the Russians against the AI, and the piece total drops off very quickly. That would be my educational advice to learn the game ... play the historical set-up Russians against an AI German in the Barbarossa scenario. Decision-making would be quite manageable for anyone.

I agree with many of the other posts herein that a scenario even shorter than 5 turns would be good to have. I just don't have the time to create it, and the process is so complex that no one else could do it giving the intricacies of the code.

Though playing Barbarossa as a first "crack at the game" is reasonable, there are many smaller steps towards learning that need to be mastered first. The sequence of play is not intuitively obvious. Becoming comfortable with what all the numbers on the counters mean takes time. And so forth. That is where just playing 1 or 2 impulses with a couple dozen units would be great.

I believe we are in general agreement with the idea of setting up a saved game so it is "ready to go". And then let the player push the units around and see what happens. To do this right, we should have at least one such saved game for each of the 11 scenarios.

The main problem with learning the naval movement and combat system is that operations take place over a wide area of map. Just look at the range of the Japanese naval units that start in Singapore in the Guadalcanal scenario. I really want to have very good answers available to the new player when he asks "what do I do now?". Otherwise he will never play the game through even 1 turn.

Which leads to the needs for text to accompany each of the "ready to go" saved games giving the player some advice on what is good, what is bad, and where there are choices to make.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> Short scenarios? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.938