Complexity and time

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Complexity and time

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 >> Complexity and time

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Complexity and time - 7/26/2009 9:47:11 PM

scout1

Posts: 2899
Joined: 8/24/2004
From: South Bend, In
Status: offline

I know I've asked this before in different ways but still struggling with the apparent complexity of this game (as I see it). I've followed the various threads. I am an avid WITP player so size doens't bother me and I realize that turn length varies depending on what's going on. So having laid the groundwork, I'm looking for input from someone who is a WITP player relative to the complexity comparison, relative to the size comparison and lastly as to how long do turns actually take. No fair using it depends. I realize WITP is a little bit more straight forward in this regards. My typical play style for WITP is to let the turn run on it's own (so I don't have to watch it and can do other things). THen I'll see the resolution and enter my orders accordingly. Really can't afford the time to actively watch the turn in progress, similar to my understanding as to BTR as the Germans ......

Just looking for enough to push me over the edge when this is released.

Post #: 1

RE: Complexity and time - 7/27/2009 12:44:41 AM

coregames

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: scout1
...how long do turns actually take...

Depending on many factors, I think a complete turn on average runs about 2 to 6 hours. I think the lower estimate is only going to be achievable if a time control is used to apply pressure on the players. Earlier turns will take substantially less, and the later turns of the war, with much of the force pools on the map, will take longer. Also, winter turns can be very short indeed, especially early in the war.

As a general example of how long turns take... when we're playing, our group plays from 6:00 till 11:00 once a week. The last game we played, the winter of '39/'40 went very quickly, and we got two complete turns in during that session. Then, in campaign season 1944, we had one turn take two full sessions. So for our group, we average about one turn in 5 hours. Some of our players are very nitpicky and want to plan every attack as though it was D-Day, so this could be considered pretty slow play.

_____________________________

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

Keith Henderson

(in reply to scout1)

Post #: 2

RE: Complexity and time - 7/27/2009 2:49:58 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: scout1

I know I've asked this before in different ways but still struggling with the apparent complexity of this game (as I see it). I've followed the various threads. I am an avid WITP player so size doens't bother me and I realize that turn length varies depending on what's going on. So having laid the groundwork, I'm looking for input from someone who is a WITP player relative to the complexity comparison, relative to the size comparison and lastly as to how long do turns actually take. No fair using it depends. I realize WITP is a little bit more straight forward in this regards. My typical play style for WITP is to let the turn run on it's own (so I don't have to watch it and can do other things). THen I'll see the resolution and enter my orders accordingly. Really can't afford the time to actively watch the turn in progress, similar to my understanding as to BTR as the Germans ......

Just looking for enough to push me over the edge when this is released.

I've never seen WITP so I can not compare the two games.

You talk about "letting the turn run on its own", which makes me wonder if you are playing against the computer or other people.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to scout1)

Post #: 3

RE: Complexity and time - 7/27/2009 12:33:28 PM

Hokum

Posts: 59
Joined: 4/14/2002
From: France
Status: offline

WiF is definetly less complex than WitP, especially since the computer will handle the rules.

quote:

You talk about "letting the turn run on its own", which makes me wonder if you are playing against the computer or other people.

Once you've given your orders, the game starts to run, and you have no options whatsoever about what's happening during the week. And WitP being extremely detailed, some of the reports are, quite frankly, unnecessary.

OP: WiF will not work like that at all.

< Message edited by Hokum -- 7/27/2009 12:43:36 PM >

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 4

RE: Complexity and time - 7/27/2009 2:18:43 PM

ypsylon

Posts: 114
Joined: 7/15/2007
Status: offline

I think WIF will be MUCH quicker (I'm not a beta tester/dev, just a guess) than WITP/WPO. Both WITP/WPO have some serious issues with over-reporting. A lot of stuff bring nothing to the game except frustration from clicking [TINY] Exit/Done/OK so worthless report is no more. Maybe there will be some reduction in WITP:AE, but as I prefer WPO I lost all hope for improved interface/ergonomy.

WIF scale is huge when compared to WITP/WPO. There are certainly shortcuts in order to keep the game playable. I think that WIF with WITP/WPO repoting system would make WIF virtually unplayable with every insignificant issue appearing on the screen.

(in reply to Hokum)

Post #: 5

RE: Complexity and time - 7/27/2009 2:27:13 PM

hdosbe

Posts: 24
Joined: 5/26/2006
From: Bergamo, Italy
Status: offline

WITP, WPO ????

English language is very difficult for me, but these are arabic !!!!

MAS

(in reply to ypsylon)

Post #: 6

RE: Complexity and time - 7/27/2009 2:58:56 PM

hellfirejet

Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline

WAR IN THE PACIFIC , WAR PLAN ORANGE , WORLD IN FLAMES

< Message edited by hellfirejet -- 7/27/2009 3:09:21 PM >

_____________________________

Regards,
Graham.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction! Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller

(in reply to hdosbe)

Post #: 7

RE: Complexity and time - 7/27/2009 5:56:52 PM

MajorDude

Posts: 199
Joined: 1/20/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ypsylon

...I think that WIF with WITP/WPO repoting system would make WIF virtually unplayable with every insignificant issue appearing on the screen.

That is part of WIF's charm, just enough detail, pretty plane icons, beautiful map, etc. to keep you feeling as though there is a lot behind the counters, but that you don't really need to read or know everything about every detail of every unit in a counter to be able to play and enjoy the game with satisfaction.

MWIF will have many different write-ups for units if you want to read them, but a player is by no means forced to do so to play the game. In WIF, here is absolutely NO reason to know how many rifles a corps-sized counter has from one turn to the next lol.

Trust me, if you have a penchant for reading lots of detailed stuff, then you are going to have a blast reading the rules for wif. Spend your time reading that, and not # of rifles in a corps reports, and you will have more than enough on your hands lol.

If someone has a good link for this, I would even recommend for those who have never played the game to start reading the rules slowly but surely to start to get a grasp of the game's rule mechanics while waiting for the product to finish ai testing. A few pages each day is not taxing and allows you time to assimilate. I have been able to explain the basics to new players in a relatively short period of time, but having read and re-read the rules helps to remember the 'why' things that happen in the game happen that way and avoid saying the proverbial 'oops' when you realize you forgot to apply this or that optional rule for the last 8 turns...

(in reply to ypsylon)

Post #: 8

RE: Complexity and time - 7/27/2009 6:16:06 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

Since the discussion is on complexity ...

I have completed 9 of the 11 chapters for the training videos. They total 4 hours, 42 minutes so far!

===
Training Video
(as of July 27, 2009)

Chapter 1 Introduction (4 minutes :10 seconds)
1.1 Opening screen
1.1.1 Layout
1.1.2 Restoring a saved game
1.2 Tutorial 1 - Starting a game
1.2.1 General layout of a tutorial page (page 1)
1.2.2 WIF FE => MWIF
1.2.3 Unified world map

Chapter 2 Map Basics (20:27)
2.1 Tutorial 2 - Countries
2.1.1 Axis major powers (pages 1, 3, 5)
2.1.2 Allied major powers (pages 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 7)
2.1.3 Minor countries & territories (pages 10, 11, 12, 13)
2.1.4 Subcountries & objective hexes (pages 14, 15)
2.2 Tutorial 3 - Map
2.2.1 Hex terrain (pages, 1, 2, 3, 11)
2.2.2 Hex icons (pages 6, 7, 13)
2.2.3 Hexside terrain (pages 4, 5, 8, 12)
2.2.4 Sea areas (pages 10, 9

Chapter 3 Unit Basics (28:27)
3.1 Tutorial 4 - Land Units
3.1.1 Unit review form (pages 1, 2)
3.1.2 Land unit types (pages 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
3.1.3 High & medium resolution (pages 8, 9)
3.2 Tutorial 5 - Naval Units
3.2.1 Naval combat unit types (pages 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 13, 14)
3.2.2 Naval transports (page 6)
3.2.3 Convoys (page 8)
3.2.4 Naval task forces (pages 9, 10, 11, 12)
3.3 Tutorial 6 - Air Units
3.3.1 Air unit types (pages 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13)
3.3.2 Annual improvements (pages 7, 8)
3.3.3 High & medium resolution (pages 9, 10)

Chapter 4 Sequence of Play (33:56)
4.1 Tutorial 10 - Sequence of Play
4.1.1 Turns, impulses, & starting a new game (pages 2, 3)
4.1.2 New turn & new impulse (pages 4, 5, 6)
4.1.3 Naval air assignments and air missions in general (page 7)
4.1.4 Naval movement & combat (pages 8, 9, 10)
4.1.5 Independent air missions (page 11)
4.1.6 Land movement & combat (pages 12, 13, 14, 15)
4.1.7 End of impulse and turn (pages 16, 17, 18, 19)

Chapter 5 Turns, Impulses, Weather, & Supply (25:28)
5.1 Tutorial 7 - Turns, Impulses, & Weather
5.1.1 Weather zones (page 1, 3, 4)
5.1.2 Weather on the detailed & global maps (pages 5, 6, 7)
5.1.3 Weather roll effect on impulses and turns (pages 10, 11)
5.2 Tutorial 9 - Supply
5.2.1 Basic supply path (pages 1, 2, 4, 5)
5.2.2 Overseas supply path (pages 6, 8)
5.2.3 Railway supply path (pages 11, 10, 12, 13)

Chapter 6 Main Form, Screen Layouts, & Map Views (46:31)

Chapter 7 Starting a New Game & Setting Up Units (55:40)

Chapter 8 Air Movement & Combat (23:43)

Chapter 9 Land Movement & Combat (43:46)

Chapter 10 Naval Movement & Combat

Chapter 11 Production & Politics

EDIT: The first 5 chapters review the (static) Introductory Tutorial pages while in the last 6 chapters the game is actually being 'played'.

< Message edited by Shannon V. OKeets -- 7/27/2009 6:17:41 PM >

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to MajorDude)

Post #: 9

RE: Complexity and time - 7/28/2009 2:53:18 AM

scout1

Posts: 2899
Joined: 8/24/2004
From: South Bend, In
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: scout1

I know I've asked this before in different ways but still struggling with the apparent complexity of this game (as I see it). I've followed the various threads. I am an avid WITP player so size doens't bother me and I realize that turn length varies depending on what's going on. So having laid the groundwork, I'm looking for input from someone who is a WITP player relative to the complexity comparison, relative to the size comparison and lastly as to how long do turns actually take. No fair using it depends. I realize WITP is a little bit more straight forward in this regards. My typical play style for WITP is to let the turn run on it's own (so I don't have to watch it and can do other things). THen I'll see the resolution and enter my orders accordingly. Really can't afford the time to actively watch the turn in progress, similar to my understanding as to BTR as the Germans ......

Just looking for enough to push me over the edge when this is released.

I've never seen WITP so I can not compare the two games.

You talk about "letting the turn run on its own", which makes me wonder if you are playing against the computer or other people.

Typically all my games are pbem. In WITP each player enters their orders/moves and the turn plays out to completion w/o any player intervention allowed. You get to see what happed after the fact. My understanding of BTR (at least as the German player) you have to watch the turn as it unfolds and react in real time to events, launching intercepts, etc .... Rather than having the turn play out on its own based on the orders you entered.
Basically I don't want to get tied to a game where it is imperative that you watch each second of a turn resolution unfold so you can react to it and influence it "live" .....

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 10

RE: Complexity and time - 7/28/2009 3:20:30 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: scout1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: scout1

I know I've asked this before in different ways but still struggling with the apparent complexity of this game (as I see it). I've followed the various threads. I am an avid WITP player so size doens't bother me and I realize that turn length varies depending on what's going on. So having laid the groundwork, I'm looking for input from someone who is a WITP player relative to the complexity comparison, relative to the size comparison and lastly as to how long do turns actually take. No fair using it depends. I realize WITP is a little bit more straight forward in this regards. My typical play style for WITP is to let the turn run on it's own (so I don't have to watch it and can do other things). THen I'll see the resolution and enter my orders accordingly. Really can't afford the time to actively watch the turn in progress, similar to my understanding as to BTR as the Germans ......

Just looking for enough to push me over the edge when this is released.

I've never seen WITP so I can not compare the two games.

You talk about "letting the turn run on its own", which makes me wonder if you are playing against the computer or other people.

Typically all my games are pbem. In WITP each player enters their orders/moves and the turn plays out to completion w/o any player intervention allowed. You get to see what happed after the fact. My understanding of BTR (at least as the German player) you have to watch the turn as it unfolds and react in real time to events, launching intercepts, etc .... Rather than having the turn play out on its own based on the orders you entered.
Basically I don't want to get tied to a game where it is imperative that you watch each second of a turn resolution unfold so you can react to it and influence it "live" .....

Well then, (and remember my knowledge of WITP is based solely on the posts in this thread) the two games are vastly different.

Over the board, the WIF designers strove to keep both sides involved and making decisions. Clearly this was to avoid one side falling asleep while waiting for the other side to move/make decisions. From a programming point of view this has been a nightmare to code, given that there can be up to 6 players using separate computers and the decision maker at any point in time jumping from one side to the other or to individual players on either side.

For PBEM, my main objective from the start was to remove as much of the back-and-forth decision making as possible, to avoid additional emails. So, in the aggregate sense, I have partially (and inadvertently) transformed MWIF into something more along the lines of WITP - where one player makes numerous decisions and then sends them en masse to the other player. The main difference will be that you will be making decisions more or less by branch of service: naval, air, and land instead of all possible decisions for the turn in one fell swoop (or swell foop as I like to say). Definitely different from WITP.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to scout1)

Post #: 11

RE: Complexity and time - 7/28/2009 4:02:17 AM

SeaMonkey

Posts: 804
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

One of these days Steve, you're going to have to look at priority tasking where each player must contemplate the probablilities for each deployment and command the unit to perform in order(the AI implements). A perfect "we-go" situation where each player has a certain amount of "turnstops" to edit orders depending on the dynamics of the unit(s) support structure and owning player initiative.

One of these days....

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 12

RE: Complexity and time - 7/28/2009 8:44:19 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey

One of these days Steve, you're going to have to look at priority tasking where each player must contemplate the probablilities for each deployment and�command the unit to perform in order(the AI implements).� A perfect "we-go" situation where each player has a certain amount of "turnstops" to edit orders depending on the dynamics of the unit(s) support structure and owning player initiative.

One of these days....

I'm not sure that I follow all that.

Air units are the only units that are moved by the non-phasing side (well, overrun units too, but there are other SOs for that). The PBEM SOs are mainly concerned with moving air units.
---
The AIO sets up the minor country units according to the scripts that Peter has been working on.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to SeaMonkey)

Post #: 13

RE: Complexity and time - 8/8/2009 9:06:00 PM

Gommer

Posts: 25
Joined: 6/11/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hdosbe

WITP, WPO ????

English language is very difficult for me, but these are arabic !!!!

MAS

English users (not sure about other languages) love to abbreviate. When you see all-caps like that just look at each letter as the first letter of a word, in this case most likely a Matrix Games title.

WITP becomes War In The Pacific, and
WPO is War Plan Orange.

And just so you're not discouraged, it never hurts to ask, as even we native English speakers don't always get which game they're referring to either.

< Message edited by Gommer -- 8/8/2009 9:07:11 PM >

(in reply to hdosbe)

Post #: 14

RE: Complexity and time - 8/10/2009 9:42:14 PM

obermeister

Posts: 74
Joined: 4/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey

One of these days Steve, you're going to have to look at priority tasking where each player must contemplate the probablilities for each deployment and�command the unit to perform in order(the AI implements).� A perfect "we-go" situation where each player has a certain amount of "turnstops" to edit orders depending on the dynamics of the unit(s) support structure and owning player initiative.

One of these days....

I'm not sure that I follow all that.

Air units are the only units that are moved by the non-phasing side (well, overrun units too, but there are other SOs for that). The PBEM SOs are mainly concerned with moving air units.
---
The AIO sets up the minor country units according to the scripts that Peter has been working on.

It's true that those are the only units MOVED by the non-phasing side (I think), but there are other situations where you might need to interrupt the phasing side to allow the non-phasing side to do something. Like Naval interception for example: every time you move ships through a sea zone with enemy presence, you need to ask them if they want to try to intercept.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 15

RE: Complexity and time - 8/10/2009 10:15:44 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: obermeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey

One of these days Steve, you're going to have to look at priority tasking where each player must contemplate the probablilities for each deployment and�command the unit to perform in order(the AI implements).� A perfect "we-go" situation where each player has a certain amount of "turnstops" to edit orders depending on the dynamics of the unit(s) support structure and owning player initiative.

One of these days....

I'm not sure that I follow all that.

Air units are the only units that are moved by the non-phasing side (well, overrun units too, but there are other SOs for that). The PBEM SOs are mainly concerned with moving air units.
---
The AIO sets up the minor country units according to the scripts that Peter has been working on.

It's true that those are the only units MOVED by the non-phasing side (I think), but there are other situations where you might need to interrupt the phasing side to allow the non-phasing side to do something. Like Naval interception for example: every time you move ships through a sea zone with enemy presence, you need to ask them if they want to try to intercept.

Yes, that is one of the Standing Orders for PBEM.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to obermeister)

Post #: 16

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> Complexity and time

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

0.781

Slitherine

Complexity and time