Les_the_Sarge_9_1
Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline
|
In regards to the last publicly offered demo, or at least the files as of Oct 20th 2003, the ones available on the last day before they were withdrawn, I actually have those.
But as David asked they be removed from circulation (that was his personal request to me), I honoured that request. As such, I am fairly aware of what the game once looked like. Where exactly it is now I am not privvy to though (I am not part of that process).
Essentially speaking, demos that don't contribute, are a harmful distraction in a lot of cases.
I like the fact that Matrix Games actually cares about the public image of games they are involved with.
Bringing a multi phased turn using global strategy board game to the computer is no one's idea of a simple easy prospect.
The board game being a board game, was designed around the assumption both players would naturally enough both be visibly present sitting at a table.
Thus, the game was entirely designed around that reality.
It is that reason, why producing an AI that will even have value is such a challenge. If the game had started as a computer wargame, and had never been anything other than a wargamer for the computer, it is likely the design would have reflected that enough, that an AI would be a lot less troubled.
It is clear that most WANT an AI. But that is a reflection of the fact most of us will insist on being able to play it solo on a computer.
A lot of us will not have the board game, and therefore a lot of us won't have played it, and therefore a lot will expect a tutorial which will in effect teach us how to play the game.
Frankly though, a basic print out of the manual would likely be simpler to produce, than beating the designer over the head to make a viable tutorial eh.
I am unsure of what the cost to make the manual would be. But I am sure it will cost a decent amount in programmer expenses to make the software tutorial. And the manual has always been a fairly simple black and white non colour text document.
It is possible that the game could be done correctly, and made just a computerised board game of itself, unmodified in any way.
It is equally possible the game could be made sans AI and made either capable of hotseat mode for two player, or email capable so that both players don't actually need to be there. It is possible the game can easily accomodate more than two players too.
It is possible all the screaming for an AI will kill off cWiF from being a profitable do able reality too.
I would not mind an AI. I would not mind a moderately capable AI.
I don't actually need one though.
Hell prove to me you can't play both sides of the board game now. Prove to me you could not do the same thing on a computer interface.
Prove to me there is an ABSOLUTE need for an AI.
If 9 out of 10 persons demand an AI, and the need of an AI kills the game, then 9 out of 10 people will have killed the game.
Simple as that.
Its been a number of years now eh. If this game was easy to port to a computer, I think it would have been done by now. So clearly something is wrong with the expectations maybe.
I am stuck comparing this game to two titles.
Hearts of Iron and Strategic Command.
HoI I do NOT want (multiple reasons)
Strategic Command I like.
SC does not have a mulit phased convoluted turn proceedure though. You want to move a unit fine, it has a move radius shown. You want to attack, fine it can make an attack. But it must do so before moving another piece, so the moves need planning and forethought.
Research is a matter of do it or not purchase.
Building or repairing units is a do it or not prospect.
In short, the player is not bogged down with minutae.
Politics is straight and simple.
Various game effects are straight and simple.
Attack with an air unit, and interception is automatic, not in the hands of the player.
Naval interception requires you are in a position to do so.
Supply is handled by the computer, so you don't need to verify it yourself. It is either in supply or it is not.
That is the strength of SC. The AI is not bogged down with intricate multi phased sequenced decisions. I can look at a board while my opponent in moving, and decide instantly about various details as they are played out.
That fortunately, is the one advantage of the hman mind. I think, therefore I am :)
The AI is not thinking, merely employing data routines reactively.
cWiF could likely be on the shelf in a few months if it was "look here is the game, you can play it on your computer, and yes, you have to learn to play it first."
Would it bug me that the game came with absolutely no tutorial, and I had to actually read a manual first? No.
Welcome to wargaming dudes. That's how I did it for 20 years before computers.
Now you know why some of us actually CAN play wargames better than some.
< Message edited by Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -- 2/12/2004 9:02:01 AM >
_____________________________
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
|
Printable Version
What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game - 
I realy was enjoying the political point system. And was just starting to understand the Naval rules. 
Taking the game to down to an individual Division level would be a little extreme. Would you then have to take the Naval game to Destroyer flotillas and the Air game to Air groups? 
An excelent AI, one that dosn't just take advantage by having the computer looking at your moves, would be most appreciated. 
Good support for the game is a must. Too many games are being released unfinished and unready for release.
I wish you people had downloaded a copy of the demo. 
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