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 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 9/30/2004 5:45:28 AM

Irish Guards

Posts: 143
Joined: 8/13/2004
Status: offline

One thing I always thought was that damaged fleet units that attempt to retreat to a port from a sea area after combat, should be at a disadvantage, which means they are easier to intercept, especially by subs in same sea area and adjacent subs that can go to combat.

I bring this up from the point of view that as a victor in a major sea battle who kills opponent, watches all damaged units just get away, especially when some times they go 2 or 3 areas to a safe port, under air umbrella w impunity, these units who are horribly disabled are sitting ducks.

Irish Guards

(in reply to Greyshaft)

Post #: 181

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 9/30/2004 8:33:00 AM

vonpaul

Posts: 178
Joined: 8/5/2004
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

I found old CWIF(beta) incredibely annoying personally. Its currently only playable solitare and I would often forget about a particular unit hidden on some forgotten front. grrrrrrr!!!!!! reload time AGAIN!!!!

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 182

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 10/1/2004 1:59:26 AM

macgregor

Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline

Undoubtedly good points all ! 100 transactions per impulse , yes. However, we're talking emails here. Whatever time it takes to finish the boardgame, I'm much more adept with a mouse than tweezers, it's got to take less time( as long as both parties have dsl or better) than that. I don't know about you, but I can email a move as fast as I can announce it. Plus I've got 2 broken ankles right now. That alone could hold up a boardgame. Of course the bugs have to be worked out of it and it has to play all the way through without locking up. I believe there is a PBEM version of the beta. Either it still has significant bugs and isn't worth releasing, or the bugs are worked out and it's just a matter of makeup and marketing, which I was hoping to bypass with my desperate plea.

(in reply to vonpaul)

Post #: 183

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 10/1/2004 4:51:16 AM

vonpaul

Posts: 178
Joined: 8/5/2004
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

2 broken legs??? How'd you manage that?

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 184

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 10/1/2004 6:21:02 AM

Mziln

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Plus I've got 2 broken ankles right now.

Broken ankles are worse than broken legs. You have my deepest and sincerest sympathies.

Especialy since I have just recovered from 2 gashed ankles myself (a work related accident). Learning to walk again in shoes that have heels is an interesting experence.

Hang in there! Each day you get better.

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 185

Variable AI - 10/4/2004 6:18:43 AM

rhondabrwn

Posts: 2570
Joined: 9/29/2004
From: Snowflake, Arizona
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

Love & Peace,

Far Dareis Mai

My old Piczo site seems to be gone, so no more Navajo Nation pics :(

(in reply to Greyshaft)

Post #: 186

RE: Variable AI - 10/4/2004 7:43:51 PM

Cheesehead

Posts: 418
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Appleton, Wisconsin
Status: offline

Excellent idea, rhondabrwn. I hope to hear more from you on this forum.

_____________________________

You can't fight in here...this is the war room!

(in reply to rhondabrwn)

Post #: 187

RE: Variable AI - 10/6/2004 7:03:51 AM

macgregor

Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline

Thank you all for your concern. I was actually hit headon by a drunk driver driving on the wrong side of a divided highway. I'm very lucky to be alive. It could've been so much worse. In addition, my car was completely totalled. I'm able to hobble on two very stiff,sore feet for short distances. The worst is over ,thank god.
My WiF buds and I are still in touch. Only I live in florida now. My one friend lives in hawaii. The other two are back in Philly. I miss playing with those guys. An interesting thing is that until WiF came along, I couldn't get most of these guys to even look at a wargame. WiF became a ritual for us. And now ...that's all gone. So, here I sit before you, impatiently waiting for the slightest bit of info. "It's been a lo-o-o-ong time.A long time coming. But this game's gonna come."

(in reply to Cheesehead)

Post #: 188

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 10/11/2004 12:15:47 PM

sewelldave

Posts: 1
Joined: 10/11/2004
Status: offline

I noted at least one person questioning the sense of trying to build and market this game. I played the original board game with one of my mates about 10 years ago and both of us would love to play it again, but we don't have the space or time for to set it up. Therefore, we are both hoping this game gets made so we can play against each other and save campaigns without the hassle of the physical game taking up space, or play individually against a decent AI.

Keep in mind that neither of us has ever posted on a forum about this or got involved in any WiF organisations. We're just a couple of blokes that got interested and have then checked the ADG website year after year hoping the computer game will get made. There must be many more people like us out there.

For what it's worth, I would buy it for sure. I can't believe that there aren't more people out there that quietly hold an interest in WiF and who would buy the computer game.

Cheers,
Dave

(in reply to David Heath)

Post #: 189

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 10/11/2004 12:51:07 PM

YohanTM2

Posts: 1143
Joined: 10/7/2002
From: Toronto
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sewelldave

I noted at least one person questioning the sense of trying to build and market this game. I played the original board game with one of my mates about 10 years ago and both of us would love to play it again, but we don't have the space or time for to set it up. Therefore, we are both hoping this game gets made so we can play against each other and save campaigns without the hassle of the physical game taking up space, or play individually against a decent AI.

Keep in mind that neither of us has ever posted on a forum about this or got involved in any WiF organisations. We're just a couple of blokes that got interested and have then checked the ADG website year after year hoping the computer game will get made. There must be many more people like us out there.

For what it's worth, I would buy it for sure. I can't believe that there aren't more people out there that quietly hold an interest in WiF and who would buy the computer game.

Cheers,
Dave

I agree 100%

(in reply to sewelldave)

Post #: 190

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 10/12/2004 2:55:25 AM

vonpaul

Posts: 178
Joined: 8/5/2004
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

WIF already has a large fan base and you can be guaranteed that they will be buying the computer game.

(in reply to YohanTM2)

Post #: 191

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 10/19/2004 1:09:02 AM

SamuraiProgrmmr

Posts: 353
Joined: 10/17/2004
From: Paducah, Kentucky
Status: offline

Hello Everyone,

I have just found this forum and am enthralled by the encouraging news that WiF will be ported to a computer game WITH an AI.

I was part of the 'beta test' with Chris's CWiF a few years ago and kind of lost heart for reasons I will describe here.

I started playing WiF with Version 4. It was a wonderful game. I liked the way that each type of combat (land, air, and naval) had its own flavor and how each flavor seemed to capture the decisions that were important. I especially liked the sea area concept for naval combat that modeled the ability of a task force to have a more effective patrol when closer to port. PLEASE keep the sea boxes intact.

I liked the global aspect of the game and the ability to choose what types of units needed to be produced. This is certainly the best WWII grand strategic game I have ever played.

I was absolutely ecstatic about Days Of Decision. The way we played, we would start with DoD in 1936 and work our way to the war. This allowed for wonderful alternate histories. (Building the Maginot line all the way to the Channel made things a little more difficult for a Germany that did not like to throw an attack that was not at max or near max odds.)

I bought version 5 and like it as well. I bought version 6, but sadly have never played it. In fact, the counters may still be unpunched. Changes in jobs, marriage status, and priorities made it impossible to find time to play this wonderful game any more.

The version 6 rules were enough different that I found it hard to motivate to play solitaire, so I went on to other things.

I think it is crucial that there be an AI that is capable of at least teaching a beginner how to play well enough to learn from a good player later. Losing is inevitable (someone has to lose), but it is more acceptable when the player can learn from the loss and come back better.

As a programmer, I understand the complexity of writing an AI. Although I have never done it, I have done some reading on the subject. The concept of an AI for this game is daunting, to be sure, but it can be done. Just like any programming project it must be categorized and broken up into pieces that are not so daunting in themselves. Have faith, fellow grognards, we may have the holy grail in sight.

I know you don't believe me.

I would make one suggestion, however, that might make you feel a little more hopeful for an AI that can, in fact, challenge the best of us and keep us on our toes. This suggestion could also have some bearing on the awful dilemma of "how much control do we give up to the AI when playing by e-mail?"

Now, open your minds very very wide.

Wider.

A little bit more......

Thats it...

What if the program were written in such a way that the Artificial Intelligence were, in fact, a module (in the form of a DLL) that accepted the state of affairs as a data object and returned the answer to specific questions when asked by the game engine? This is not too far of a reach since the game was originally designed to ask the user interface for all of those decisions.

Surely this would not be that hard to arrange. Think about the major benefit: Long after Matrix Games has moved on to another project and cannot monetarily justify improving the AI, the gaming community will have the ability to do so. Also, players that are so inclined can write their own sub modules that handle their interceptions (air and naval) to speed up PBEM without giving up control.

Just an idea.... think about it before you discard it.

Sincerely

Dean

< Message edited by SamuraiProgrammer -- 10/18/2004 5:09:45 PM >

(in reply to vonpaul)

Post #: 192

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 10/19/2004 1:54:00 AM

Greyshaft

Posts: 2252
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer
The concept of an AI for this game is daunting, to be sure, but it can be done. Just like any programming project it must be categorized and broken up into pieces that are not so daunting in themselves. Have faith, fellow grognards, we may have the holy grail in sight.

I know you don't believe me.

I would make one suggestion, however, that might make you feel a little more hopeful for an AI that can, in fact, challenge the best of us and keep us on our toes. This suggestion could also have some bearing on the awful dilemma of "how much control do we give up to the AI when playing by e-mail?"

Now, open your minds very very wide.

Wider.

A little bit more......

Thats it...

What if the program were written in such a way that the Artificial Intelligence were, in fact, a module (in the form of a DLL) that accepted the state of affairs as a data object and returned the answer to specific questions when asked by the game engine? This is not too far of a reach since the game was originally designed to ask the user interface for all of those decisions.

Welcome Sam,

If you change the selection criteria for the Forum to "Show All Posts" I think you will be pleasantly surprised at the level of AI-centric discussion which has already flowed through this Forum in months past. We discussed the idea of module-based AI in an earlier post "Coding the Move on Suez" and I think you'll find most of the minds here are already wide open to considering new ideas. You should have no fear that your ideas will be rejected out of hand.

Keep those thoughts coming :)

_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to SamuraiProgrmmr)

Post #: 193

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 10/20/2004 9:49:36 PM

SamuraiProgrmmr

Posts: 353
Joined: 10/17/2004
From: Paducah, Kentucky
Status: offline

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE make the game use all of the available display. I have some games that go into DirectX mode and strrreeetttccchhh the graphics on my wide screen laptop. It would be much better if the program used all of the pixels available (say 1280 x 768) rather than artificially widening pixels to fill the screen (1024 x 768).

(in reply to David Heath)

Post #: 194

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 10/22/2004 5:56:08 AM

Mziln

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE make the game use all of the available display. I have some games that go into DirectX mode and strrreeetttccchhh the graphics on my wide screen laptop. It would be much better if the program used all of the pixels available (say 1280 x 768) rather than artificially widening pixels to fill the screen (1024 x 768).

I just changed my display from 1024x768 down to 800x600 and loaded a saved CWiF game. The map size changed corresponding.

The units and hexes became realy BIG (I wasn't ready for that)

You can resize the window sizes in CWiF.

< Message edited by Mziln -- 10/22/2004 3:58:35 AM >

(in reply to SamuraiProgrmmr)

Post #: 195

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 10/22/2004 8:01:16 AM

SamuraiProgrmmr

Posts: 353
Joined: 10/17/2004
From: Paducah, Kentucky
Status: offline

Glad to hear it!

Let's hope it continues as any improvements are made on the interface.

_____________________________

Bridge is the best wargame going .. Where else can you find a tournament every weekend?

(in reply to Mziln)

Post #: 196

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 12/22/2004 11:15:07 PM

milrevkommittee

Posts: 3
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline

One of the main considerations of C-wif is the adapation of IM into the system. AI is very secondary because of the time and advancments in AI science that will be necessarty before a true AI opponent is even feasable.

Frank
SDCA

(in reply to David Heath)

Post #: 197

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 12/23/2004 8:46:22 PM

coregames

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: milrevkommittee

One of the main considerations of C-wif is the adapation of IM into the system. AI is very secondary because of the time and advancments in AI science that will be necessarty before a true AI opponent is even feasable.

Frank
SDCA

While it is true that an AI capable of competing at a high level in WiF is a long way off, I don't want to sell the staff at Matrix short. They stay conscious of the latest developments in the field, and have the skill and experience to bring some level of AI to the game. As far as text messages, IM is only one feature they need to consider; if the game is going to have a PBEM option, messages will need to be sent to other in-boxes along with the player's orders for the turn.

(in reply to milrevkommittee)

Post #: 198

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 12/24/2004 1:04:12 AM

milrevkommittee

Posts: 3
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline

From a business point of view C-WIF needs better graphics and AI. The target market for a strategic/operational global war game will always be small but hard core. Although I would like to see a slight increase in the quality of the graphics, it is small thing. I have played the game well in to 1945 and have found some interesting insights, as I am sure any of the board game player have also noticed.
To market the game a rudimentary AI should be provided for the sake of advertisement. Any of the core gamers will know its no possible for a AI program to encompass the scope of the military/economic/political system and therefore fail. The game is to be played ideally by IM and/or TCP/IP. It can be played via email with a greater reduction in speed.
This is a long game that can not finished except by playing and playing and playing. It is defiantly worth the time as it is the best WWII game on the market (or, to be on the market at some time)

Frank
San Diego

_____________________________

Here arises the question: whether it is better to be loved than feared, or feared than loved. Obviously, it can be answered that one should choose to be both, but since the two rarely come together for one person... [anyone who must choose between the tw

(in reply to David Heath)

Post #: 199

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 1/5/2005 6:08:36 PM

Nordic Twilight

Posts: 38
Joined: 9/27/2004
Status: offline

I played WiF with most of the add ons from the late 1980's to around 2000 ( when my excellent opponent, and good friend left to work overseas ), so I have'nt really played it since then.

Since CWiF was announced ( back in 96 I think ) I have been patiently waiting, looking over the beta version and fighting off mounting despair, at the way the game 'looked' and felt from the original. The game IMHO had a peculiar life of its own that all players I came across loved. So now I've found this thread. Hope springs eternal, and I wish Matrix every success with this project. What I would like to see is :-

1) Days of Decision incorporated into the game, with all the political ramifactions ironed out, so you can start the game in 1933/36/39/40/41
2) Economic system made more interesting.
3) Map boxes/Sea areas retained, as the UBoat/Commerce Raiding war was fascinating, and the system worked very well
4) Optional Div breakdown.
5) Fog of War
6) Naming units
7) Counter format retained but with 'better' graphics, perhaps more along the lines of UV/WitP
8) End the strange loopholes in the rules that game geeks would exploit 'ad nauseaum', infuriating normal decent players

9) As already mentioned the abitity of air units to gain 'ace' status.
10) A decent AI
11) One size fits all map if at all possible
12) Planes in Flames/Ships in Flames etc included in the games design
13) Ability to play solo/email/LAN/WAN
14) Time limits on turns, stopping the aforementioned geeks from endlessly recalculating odds ad infinitum till everyone playing has died around the table from boredom.

15) Not to go where HOI went into fantasy land.

Just a few of my thought about this marvellous game

< Message edited by Nordic Twilight -- 1/5/2005 4:09:21 PM >

_____________________________

Armies do not exist for peace. They exist solely for triumphant exertion in War

Our lives maybe more boring than those who lived in apocalyptic times,but being bored is greatly preferable to being prematurely dead because of some ideological fantasy

(in reply to milrevkommittee)

Post #: 200

One mans geek is another man's 'normal decent player' :) - 1/5/2005 10:11:21 PM

Greyshaft

Posts: 2252
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nordic Twilight
8) End the strange loopholes in the rules that game geeks would exploit 'ad nauseaum', infuriating normal decent players

The only patch for wargames
which I think is fine
is where they close your loopholes
while leaving only mine

I'm sure all right-thinking normal decent players would agree with me

On a serious note, there are always going to be situations which the rules cannot cover. Sometimes you just need to be careful in picking your opponents.

_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to Nordic Twilight)

Post #: 201

RE: One mans geek is another man's 'normal decent playe... - 1/6/2005 3:25:00 PM

Nordic Twilight

Posts: 38
Joined: 9/27/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nordic Twilight
8) End the strange loopholes in the rules that game geeks would exploit 'ad nauseaum', infuriating normal decent players

The only patch for wargames
which I think is fine
is where they close your loopholes
while leaving only mine

I'm sure all right-thinking normal decent players would agree with me

On a serious note, there are always going to be situations which the rules cannot cover. Sometimes you just need to be careful in picking your opponents.

How very true!!!

I agree with your thoughts on this minor but extremely IRRITATING subject

. House rules had to be introduced all over the place to cover 'bizarre' eventualities or completely unforeseen events that even the designers would'nt have thought of ( but as we all know to our cost, the geeks would always find a way of 'breaking' the system .

The good thing is with a company like Matrix there is LOTS of support and an excellent community on the Forums

_____________________________

(in reply to Greyshaft)

Post #: 202

RE: One mans geek is another man's 'normal decent playe... - 1/21/2005 12:22:19 PM

Tom Hunter

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline

For background I played the game quite often at MIT in the 1980s. We eventually stopped in part because one of our guys figured out that going though the med and hitting Russia from Poland and the Caucasus made Russia indefensible.

I don�t think the whole game plus expansion packs should be crammed into one release. It reduces the revenue potential of the product and increases the likelyhood of major bugs or an unplayable end game.

(Warning I am a pricing strategy consultant this paragraph reflects my biases) On the business side the developers have to eat that means a game that runs well at the start and sell expansion packs over time is a better way to go for both the developers and the players. Matrix needs a good pricing and development strategy for this franchise or they will forgo revenue and we (the players) will get an inferior product.

Things I would like to see in game:

A better system for logistics. In a board game its very difficult to show how small the tip of the spear gets when armies are fighting far from home. A computer can automate this nicely without adding to the player work load.

I am not sure about upgrades in one respect they are nice to have for units but in another respect players are unlikely to make the same stupid mistakes that were made in the war like keeping the Sherman as the main battle tank in 1944, building a 3 year supply of 2pdr ATGs in 1941 or building a separate land army for the Luftwaffe. Notice that everyone does bone headed stuff. Its probabley better to automate this.

Resist the temptation to explore the what if scenarios based on the idea that either side could have been a lot smarter. Questions like what if Hitler had said �build ME 262s to shoot down B17s� instead of ordering a bomber version and delaying the fighter production should be avoided. Why? Because we all know so much more than the real participants in the war and we won�t make those kind of mistakes. And where do you stop? If the Germans get their wonder weapons then the Americans should be building mile long pycrete Habbakuk carrying jet fighters and nuclear armed B-29s in 1945

Its true that either side could have been a lot smarter. But if they really had been smarter they would not have had a war that killed 50 million people, destroyed Europe and ended with nuclear bombs landing on Japan.

Add fog of war especially at sea where both sides often had inaccurate pictures of what was going on. In the real war the British hid the Suez Canal from German bombers and the Americans created entire false army groups. Again this was not possible in a board game but it is possible on the computer and it would add a lot to the game.

Name the ships its nice eye candy and doesn�t cost much.

If you can create a scoring system that allows players of PBEM games to compare how they are doing with other players it will help sales. People like to be on a board like that and it can drive up traffic and even player numbers. The systems can be (and likely will be) flawed but that does not really matter much. Even if its perfect people will still complain about it.

I have always thought that the Germans should get victory points for diverting resources to murdering people. I know it would not be popular but it might be a nice reminder of what the war was all about.

< Message edited by Tom Hunter -- 1/21/2005 10:23:27 AM >

(in reply to Nordic Twilight)

Post #: 203

RE: One mans geek is another man's 'normal decent playe... - 1/21/2005 2:37:00 PM

Nordic Twilight

Posts: 38
Joined: 9/27/2004
Status: offline

I agree with all your points except the last one, as this would make the game too contentious. You would also have to include the Soviets rather forgotten slave labour camps, and would make the game a target for the PC lobby. ( I mean they still get excited about the flag for God's sake

)

I was under the impression that the 'gear-ups' took things like that into consideration anyway, and rewarded the player with more production.

IMHO its best 'not to go there', and was not in the original game anyway.

_____________________________

(in reply to Tom Hunter)

Post #: 204

RE: One mans geek is another man's 'normal decent playe... - 1/21/2005 4:34:23 PM

Tom Hunter

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline

I include the last suggestion mainly to make a point not because it really belongs in a game. Though it is true that if you included it you would get tens to hundreds of millions of dollars worth of public relations attention.

Spin would be very important but its an interesting question which is worse a game that does show the historical reality of Nazi genocide or one that ignores it?

Might be better to make Schindlers List the game that way we could play Schindler instead of Himmler.

(in reply to Nordic Twilight)

Post #: 205

RE: One mans geek is another man's 'normal decent playe... - 1/21/2005 5:55:47 PM

Cheesehead

Posts: 418
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Appleton, Wisconsin
Status: offline

quote:

same stupid mistakes that were made in the war like keeping the Sherman as the main battle tank in 1944

Maybe the Sherman couldn't stand toe-to-toe with a panther or a tiger, but when you have 10,000 of them and your enemy can only muster a couple hundred of his "superior" tanks because they are so expensive to produce and they break down so often, you will win the war. The US did have an excellent tank design set to replace the Sherman. It was called the Pershing, I believe, but by the time it was set to go into full production, the war in Europe was pretty much a done deal.

_____________________________

You can't fight in here...this is the war room!

(in reply to Tom Hunter)

Post #: 206

RE: One mans geek is another man's 'normal decent playe... - 1/21/2005 10:05:52 PM

Tom Hunter

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline

True better to have 10,000 operational Shermans than a handful of unreilable tigers. But that is not the choice the USA had. We could have 10,000 Shermans with short barrel 75mm or 10,000 Shermans with the long 76 on our tank destroyers. We could have had more armor on them too. Or we could have put the Pershing into production sooner. Germany and Russia were both able to upgrade their tanks with smaller industrial bases than we were. Even the Brits did more upgrades but thier whole Cruiser/ I tank concept was wrong.

The reason we were using the Sherman from 42 to 45 was policy by the US army. That policy was foolish, cost the lives of a lot of American tankers and should have been changed earlier. US soldiers in the field responded to the increasingly powerful German tanks by making their own upgrades but that is not nearly as effective as upgrading the factory. Our choice was not 10,000 Shermans or a few Tigers it was 10,000 Shermans or 10,000 better tanks either improved Shermans or Pershings.

(in reply to Cheesehead)

Post #: 207

RE: One mans geek is another man's 'normal decent playe... - 2/11/2005 7:37:19 PM

macgregor

Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline

Interesting points. I recall an armored commander from WW2 saying the failure to upgrade was a 'criminal' act by the war office.

-On a different note, I read an interesting article on warfare HQ in which David Heath makes some interesting comments. I share his abhorrence for 'gamey' loopholes that allow players to employ unrealistic tactics successfully. Please take all the time you need to eliminate them from CWiF (not that I recall there being any in the boardgame)

(in reply to Tom Hunter)

Post #: 208

RE: Variable AI - 2/12/2005 2:12:28 AM

stewart_king

Posts: 21
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

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).

Paradox Entertainment's Europa Universalis, Victoria, and Hearts of Iron use moddable AI files in which objectives, proportion of resources to be devoted to different objectives, and the like are easily available to users. Countries can change from one AI file to another as the result of events (i.e., IF European allied forces defeated AND USSR not a threat AND Italy not a member of Axis, THEN Germany switches to naval war AI and attempts to conquer UK).

I recommend purchase of Hearts of Iron II, a recent release. It has a very good political system. (full disclosure: I'm a Beta tester for HOI2).

Stewart King

(in reply to rhondabrwn)

Post #: 209

RE: Variable AI - 2/12/2005 6:18:42 AM

coregames

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: stewart_king

Paradox Entertainment's Europa Universalis, Victoria, and Hearts of Iron use moddable AI files in which objectives, proportion of resources to be devoted to different objectives, and the like are easily available to users. Countries can change from one AI file to another as the result of events ...

Perhaps Matrix could use the idea of Leaders in Flames in conjunction with the idea of multiple AI personalities to allow players to tailor the AI for particular theatres of operation. If Yamamoto is running the show in the Pacific, then "he" could be the AI to decide on naval tactics and interceptions when the Japanese take a naval or combined.

(in reply to stewart_king)

Post #: 210