RE: I Go U Go

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: I Go U Go

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: I Go U Go

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: I Go U Go - 1/20/2005 2:51:56 PM

c92nichj

Posts: 440
Joined: 1/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Cycling through units available for current action, as well as the marvelous "Units" dialog used to quickly find all unused TRS, all undisrupted FTRS, for example, was very usefull to quicken play.

I agree that the Units dialogue is extremely helpful I also use it to see what uncommited fleet my opponent has.

The difference between solitaire and PBEM is quite big though and more timeconsuming, but it might just be me and how I am playing. Hotseat is about the same time as playing Face to Face, it should be quicker but since only one person look at the screen at any one time it is hard to use the waiting time to plan ahead your moves.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 31

RE: I Go U Go - 1/20/2005 4:04:15 PM

Froonp

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

quote:

The difference between solitaire and PBEM is quite big though and more timeconsuming, but it might just be me and how I am playing. Hotseat is about the same time as playing Face to Face, it should be quicker but since only one person look at the screen at any one time it is hard to use the waiting time to plan ahead your moves.

Yes indeed.
Hotseat computer wargaming is quite frustrating for the non playing player(s).
I remember the old days when playing the first C64 wargames from SSI & Microprose (Crusade in Europe anyone ??), when we had to do "something else", and not look at the screen, when the other player was playing. Could last for a long time !!!

I really think more & more that TCP/IP will be my prefered style of play.
I already have my greatest WiF opponent, now 1100 km away, who is ready to spend nights playing WiF with me by TCP/IP & free Netmeeting voice communication.
And I also have 3 computers at home networked by TCP/IP to play quick games with local WiF players.

I really hope that WiF will not be modified (i.e. simplified) for PBEM, I hope that there will be, at best, an option to play "simplified WiF" for those willing to play PBEM with simplified sequence of play, and that regular CWiF will still be like WiF.

Best Regards

Patrice

(in reply to c92nichj)

Post #: 32

RE: I Go U Go - 1/20/2005 4:52:58 PM

SamuraiProgrmmr

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: c92nichj
As I said S/O 39-J/A 43 have taken us 4,5 months and we have exchanged maybe 5-10 emails per week and we do all the opponents moves in our impulse without exchanging emails (a lot of times we actually have called each other to ask for an important decision, most big naval battles have been fought over the phone for example).

I am astounded at the pace you have set.

Most of our games lasted at least that long. I don't think we ever were able to match that pace playing face to face and meeting on weekends.

Fighting the naval combats via phone is essentially the same concept as having a tcp/ip connection for certain parts of the game. It seems that having this ability (i.e. being able to pick up the phone) greatly increased your speed.

Thanks for the screen shot.

Dean

_____________________________

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

(in reply to c92nichj)

Post #: 33

RE: I Go U Go - 1/21/2005 5:45:39 AM

macgregor

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

I still think that a cwif-based instant messenger capable of updating the gamefile could popup on the opponents screen allowing him to make the critical decisions involving air and naval interception.Showing the list of available units should save time. I admit that having a high-speed connection might be crucial.For air and naval intercept and battle rounds wif is an action game. However ,during land movement it should be Igougo. The phasing player starts with the gamefile and any imput from the other player is done through IM. At the end of his impulse -he sends the gamefile to the other player and everything is done in reverse.Weather and initiative should be quick as should all the beancounting in the end phase.Computer wif should move faster than the original -with less mess.

(in reply to SamuraiProgrmmr)

Post #: 34

RE: I Go U Go - 1/21/2005 9:28:39 PM

SeaMonkey

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

Simple solution for Hotseat, have two CPUs running mirrored games while taking opposite sides or any variation there of.

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 35

Asychronous play - 1/21/2005 9:55:29 PM

Greyshaft

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

How do you allow for the person who's chaotic schedule means that they cannot set aside a game night? I (for one) manage to squeeze in a dozen or so hours of sokitaire or PBEM game play each week, but I can never predict when it will be - early Sunday am, late Thursday night etc.

PBEM systems have to allow for asychronous play

_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to SeaMonkey)

Post #: 36

RE: Asychronous play - 1/21/2005 10:11:31 PM

SeaMonkey

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

Lucky you GS, at best I get maybe 2 to 3 hours a week for PBEM. For example, a simple SC campaign (Fall Weiss) played to completion usually takes about 14 months. Of course I may have about a half a dozen of them going.

(in reply to Greyshaft)

Post #: 37

RE: I Go U Go - 1/22/2005 12:27:06 AM

coregames

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer
Us PURISTS are not demanding that ours is the only way. We see the problems as realistic. We just aren't convinced that the world is coming to the end. We are asking that our way be considered and offering discussion about why we feel it is important.

I totally agree with SamuraiProgrammer here; if meyerg is correct, and the so-called purists (who I assume are the people that made WiF the success it has been through their patronage) are somehow dooming a game design project that hasn't even begun yet, then why have a forum at all? Perhaps we should just all be quiet and hope for a version we can accept, designed at the behest of people who like computer games, but are not necessarily WiF fans.

It all comes down to what Matrix wants to do; is MWiF inspired by ADG's game, or is it a computer adaptation of it? If the latter is the case, the computer game should in no way be less than the board game, but rather, provide even more options for play. Once again I am puzzled by the idea of creating a computer version of a board game that is a simplified version... Aren't we selling computers short in their capabilities by giving in like that? I am confident there is a solution to these issues waiting to be discovered, whether it be a combination of AI and scripts, or a dual-mode approach that offers both streamlined PBEM mode and TCP/IP faithful mode, or some other idea.

To encapsulate the concerns of many who have spoken in these forums... If MWiF is shanghaied by non-WiF fans to create their dream-product, it won't deserve the name, and I am unlikely to purchase it.

(in reply to SamuraiProgrmmr)

Post #: 38

RE: I Go U Go - 1/22/2005 12:48:37 AM

Greyshaft

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

RobertC posted somewhere that he was tasked to do a faithful translation of WiF onto the computer. IMHO the only variations from the cardboard will be where the shoe just doesn't fit - eg resolving PBEM naval interceptions or air aborts/kills . In that case there may be a checkbox which allows the computer to take control of those decisions, but the Purists will always have the option to do it their way.

_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to coregames)

Post #: 39

RE: I Go U Go - 1/23/2005 6:20:41 AM

coregames

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft
...the Purists will always have the option to do it their way.

I know it's hard to accomplish both PBEM and faithfulness in one game; I just want to say how much I appreciate what you are telling us Greyshaft, as well as how grateful I am to Matrix if that is the case. I will get the game regardless of price if it can be played as the game I love. My uneasiness has been diminished greatly by this information.

(in reply to Greyshaft)

Post #: 40

Faithful adaption for WIF optimized for PBEM - 1/26/2005 5:05:51 AM

meyerg

Posts: 135
Joined: 11/14/2003
Status: offline

My apologies to the purists.

I do not think there will be time to do a full game and a PBEM WiF light (shortened sequence of play optimized for PBEM). I was hoping WIF optimized for PBEM would have priority over the faithful adaption of WiF where we have to wait for every naval mission announce sea box by sea box and every air mission to be flown to see if we want to intercept.

The majority opinion of the forum is a faithful adaption is preferred and I bow to the majority. I know the EiA group on yahoo is even more adamant about staying true to WIF. Maybe my comments are sour grapes and I apologize if I offend. I just don't want CWIF that gives me the following options: (1) play solitaire (2) beat on an inferior AI or (3) play hotseat or TCP/IP. Maybe when I get GG's WAW my WW2 strategic PBEM itch wil be scratched and I will wish for a complex game. I confess I will buy CWIF regardless.

I do admit that if I can take my laptop to my friends house and with a wireless network play CWIF without getting out the board, that would be a good thing. That avoids AI and solitaire play. Unfortunately that requires us finding WIF players in the same city. In my small town I am the only WiF player and have to take out my WiF deluxe and read the rules and look at the counter sheets with no one to play. Do not pity me, just make the AI outstanding for CWIF.

As for the Rome burning comment, through no fault of Matrix, CWIF has been promised for a long time. I have watched other strategic WW2 computer games get started and released during this time (e.g. Hearts of Iron). I worry that one of them will finally get it right before CWIF is released. By the way, the tech tree for HOI is very well done, shouldn't a tech tree be on the table for CWIF? Just trying to make things better by commenting and caring.

Greg

(in reply to coregames)

Post #: 41

RE: Faithful adaption for WIF optimized for PBEM - 1/26/2005 6:36:20 AM

SamuraiProgrmmr

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

Greg,

Even some of us purists are hoping that both can be done. As a developer, I think the key is that plans for whatever features are to come need to be made earlier in the development cycle rather than later. Perhaps a simplified sequence can be an option that they add. I feel that from your perspective, the worst case (that is likely to happen) is that the AI will make some decisions during PBEM while keeping the sequence of play intact. The key is that we don't have enough information to know what they will be able to include. Let's keep our fingers crossed!

Again, I think it would be a great thing to have a shortened sequence of play for PBEM if it does not prevent the full game from being implemented.

I bet the developers (as soon as they catch a breath from their closing project) will be examining this carefully. I hope they will keep us posted of their ideas and will give the community a chance to comment on plans rather than suspicions.

Keep your fingers crossed that they think BOTH are feasable.

Barring that, keep your fingers crossed that they will be able to plan ahead for any expansions they might add to satisfy wishes that cannot be included in the first release.

Have a great day & keep on gaming!

Dean

< Message edited by SamuraiProgrammer -- 1/25/2005 10:37:08 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to meyerg)

Post #: 42

RE: Faithful adaption for WIF optimized for PBEM - 1/26/2005 9:17:59 PM

Cheesehead

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

I hear you, Greg!

I've even gone further than you in calling for an entirely new game altogether. Forget trying to recreate WiF, and come up with a new game modelled on WiF (hexes, turn based, whole world, production, sea zones, etc.) but more compatible to e-mail. Of course that was last year. since HoI2 came out and WaW is right around the corner, I've suddenly developed some patience in the matter. Samurai Programmer makes a lot of sense. Now that Robert C. is devoting his every waking moment

to MWiF, I'd like to see what ideas he has regarding PBEM before I put any more demands in. btw, what part of the world do you call home? It was only last year that I stumbled across my first local opponent, and we've been engaged in our first game the past 5 months. Great fun. It was one of my postings on this web site that made the connection.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to meyerg)

Post #: 43

RE: Faithful adaption for WIF optimized for PBEM - 1/27/2005 4:28:43 AM

meyerg

Posts: 135
Joined: 11/14/2003
Status: offline

Thanks for the vote of confidence Cheesehead.
I call Ft Walton Beach, Florida home. I have a hard enough time finding anyone to play Axis and Allies with, let alone WiF.
Anyway, lets hope we get a game that maximizes WIF purity and playability. I don't want to completely sacrifice the latter for the former.
As Harry always signed my WIf games at every LA convention, "Good luck and Good gaming!"

(in reply to Cheesehead)

Post #: 44

RE: Faithful adaption for WIF optimized for PBEM - 1/28/2005 3:30:42 AM

macgregor

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

If I'm a purist -so be it. Like Dean, I welcome a shortened PBEM version. I just feel that the decisions portrayed in wif , while many, are all essential to the game. There are other games to suit every person's needs. Why pick on wif? IMHO World in Flames, while adaptable to PBEM and solitaire , was the grognards answer to 'poker night'. It's best played with 4 or more players(IMHO). If someone couldn't make it, there were nights that his allies would have to move for him. Maybe use the AI like that as well. Though I wouldn't want the AI to become a 'crutch' for a weak player (unless by agreement).

< Message edited by macgregor -- 1/28/2005 1:31:11 AM >

(in reply to meyerg)

Post #: 45