I hate to say this... (Full Version)

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



Message

barbarossa2 -> I hate to say this... (2/9/2009 12:58:53 AM)

But I am curious, why, with all of the absolutely amazing attention to detail in this game, a mercator (or similar) projection of the game was used?

Why wasn't a Dymaxion Map considered?

And if there is a WIF2, I would STRONGLY recommend moving to a Dymaxion map. However, just put it on a 20 sided "die" inside of the player's computer covered with tens of thousands of hexagons. Allow the player to rotate this 20 sided "globe" and view it from any direction. Then use a 3D program to allow the player to manipulate and move pieces just as you would in any 2D program.

This would allow you to stick to a hex based system like the old WIF. You can easily put hexes on these Dymaxion globes because each triangle has 60 degree angles in it and is equilateral. The only interesting artifact is that any hexagon which is on the "corner" of these triangles has only five sides. But I have wrapped maps on 20 sided objects dozens of times in my life, and this does not change anything. The five sided hex anomaly functions as any other hex would.

If this were on such a "globe" the game would be sold. But my mind won't be able to get around the distortion in the game as one nears the poles. It is bad enough on a map of EUROPE! Much less the world :(.

I was so excited to see this game, but then saw a map of the world presented in here with the sea zones and imagined the mindboggling distortion of distances north of the 45th and 60th latitudes in the northern hemesphere (and south of them in the southern hemesphere).

Here is the link for the Dymaxion Wikipedia page and it has a great animation for how this works and helps visualize how this COULD be played on a 3D "20 sided die" with a Dymaxion on it.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dymaxion_map

Note that you can put the north and south poles at the tips of the 20 sided die, but Buckminster Fuller laid it out on his particular projection so that most of the land masses are not separated in any way.

I hope I get to see you guys do this in the next 10 years! You know, I am not getting any younger! I am 41 freaking years old already!


[image]local://upfiles/19419/A5ACAE11F4764C3F9F51453FF8316B5A.jpg[/image]



barbarossa2 -> RE: I hate to say this... (2/9/2009 1:01:09 AM)

This is what I recommended for the War in the Pacific people today...

[image]local://upfiles/19419/5854DAB6E696474380794DB7EF36FFE4.jpg[/image]



Greyshaft -> RE: I hate to say this... (2/9/2009 1:11:23 AM)

The mission was to move WiF to the computer. There are dozens (hundreds?) of ideas about how WiF could have been 'improved' along the way but each one of them would have added to the development time and  also generated a few thousand pro and con emails. In the end it is easier to avoid all of the politics and just computerize the existing game.

Many good ideas were lost along the way (so were many bad ones) but at least we now have a game with a firm release date (27th July 2009)



Klingon -> RE: I hate to say this... (2/9/2009 1:14:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

But I am curious, why, with all of the absolutely amazing attention to detail in this game, a mercator (or similar) projection of the game was used?

Why wasn't a Dymaxion Map considered?

My two cents: Because MWiF is not a wholly new game in its own right, but a computerized adaptation of World in Flames, and WiF doesn't use such a map. The map you recommend using would likely change the mechanics of the game so much it would be an entirely new game.

This would be like a computer adaptation of Monopoly going to a 3D map. Easily could be worthwhile, but it's not really Monopoly anymore.



barbarossa2 -> RE: I hate to say this... (2/9/2009 1:19:37 AM)

Dear Klingon,

It doesn't change any mechanics of the game. Just the map. :) Seriously. What would change?

As indicated, only hexagons directly on the "corners" of the 20 sided die are "odd" in that they have 5 sides...not 6. But you move, shoot, and have combat in them just as you would any other hex.

Everything else could (SHOULD) stay the same! I am also a fan of the old WIF.

However, for people who wanted a map which looked just like WIF, then you obviously had to stick with the old map and it excludes the use of a Dymaxion projection. :)

But moving to a global game should have changed the way the project was developed :)

Just my friendly 2 cents. :) I may buy this game as is, just so I can hope one day I will get to play on a Dymaxion. :)



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: I hate to say this... (2/9/2009 2:40:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

Dear Klingon,

It doesn't change any mechanics of the game. Just the map. :) Seriously. What would change?

As indicated, only hexagons directly on the "corners" of the 20 sided die are "odd" in that they have 5 sides...not 6. But you move, shoot, and have combat in them just as you would any other hex.

Everything else could (SHOULD) stay the same! I am also a fan of the old WIF.

However, for people who wanted a map which looked just like WIF, then you obviously had to stick with the old map and it excludes the use of a Dymaxion projection. :)

But moving to a global game should have changed the way the project was developed :)

Just my friendly 2 cents. :) I may buy this game as is, just so I can hope one day I will get to play on a Dymaxion. :)

Your logic is self defeating.[;)] If the map conversion changes nothing, then why do it? If the conversion does effect changes (e.g., distance measures near the poles), then it will change how the game plays.



barbarossa2 -> New map... (2/9/2009 3:04:37 AM)

Dear Shannon,

I do think it will change game play.

But not "mechanics". My understanding of mechanics are the basically the "rules used" to play.

Of course game play will change.

What is the definition of "mechanics" these days? :)

I can't believe all the things the computer game industry is calling "strategy" these days. (lots of little guys running around building houses and attacking neighboring settlements RTS for example) And "tactics" has been equally misappropriated.

And by the way, I would NEVER suggest you consider this map change for THIS release. But perhaps consider it for your next one! :)



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: New map... (2/9/2009 4:14:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

Dear Shannon,

I do think it will change game play.

But not "mechanics". My understanding of mechanics are the basically the "rules used" to play.

Of course game play will change.

What is the definition of "mechanics" these days? :)

I can't believe all the things the computer game industry is calling "strategy" these days. (lots of little guys running around building houses and attacking neighboring settlements RTS for example) And "tactics" has been equally misappropriated.

And by the way, I would NEVER suggest you consider this map change for THIS release. But perhaps consider it for your next one! :)

Personally, I have very tight definitions for tactical decisions (moving individual units into combat), operational decisions (moving units between/to theaters of war), and strategic decisions (declaring war on countries, production, and similar decisions by the 'country').



iamspamus -> RE: I hate to say this... (2/9/2009 10:51:15 AM)

Steve gets in a zinger... Too bad there are no "rep points". How do you have time to respond to stuff? Oh wait, you've been slacking on getting the game done! Come on guys! Get the pitchforks... [sm=tank2-39.gif][sm=00000055.gif][sm=00000106.gif][sm=00000054.gif][sm=Evil-210.gif][sm=00000612.gif]

Just kiddin'. Keep up the good work.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

Dear Klingon,

It doesn't change any mechanics of the game. Just the map. :) Seriously. What would change?

As indicated, only hexagons directly on the "corners" of the 20 sided die are "odd" in that they have 5 sides...not 6. But you move, shoot, and have combat in them just as you would any other hex.

Everything else could (SHOULD) stay the same! I am also a fan of the old WIF.

However, for people who wanted a map which looked just like WIF, then you obviously had to stick with the old map and it excludes the use of a Dymaxion projection. :)

But moving to a global game should have changed the way the project was developed :)

Just my friendly 2 cents. :) I may buy this game as is, just so I can hope one day I will get to play on a Dymaxion. :)

Your logic is self defeating.[;)] If the map conversion changes nothing, then why do it? If the conversion does effect changes (e.g., distance measures near the poles), then it will change how the game plays.




Mike Parker -> RE: I hate to say this... (2/9/2009 2:12:39 PM)

Barbarossa2,

For my 2 cents I would add this.  I think your correct a different map projection would likely make a more realistic game.  However this game is NOT a new endeavour from scratch as others have pointed out, but rather an adaption that is striving to as closely as possible replicate a tabletop game.  This tabletop game has established strategy and ideas that have been used, are being used, and being developed all the time.

While its not spoken of alot, the very carefully considered map changes that HAVE been made will likely cause some heated disagreements with the tabletop players that 'discover' MWiF.  Changing projections and redoing the map is just NOT an option.

To put it in perspective, Chess might be a better military simulation if we made the board 12x12 instead of 8x8.  But it would no longer be chess, and literally centuries of chess strategy would be null and void in one sweeping move.  if you made such a game you wouldn't expect to get much if any support from the established chess world.  In the same light, MWiF cannot go with a new map if for no other reason it would alienate the majority of its built in audience.  There will be VERY few newcomers to MWiF/WiF that say "Oh wow they used a Mercator projection.. that is bogus this game $*%" however there would be hordes of WiF players that would take one look at a changed map and say "Bah this isn't WiF at all" and never make the purchase.

And lastly, I WANT to play WiF on the computer.. a changed map might make a better game (Stress MIGHT) but it would lose the nostalgia factor for me... I would likely buy it anyway but it wouldn't be quite the same.





barbarossa2 -> RE: I hate to say this... (2/9/2009 2:43:44 PM)

Mike. I agree with you. And I understand. I would feel the same way about some of my favorite games of all time.

:)

And I have often considered the "changing chess wouldn't make it any better" argument.



coregames -> RE: I hate to say this... (2/9/2009 10:37:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2


Why wasn't a Dymaxion Map considered?




This was debated before the Matrix site crashed a couple of years ago. Due to the commitment to faithfully adapt WiF for the computer, the maps must remain a cyllindrical projection, although it might be an interesting feature for a follow-up project to include an icosahedral projection option. Driving on Chita would certainly be easier for the Japanese in that case.



brian brian -> RE: I hate to say this... (2/10/2009 1:54:35 AM)

Such a map would also help improve the naval game in the North Atlantic, making the main North America <> UK convoy line run past Iceland (shorter in real life, longer in WiF-zones) rather than the Azores, but that is also part of the issue of laying out the sea zones. I hope this is considered for the future of the game, I have always wanted to send Hata on a mission to Chita but that looks real real hard now.



composer99 -> RE: I hate to say this... (2/10/2009 2:32:23 AM)

We will also be able to consider fixing marcuswatney's biggest pet peeve with the European map: the German border with Belgium. [:)]



rtamesis -> RE: I hate to say this... (2/16/2009 4:51:38 AM)

I recommended this same map when the MWIF project was first announced and initial ideas were being considered here. It is still my hope that a future version of MWIF or even a totally new global war game (WWII or even WWIII) will use such a map. It probably makes even better sense for a WWIII game with undersea battles taking place between US and Soviet SSNs and SSBNs under the polar ice cap.[:D]



rtamesis -> RE: I hate to say this... (2/16/2009 5:01:35 AM)

The decision to have a single scale for both the European and the Pacific Theatre maps did change how the game plays. I remember all the debates in this forum about this long ago, which was why I wished back then that the Fuller map projection be implemented if such a fundamental change was going to be implemented anyway.



mavraamides -> RE: I hate to say this... (2/16/2009 3:20:06 PM)

I think there would be a lot of resistance to such a map. The current WIF players will probably hate it since its so incredibly different from the map they are used to and the wargammer at large who has never played WIF before may be put off by it because it doesn't conform to what they are used to seeing. As if there isn't already enough to learn about the game.

Just go check the threads for Ageod's WWI game where they had the audacity to rotate the map slightly to a non 'North is up' orientation. People were up in arms about it at first. And that's a very limited area and very limited change compared to what is being proposed here.

Like it or not, a cylindrical projection is the view of the Earth we are all used to seeing. Europe is above Africa, Japan is to the left of Honolulu, Australia is at the bottom, etc. Its etched into our brains. Radically changing the map projection would be equivalent to switching all the numbers to hexadecimal. Sure, they would all mean the same thing, the math would all work, but it would confuse the hell out of most people when the see a 'B' instead of an '11' on their battleship icon.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: I hate to say this... (2/16/2009 5:30:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GordianKnot

I think there would be a lot of resistance to such a map. The current WIF players will probably hate it since its so incredibly different from the map they are used to and the wargammer at large who has never played WIF before may be put off by it because it doesn't conform to what they are used to seeing. As if there isn't already enough to learn about the game.

Just go check the threads for Ageod's WWI game where they had the audacity to rotate the map slightly to a non 'North is up' orientation. People were up in arms about it at first. And that's a very limited area and very limited change compared to what is being proposed here.

Like it or not, a cylindrical projection is the view of the Earth we are all used to seeing. Europe is above Africa, Japan is to the left of Honolulu, Australia is at the bottom, etc. Its etched into our brains. Radically changing the map projection would be equivalent to switching all the numbers to hexadecimal. Sure, they would all mean the same thing, the math would all work, but it would confuse the hell out of most people when the see a 'B' instead of an '11' on their battleship icon.

When I first started on this project (Juy 2005) I toyed with the idea of letting the players rotate the map 90 degrees whenever they desired. My motivation for wanting to do that was my experience in playing board games where which side of the table you sat on substantially altered your perception of the game. I also liked the idea of having the war in Russia be oriented so the long North-South frontline appeared across the width of the screen (since most screens are wider than they are high).

It probably wouldn't be very difficult to do, since the software involved with all the other aspects of the simulation doesn't care whether about the picture on the screen.
---
But that is for another day, not for MWIF product 1.[:(]



cdbeck -> RE: I hate to say this... (2/16/2009 5:53:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GordianKnot

I think there would be a lot of resistance to such a map. The current WIF players will probably hate it since its so incredibly different from the map they are used to and the wargammer at large who has never played WIF before may be put off by it because it doesn't conform to what they are used to seeing. As if there isn't already enough to learn about the game.

Just go check the threads for Ageod's WWI game where they had the audacity to rotate the map slightly to a non 'North is up' orientation. People were up in arms about it at first. And that's a very limited area and very limited change compared to what is being proposed here.

Like it or not, a cylindrical projection is the view of the Earth we are all used to seeing. Europe is above Africa, Japan is to the left of Honolulu, Australia is at the bottom, etc. Its etched into our brains. Radically changing the map projection would be equivalent to switching all the numbers to hexadecimal. Sure, they would all mean the same thing, the math would all work, but it would confuse the hell out of most people when the see a 'B' instead of an '11' on their battleship icon.


FWIW, the AGEOD folks argued that the "up is north" map was most faithful to the boardgame that WWI was based on and thus kept it that way - despite the requests from fans made before release. Here, it looks to be different - the fans of the boardgame are calling for a nearly exact representation on the PC (with some updates and fixes).

SoM



rtamesis -> RE: I hate to say this... (2/17/2009 1:11:41 AM)

Why is why I think that ultimately, the Fuller map is the better choice for an entirely new and innovative game about a global war where battles can take place any where in the world including the polar regions such as in a future World War or even a scifi game dealing with an alien invasion. Just imagine the nightmare of trying to deal with the distortion of the map near the poles using the Mercator projection.



Greyshaft -> RE: I hate to say this... (2/17/2009 8:04:47 AM)

At the risk of being burned at the stake I don't think the map projection should be changed at all. The vast majority of the literate world learned about geography by studying Mercator projections and although our perception of the world is thereby flawed, it is the projection we feel most comfortable with. If you want reality then check out the Gall-Peters projection and ask yourself if you'd feel happy playing MWiF on that kind of map. The current maps may be technically wrong but the correspond to my perception of reality and if MWiF ever moves away from those projections to any great degree then I'll probably get seasick trying to work with them.

It's just a game guys...



iamspamus -> RE: I hate to say this... (2/17/2009 10:41:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

It's just a game guys...



HERETIC! BURN HIM! [sm=00000619.gif] [sm=00000003.gif] [sm=00000030.gif] [sm=fighting0056.gif][sm=fighting0045.gif] [sm=fighting0083.gif]

Just kiddin'...



composer99 -> RE: I hate to say this... (2/17/2009 1:26:14 PM)

It seems to me that it would be best, for a global game, to have the map constructed on a 3D globe rather than any sort of flattened map.

The Gall-Peters map has its own problems: Africa, for example, seems comparable in size to Asia, even though Asia is about 4.12 times as large. Similarly, it appears to absolutely dwarf Europe, even though Africa is only approximately 1.3 times larger.

Certainly the distortion caused by the Mercator projection has its issues; however most of the distortion occurs at extreme latitudes where military operations, by and large, do not take place in MWiF. But I think a better potential solution, for a computer game, rather than trying to fix one awkward flat map projection with another (either due to different distortions or unyieldy appearance), is to put the map on a globe.



SamuraiProgrmmr -> RE: I hate to say this... (2/17/2009 3:43:31 PM)

My opinion, for what it is worth....

I think that a 3D globular map would be great for some games.

NOT THIS ONE.

This game has 20+ years of play testing.  For once I would like to see a substantial computer port of a board game that does not completely try to reinvent the game.

For a later MWIF product, maybe.

Just not now.



micheljq -> RE: I hate to say this... (2/17/2009 4:36:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer

My opinion, for what it is worth....

I think that a 3D globular map would be great for some games.

NOT THIS ONE.

This game has 20+ years of play testing.  For once I would like to see a substantial computer port of a board game that does not completely try to reinvent the game.

For a later MWIF product, maybe.

Just not now.



Exactly, 3D globular map looks interesting but implementing this in a wargame is another matter, it could as well show that in practice, that's unplayable. MWiF is certainly not the place to do that kind of test. I am looking forward to see a wargame which implement this, for the sake of curiosity.




Froonp -> RE: I hate to say this... (2/17/2009 5:27:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: micheljq

quote:

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer

My opinion, for what it is worth....

I think that a 3D globular map would be great for some games.

NOT THIS ONE.

This game has 20+ years of play testing.  For once I would like to see a substantial computer port of a board game that does not completely try to reinvent the game.

For a later MWIF product, maybe.

Just not now.



Exactly, 3D globular map looks interesting but implementing this in a wargame is another matter, it could as well show that in practice, that's unplayable. MWiF is certainly not the place to do that kind of test. I am looking forward to see a wargame which implement this, for the sake of curiosity.



I'd dream of a googleearth like map for WiF FE. One that is spherical when in the distance, but that you can close up so that it becomes flat.
A sphere covered with hexes.



barbarossa2 -> RE: I hate to say this... (2/17/2009 7:42:10 PM)

Froonp,
A sphere with hexes won't work I don't think.  Unless you distort the hexes too.  Or have them interlock in ways that will make them not be flush with each other.  Someone correct me if I am wrong. But, I was thinking the same thing when I started this thread.

The projection I recommended above works well because you CAN coat the surfaces with hexes and have them all line up properly. However, it still isn't a perfect solution and doesn't do justice to the great circle routes (for instance a route from London to New York going over iceland instead of through the mid-Atlantic).

We really, really need to get to 3D gaming on a globe though. All of this stuff, all of these flat maps are from a by-gone era when we humans couldn't play games on anything but flat maps. Of course, they could have done games like risk on a globe with magnetic pieces, but I haven't seen it yet. :) 



sajbalk -> RE: I hate to say this... (2/17/2009 7:58:11 PM)

A globe with hexagons should work, I think. Picture a soccer ball -- some are covered with hexagons, some with pentagons. Google Earth would be a great starting point, but the changes in the landscape over 70 years ...

Another issue would be flying over the Arctic circle ... difficult then, impossible in WiFFE, but no restictions in RAW if applied to the new map.




Ullern -> RE: I hate to say this... (2/17/2009 11:32:43 PM)

No strong feelings, but I'd like a computerized version of the board game first.
_ But on the other hand, a version with more than six times as many hexes in China, the game play and balance just might be a little different.

(There will be good solutions, I hope.)

As a side issue: A soccer ball consists of 12 regular pentagons and 20 regular hexagons.



Neilster -> RE: I hate to say this... (2/18/2009 12:27:27 AM)

This has been thrashed out before. I proposed a 3D map in 2004...

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=677366&mpage=1&key=Spherical%2Cglobal%2Cmap򥗶

(I hope that link works)

...and then it was brought up again...

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1905549&mpage=1&key=�

Basically it ain't going to happen for this release and as so little land combat occurs at extreme latitudes it doesn't really matter.

It would be elegant, and would eventually enable the rules to be streamlined and facilitate Cold War expansions with bombers over the poles etc but I'm just happy there will soon be a playable MWiF.

My replay facility got binned too. Actually I think Steve might have something against me :)

Cheers, Neilster



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.15625