Hubert & Bill, are you playing MWiF?

Hubert & Bill, are you playing MWiF? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe

Message

SeaMonkey -> Hubert & Bill, are you playing MWiF? (11/9/2013 5:15:38 PM)
How about our other SC veterans? How many are playing MWiF? What features could be brought to the SC experience that would enhance the game play? Remember, SC has an AI.[:)]

AlvaroSousa -> RE: Hubert & Bill, are you playing MWiF? (11/15/2013 3:11:36 AM)
I was there when it 1st started and game them 10 suggestions in which they said they would implement. It looks like they did and it will be an excellent game.

Hubert Cater -> RE: Hubert & Bill, are you playing MWiF? (11/19/2013 5:04:38 PM)
It looks really nice but I haven't had the chance to take a closer look to play the game just yet.

SeaMonkey -> RE: Hubert & Bill, are you playing MWiF? (11/21/2013 1:31:17 AM)
Take your time with SC3 Hubert, stop and smell the roses occasionally. If you get a chance, read thr RAC for the convoy system, might serve as a catalyst for ideas. SC2 is so good us veterans are going to be expecting some high achievement levels for SC3 and I know we won't be disappointed.[:)]

pzgndr -> RE: Hubert & Bill, are you playing MWiF? (11/21/2013 5:04:50 PM)
There's something to be said for diversity of ideas with all these games. I'm starting to absorb the WiF game mechanics, some I like and some I question. The game is much deeper and much more complex than SC, and accordingly will take considerably longer and require more effort to play complete games. Yeah, WiF may be more realistic and more accurate than the SC abstractions, but again there's something to be said for simpler and fast&fun games - that players can actually finish and play again at a higher frequency (i.e, days/weeks versus months/years). We need the variety!

SeaMonkey -> RE: Hubert & Bill, are you playing MWiF? (11/21/2013 6:35:15 PM)
Total agreement Bill, I don't want SC to become WiF, not even close, but I think we could gain some realism without sacrificing playability. It will take some highly discriminatory decisions, and we will have to think outside the box to make the features simple and intuitive, but it can be done. Presently, I believe the logistical mechanism could use improvements along with combined arms presentations. Again, just my opinion, to tell you the truth, I'm very happy with the present rendition(AoD) of SC and am not entertaining any ideas of looking elsewhere for my wargaming needs.

dhucul2011 -> RE: Hubert & Bill, are you playing MWiF? (11/22/2013 8:59:22 PM)
Well I bit the bullet and downloaded Computer WIF mainly to keep me occupied until we get some SC3 stuff to test out. I thought that I would post my thoughts in case Bill and Hubert haven't tried it out. Some of my points are in regard to the boardgame itself and some are about the computer version. You can't really separate the two. I played the boardgame many moons ago. Its hard to compare SC to CWIF as SC has never been a board game and CWIF is a true simulation of a board game but here we go. 1. The CWIF map is nice albeit huge. The scale in Europe is larger (versus SC non-global) but much smaller in the Pacific (versus SC Pacific). It looks very nice in clear weather. Adding in the weather makes it messy. I still prefer the European scale of SC (non-global) and the weather overlays. The new screenshots of SC3 look good. Keep the terrain features muted. 2. Stacking in CWIF is nice and works quite seamlessly but I am not convinced that SC really needs this, especially if the European scale is kept the same or made even smaller. 3. The CWIF naval system is archaic and confusing at times. I much prefer moving individual units around the oceans. The only addition I would suggest for SC is task forces to move sets of naval units at once as well as at sea supply. More units can then be added to SC. 4. The CWIF interface is clunky and not very intuitive. I believe that CWIF was started in the 1990's. The interface and many of the graphics look like it. 5. There is no consideration of morale and efficiency of units except in broad terms in CWIF. This is due to the fact that it was based on a boardgame where you can't have these. 6. The convoy system in CWIF is a joke. Its impossible to maintain and keep track of what resources are going to what factories without a spreadsheet. The SC convoy system is much more workable and easy to use. 7. CWIF uses Oil points, a very nice feature. 8. There is no research in CWIF. You simply have more advanced units added to your force pool each year at set times. A variable research system is much better. If I went jets in 1943 I should be able to spend and spend and make it happen! 9. No real diplomacy in CWIF other than entry chits for majors and minor entry based on events. SCs system is much better by utilizing mobilization levels. All SC needs here is more complicated alliances and levels of entry. 10. CWIF allows combined land combats. SC needs this. 11. CWIF uses division size support units such as artillery and engineers etc. SC should represent all of these by additional upgrades on units based on research levels. An SC infantry corps should have at least five upgrade slots: infantry warfare, anti-tank, anti-air, engineers, artillery. All of these would be linked to research levels. 12. CWIF has few decision events. This is one of the greatest features of SC. 13. Unit steps. CWIF has no steps. If you roll bad your two entire corps can die outright in an attack. SCs strength levels work great. 14. CWIF uses HQs as powerful land units. I would maintain SCs system of separate and weak HQs that should always retreat if attacked. 15. CWIF allows overruns of air units. This is a nice feature. The ability to use air units as garrisons in SC needs revamping. 16. Finally, CWIF has no AI. SCs is the best in the business!

EisenHammer -> RE: Hubert & Bill, are you playing MWiF? (11/23/2013 8:25:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pzgndr There's something to be said for diversity of ideas with all these games. I'm starting to absorb the WiF game mechanics, some I like and some I question. The game is much deeper and much more complex than SC, and accordingly will take considerably longer and require more effort to play complete games. Yeah, WiF may be more realistic and more accurate than the SC abstractions, but again there's something to be said for simpler and fast&fun games - that players can actually finish and play again at a higher frequency (i.e, days/weeks versus months/years). We need the variety! I'm having a fun time learning WiF and that is because of the excellent tutorials and manuals they have for the game. If only they did the same for EiA. I agree with pzgndr both games are very different.

pzgndr -> RE: Hubert & Bill, are you playing MWiF? (11/23/2013 12:21:04 PM)
quote: If only they did the same for EiA. Don't get me started! [;)]

SeaMonkey -> RE: Hubert & Bill, are you playing MWiF? (11/23/2013 1:42:50 PM)
Exactly the kind of feedback that improves SC, thanks dhucul. Anyone else?

pzgndr -> RE: Hubert & Bill, are you playing MWiF? (11/25/2013 1:00:34 PM)
dhucul seems to be referring to the old CWiF and not the new MWiF just released? There have been a lot of improvements and enhancements to the computer version, but of course the underlying game is the same. For a grand strategy WWII computer wargame, it is a bit surprising there isn't more diplomacy and research involved, nor any FOW effects. That obviously wasn't a priority with the boardgame version, but since it's now also a computer game it could/should provide some additional features, but that may not happen. Anyways, SC does provide those additional features, plus without all the complexity. Again, it's good to have the variety of games to choose from.

dhucul2011 -> RE: Hubert & Bill, are you playing MWiF? (11/27/2013 8:10:33 PM)
No, I am referring to MWIF. MWIF, CWIF whatever.....[:)] Some of my descriptions refer to board game WIF in general and others to the computer version. Basically, I am saying that with a few new features SC still is the game to beat!

Hairog -> RE: Hubert & Bill, are you playing MWiF? (12/12/2013 5:05:27 AM)
How will it compare to Time of Fury?

AlvaroSousa -> RE: Hubert & Bill, are you playing MWiF? (12/12/2013 5:59:21 PM)
Guys remember that everyone has a different level of complexity they want in their game. So while MWIF might not be for everyone or SC might be too simple for some it's about taste. Now the real trick is making a game that can be micro-managed but doesn't have to be, and that neither will impact the game. SSI's War in Russia was a perfect example of that. You could leave the computer to do all the factory work and keep units the same or you could change things in a different way at any scale of complexity. I have played WIF for years as a board game. The rules are fairly hard to digest by Harry Roland does a good job of making the rules flow nicely so you get used to it. I know some technically lessor complex wargames in which there are so many scattering of special rules with clumsy mechanisms that they actually are harder to learn. The convoy system in WIF takes getting used to but it's pretty decent. It takes some management with predicting expected losses for the allies. You have to maintain a merchant marine output of spare convoy points. As for A.I. for MWIF. That is really difficult to do. I love working on A.I. and I have a hard time wrapping my head around making an effective A.I. for WIF since the system has so many strategic combinations.

vaalen -> RE: Hubert & Bill, are you playing MWiF? (3/26/2014 3:21:57 AM)
Since I heard about this game, I have lost all interest in MWIF. And I am still enjoying The blitzkrieg version of Strategic Command, World War one. I know that Hubert and Bill will do even better with this one!

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.40625