|
AllenK -> RE: Sad, sad, sad....... (3/14/2015 2:04:28 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JeffK
I played WIF in its very early board game life. It was always a much better game for having 4-5 players drinking beer and insulting each other over a long weekend. In between turns we would play other boardgames and some of the early computer games.
The grogs then tried to add rule after rule to make it more "realistic" and at some point here it lost the fun and became tedious. We stopped meeting or went fishing on our long weekends.
I was very interested when Matrix took on the project but was concerned when Matrix went for the later, more detailed version rather than the game in its earlier form. IMVHO there was too much interaction within turns to make this work and that any chance of an AI was doomed. Netplay means I can only play in the same timezone
ou
The attempt to get ADG's Empires in Arms going suffered from a similar problem and has struggled.
Matrix, the devs and testers have tried to get this up and running, but the return from investment is getting less & less. The map is superb, the original counters less so. Unless a breakthrough, such as smooth running mini scenario which can get the interest in the game going again this will be another game that sits in the unplayable basket.
PS. I would suggest going back to a more basic game, then build up the add-ons and later rules sets, too late for that.
Ah yes, I remember those gaming weekends well. Sadly not WiF as it was after our time but AH's Flat Top (at some point I must look at WITP:AE) got many a replay, along with Squad Leader and 3rd Reich. The more complex the better. For a good argument over interpretation of rules AD&D was unsurpassed. We would have loved WiF. Then, however, we had bedrooms and spare rooms in our parents' houses we could leave things set up (or simply take over the house if they were away) and play these games.
Now, I don't have the space and the group have gone their separate ways but I still want to play. Perhaps I am in a very small minority but it's the scope and complexity of Global War WiF that attracted me to the game. I don't want simplified rules and introductory or half-map scenarios (but appreciate others do). It's why I found jumping straight in and, after a couple of false and experimental option/set-up starts, playing Global War in solitaire mode to be far more captivating and enjoyable than playing simpler games against an AI. The game played smoothly from S/O 39 to J/A 45 and the only initial problem was air combat forms being hidden behind others. The press F10 solution sorted that out. The game was certainly very playable.
Of course, being a complete WiF newbie, if MWiF is allowing something to happen that shouldn't be happening, or vice versa, I am less likely to pick it up, get upset about it and declare the game unplayable as others seem to do. In this case, ignorance really is bliss. I'm also not particularly bothered that some options haven't yet been coded. What you haven't had you don't miss, and all that. The absence of some particular favourite doesn't make this unplayable for me.
You are right though, wargaming is best enjoyed player vs player(s). That's why you now find me locked in battle with Mayhemizer. Via E-mail and AAR we play at a time and pace that fits our lives, has no ongoing space requirements, beyond the computer and is working well. Warspite1 and Orm take the real credit for showing how the game can be played this way. Others have pioneered using Teamviewer with success.
In its current form, without AI, working Netplay, dedicated PBEM (as oppose to playing via E-mail), and some scenarios and optional rules, it is not to everyone's preference. If, in consequence, they choose not to play, or even purchase the game, that is their choice but it does not make this an unplayable game, merely unplayable for them.
|
|
|
|
