What would you like to see done next?

What would you like to see done next? (Full Version)

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

Message

Vanman -> What would you like to see done next? (8/12/2016 1:26:53 AM)
I am going to approach this from a self serving perspective in terms of what I would like to see completed next. Not sure exactly how many will agree but the responses should be interesting. Before I begin, I just want to say this game is absolutely outstanding. Peter Garnett and myself have played a few global campaigns together and any bugs encountered have been worked around with ease. Teamviewer is an outstanding resource and I could hardly care if Netplay even gets completed. The only drawback is the lack of US Entry secrecy. I used to be 'AI or bust', but playing against an actual person is much more rewarding as it is experienced together. One can talk about potential errors made and clarify rules together. 1) Current agenda is clearly Bugs and Netplay. 2) The Russo-Japanese situation neutrality pact/garrison ratio situation needs to be addressed. Without it Japan is essentially a paper tiger just waiting to fall if Manchuria gets hit by the Russians (and it does not need much). We currently use a house rule to get around this issue but it would be much better to have it programmed. 3) Convoys in Flames: Would love to play with Light Cruisers but feel the game would be too allied biased without convoys. 4) Cannot say I am particularly impatient with any of the other optional rules (though V-weapons would be kind of cool). 5) AI.

Twisted1 -> RE: What would you like to see done next? (8/12/2016 3:55:27 AM)
Days of Decision. The crack cocaine of WiF!

brian brian -> RE: What would you like to see done next? (8/12/2016 5:20:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vanman 2) The Russo-Japanese situation neutrality pact/garrison ratio situation needs to be addressed. Without it Japan is essentially a paper tiger just waiting to fall if Manchuria gets hit by the Russians (and it does not need much). We currently use a house rule to get around this issue but it would be much better to have it programmed. I don't see much issue with this in a 2-player game. It is needed for a multi-player game. Russia going into Manchuria is not a slam dunk Allied strategy by any means. For a list of stuff to work on, mine would go like this: Isolated Re-Org Optional Guards Banner Armies City-Based Volunteers CV Planes in Flame become true Optional Barbarossa AI Netplay is a dead end in my opinion. Anyone smart enough to play World in Flames is smart enough to set up a chat channel or any other type of communication to handle interaction for the non-Phasing player, and emailing the game file gets easier with every Operating System release. It would be far more profitable to port the existing code to run on a server so any internet connected device could input decisions into the game, rather than just PCs. The base code (rules, maps, units) seems solid enough for this but the GUI code would have to be started over from scratch. Perhaps too large of a project but would be the best way to bring new players into WiF.

Centuur -> RE: What would you like to see done next? (8/12/2016 10:45:05 AM)
The half map scenarios are something I would like to have too...

LeeChard -> RE: What would you like to see done next? (8/12/2016 11:18:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Centuur The half map scenarios are something I would like to have too... +1

michaelbaldur -> RE: What would you like to see done next? (8/12/2016 5:55:42 PM)
quote: CV Planes in Flame become true Optional what do you mean ???

Courtenay -> RE: What would you like to see done next? (8/12/2016 9:14:18 PM)
My two highest priorities are the ability to implement other neutrality pacts besides the Nazi-Soviet pact (i.e. Japanese-Soviet) and the ability to swap maximally stacked units. At the moment, though, Steve is quite correctly focusing on bugs.

Cataphract88 -> RE: What would you like to see done next? (8/13/2016 12:15:36 AM)
AI, so that MWIF matches practically every other game out there!

paulderynck -> RE: What would you like to see done next? (8/13/2016 1:56:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur quote: CV Planes in Flame become true Optional what do you mean ??? He means not getting all the CVPs from SiF plus doubling the number of them again by adding all the CVPs from CVPiF. The ones from CVPiF should be a separate option.

BradK82 -> RE: What would you like to see done next? (8/13/2016 5:38:40 AM)
My priority list would be: 1) bug squashing. 2) optional rules. 3) half map scenarios. 4) netplay. 5) AI However, I already appreciate the tremendous amount of work Steve has done.

Aranthus -> RE: What would you like to see done next? (8/13/2016 8:02:36 PM)
The main job that needs to be done is bug removal. Included with that I hope there will be a re-working of the convoy/production system, which is still frustrating. After that, finishing the optional rules, including FiF. Then if it is possible, add Patton and America in Flames. But I don't think we will be seeing that for a very long time.

Jagdtiger14 -> RE: What would you like to see done next? (8/14/2016 6:02:37 AM)
1. Bugs 2. Options 3. Guard Banner/city vols 4. Factory in Flames 5. Day's of Decision 6. Fatal Alliances

PeteGarnett -> RE: What would you like to see done next? (8/18/2016 5:23:06 PM)
Half Map scenarios for me as well as the continued good work removing bugs.

Orm -> RE: What would you like to see done next? (8/18/2016 7:50:28 PM)
1) Bugs 2) Options, especially Frogmen, City Based Volunteers and Bounce Combat 3) AI opponent 4) Up to 6 player games

tom730_slith -> RE: What would you like to see done next? (8/20/2016 6:19:33 AM)
Really glad that work continues to address bugs. In addition I'd LOVE to see - 1. City Based Volunteers 2. Ukraine 3. V-Weapons and A-Bombs Regarding A-Bombs, why is it that only the U.S. can develop them? In the boxed game I bought years ago Germany could build them. I can understand why Italy shouldn't be allowed to, but Germany might have gone down that road successfully if things were a little different. Was this changed in the boxed version of WIF as well, so only the US can make the A-Bomb?

Hansstory -> RE: What would you like to see done next? (9/1/2016 1:28:12 AM)
1. AI

Viktor_Kormel_slith -> RE: What would you like to see done next? (9/1/2016 8:16:19 PM)
IMO: 1)Bugs 2)more bugs 3)And More bugs After, malfunctions (naval movements, using oil, convoys routing...) and then 1)japan ussr peace 2) half maps 3)isolated reorganization

Dencat -> RE: What would you like to see done next? (9/8/2016 5:34:19 PM)
1) Optionals, especially City Based Volunteers, German Commerce Raiders(with extra optional few for others to build...), Ukraine 2) Diplomatic system(Maybe modeled on America in Flames) to get those minors as full allies. 3) Breakable minor units

Joseignacio -> RE: What would you like to see done next? (9/9/2016 10:29:42 AM)
1- The game without bugs. Even solo or hotseat. 2- Multiplayer ... ... ... 3- (someday) AI

Yaab -> RE: What would you like to see done next? (9/14/2016 10:19:23 PM)
A long-time lurker here.. Just one thing: the AI.

Auchinleck -> RE: What would you like to see done next? (9/26/2016 2:19:25 AM)
1. AI 2. AI 3. AI 4. AI 5. AI

warspite1 -> RE: What would you like to see done next? (9/26/2016 8:03:51 AM)
1. Bugs (supply, Vichy etc) and work on making one map scenarios available. 2. Missing optionals I see no point looking at an AI while important elements of the game are buggy or still missing. E.g. how does the AI play Japan/USSR if a key element in game play is missing? 3. AI 4. Once the game is (as much as is practicable) bug free, and contains all options, then an AI should be introduced. While this is happening, and alongside this work, continue on netplay as this seems to be non-negotiable from Matrix/ADG? side.

Jagdtiger14 -> RE: What would you like to see done next? (9/26/2016 4:26:28 PM)
Concerning bugs or MWiF mechanics, my opponent (Brian) and I are having a lot of trouble with the convoy system (getting resources to the factories properly). Its brought our game to a halt until we find a way to fix it. There should be some way to do this manually.

rkr1958 -> RE: What would you like to see done next? (9/29/2016 1:10:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14 Concerning bugs or MWiF mechanics, my opponent (Brian) and I are having a lot of trouble with the convoy system (getting resources to the factories properly). Its brought our game to a halt until we find a way to fix it. There should be some way to do this manually. I love this game with the exception of getting my convoy routes set, which at times is infuriating. For example, a traded oil point from the USA to a factory in London is routed first through the Caribbean Sea to the East Coast, North Atlantic, Bay of Biscay instead of first going into the East Coast. This uses 4 CPs when only 3 CPs should be required. The result is that 1 of the 3 oil points from Venezuela being saved to Canada goes idle. Infuriating to say the least. I've been looking into how to edit the game file to force convoy routes but I haven't figured that out. What I have figured out is how to increase the number of CPs in a given sea area. So, for this example, I could increase the number of CW CPs in the Caribbean Sea by 1 to compensate for MWiF wasting that 1 CP. This would get the USA traded oil point to London and all three Venezuela oil points saved to Canada. In effect I would be creating a "virtual" CPs to compensate for the one that MWiF was wasting. However, this would require me keeping up with and removing all "virtual" CPs when they were no longer needed. By the way, all of this is in the thinking stage and is something I would NOT put in effect in my AAR game with Pat. In terms of getting the CP routes working properly this is the only workaround I've found (so far) that seems fairly easy to do.

quiritus -> RE: What would you like to see done next? (9/29/2016 2:40:46 AM)
1) Collection edition rules and maps and units implemented (raw 8.1) 2)option & bugs (banner army Heavy unit and CBW) 3)AI 4) politics in flames 5) DOD 6)fatal alliance

Jagdtiger14 -> RE: What would you like to see done next? (9/29/2016 4:24:01 AM)
quote: In effect I would be creating a "virtual" CPs to compensate for the one that MWiF was wasting. However, this would require me keeping up with and removing all "virtual" CPs when they were no longer needed. If you could enable the: 'rename convoy'...renaming is available for all ships, but not convoys.

juntoalmar -> RE: What would you like to see done next? (9/29/2016 7:30:57 AM)
1) bugs control 2) new system to control production and convoys 3) mini AI to allow PBEM 4) full AI 5) NetPlay

jusi -> RE: What would you like to see done next? (9/29/2016 10:05:10 AM)
quote: Concerning bugs or MWiF mechanics, my opponent (Brian) and I are having a lot of trouble with the convoy system (getting resources to the factories properly). Its brought our game to a halt until we find a way to fix it. There should be some way to do this manually. Fully agree. I currently stop to play this game until this major issue is fixed. At least, restore the previous way of doing which was not perfect but playable.

Centuur -> RE: What would you like to see done next? (9/30/2016 3:05:27 PM)
The bugs in production planning should have priority now, I believe. The convoy system isn't working like it should (editing manually isn't working correctly) and has far to many problems to get things done according to the rules of the board game. If it's automatically calculated by the program (and it should be, because the AI needs it later too), it should always give the most optimized result possible, according to the rules. That isn't done at the moment too...

RFalvo69 -> RE: What would you like to see done next? (9/30/2016 5:10:36 PM)
IMHO, Netplay should have been the first priority. This would have allowed for a lot of people to play the game (with a good number of out-of-the-loop actions and strategies) and thus for bugs to be identified in a quicker manner. Today the procedure is Bug-fixing ---> Test by a relatively small number of beta-testers ---> Release ---> Back to step one. Beside, the game would have had been at least Netplay. Not to sound like a broken record (), but after three years what we have are brainstormings about the best way to fix the game. Among the few who didn't move on in the meantime. () Well, to be honest: who cares?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.75