RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (Full Version)

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

Message

fallgelb -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (3/18/2009 3:45:36 PM)
An idea for MWIF Product 2: A "Center for Strategic Studies" Form, activated per button or so. In the board game before important decisions you sometimes count ARM or FTR in some parts of the front. The Computer is good in counting, so it would be an advantage of a Computer WIF to have access to such date every time. In practice you could mark an area or choose a defined area and click the button and you get a form with the numbers of ARM-Type, INF-Type, TAC, FTR etc. Example: 1942 J/A the germans have to decide if they want to play an O-Chit on Rundstedt north of the Pripjet-Marshes or on Manstein south of the Pripjet-Marshes. Important data is, which side has ARM-superiority or FTR-superiority at the time. PS: Manstein was pre-built [;)]

macgregor -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (3/18/2009 5:14:48 PM)
With the unwavering desire to improve ans embellish this game that I've seen in this forum combined with how good the game already looked and played as CWiF tells me that it has the potential to be a real blockbuster of a release. I'm not too clear on what makes a game desirable to a particular person so I'll stay away from predictions. But I will say that there are more people I've met who became hooked on boardgames by seeing WiF than any other game I've had in my arsenal. My only hope, and I believe Steve said that indeed there were ways to change unit values and ranges(?) It would be interesting if one could change the map, at least insomuch as to be able to represent a different timeline. Defeating the reinforcement arrival may be yet another problem for would-be scenario designers. But even with the map at this scale...IMO the game engine of WiF can handle any technological advancements since, it would be nice if scenarios could be designed.

Petracelli69 -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (4/10/2009 9:35:52 PM)
Steve Forgive me if this has already been answered but will the 3d10 conbat table be in MWIF? cheers Phil

Maesphil74 -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (4/10/2009 9:39:19 PM)
I read somewhere that an atlas of some sort should be included. Will this be done? If so, will it be for example in a pdf file so we can print the map?

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (4/10/2009 10:35:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Petracelli69 Steve Forgive me if this has already been answered but will the 3d10 conbat table be in MWIF? cheers Phil No. I do not know what that is.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (4/10/2009 10:43:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fleming I read somewhere that an atlas of some sort should be included. Will this be done? If so, will it be for example in a pdf file so we can print the map? This is not on my task list for the first release. The idea of segmenting the map into 'pages', rather than trying for very large copies for table tops is a new idea (at least for me). I have Matrix looking into printing the map for over-the-board play but that requires 6 segments, with each segment roughly 5' by 6'. Using a smaller size per hex than what would be needed for over-the-board play could make an 'atlas' feasible. As a crude estimate, say we made the hexes 1/4 the size used in WIF FE, that would cut the dimensions of each segment in half: 30" by 36". The world map would then be 150" wide by 72" high. Using 8.5" by 11" paper, 9*14 = 126 pages. A bunch of those pages would be pure blue (all sea) so say ~ 100 pages for the atlas. If we cut the scale to 1/4 again, that would be a more reasonable 25 pages, but I don't know about the legibility of the map details.

Froonp -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (4/10/2009 11:31:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: Petracelli69 Steve Forgive me if this has already been answered but will the 3d10 conbat table be in MWIF? cheers Phil No. I do not know what that is. This is a new optional land CRT in the 2008 Annual. IMO interesting, but would require some work to include in MWiF. Rather wait MWiF product 2.

Mad Russian -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (4/13/2009 5:21:46 PM)
The ability to build airbases. As a house rule we allowed each nation to build 3 airbases. They had a 3 stacking capacity and had to be bought. This allows for places like Malta, Guadalcanal, Norway, parts of Russia, etc. to have the air coverage they actually got during the war. Good Hunting. MR

Zorachus99 -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (4/13/2009 9:38:12 PM)
The two things about RAW that I feel is overlooked: 1) Damaged ships should be returned to a port and be bombable. 2) The change between USSR and German rail-gauge is not modelled at all.

Jagdtiger14 -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (4/13/2009 10:50:40 PM)
1. In the new FiF(Factories in Flames)...which is pretty awesome I might add. Damaged naval units stay on the map with a damage marker. They can be repaired on the map and must satisfy stacking. Every turn you can start or continue repairs on one naval unit per major port outside your home country. Naval units ARE included in port attacks. 2. I would like to see this too, but it could make Barb's even less attractive, so some game balance would have to come into play. Commandoes in Flames allows you to build new road and rail lines. Cost = motorized movement cost of the hex. C Miami Beach quote: ORIGINAL: Zorachus99 The two things about RAW that I feel is overlooked: 1) Damaged ships should be returned to a port and be bombable. 2) The change between USSR and German rail-gauge is not modelled at all.

Orm -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (4/14/2009 9:04:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mad Russian The ability to build airbases. As a house rule we allowed each nation to build 3 airbases. They had a 3 stacking capacity and had to be bought. This allows for places like Malta, Guadalcanal, Norway, parts of Russia, etc.�to have the air coverage they actually got during the war. Good Hunting. MR I have no trouble with not being able to build airbases. Each AC counter represents around 250-500 aircraft. The "free" stacking you get more than well represents several built airbases. Malta can in WIF base 3 AC-counters and that represent 750-1500 aircraft. A number that was not even closed to be based on Malta during WWII. Henderson Field on Guadacanal holds 500-1000 AC and the other hex on Guadacanal 250-500. In Narvik you get to have 500-1000 aircraft. I would say most (all?) areas in WIF can get the aircoverage they got during the war and then some.

Orm -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (4/14/2009 9:29:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14 1. In the new FiF(Factories in Flames)...which is pretty awesome I might add. Damaged naval units stay on the map with a damage marker. They can be repaired on the map and must satisfy stacking. Every turn you can start or continue repairs on one naval unit per major port outside your home country. Naval units ARE included in port attacks. 2. I would like to see this too, but it could make Barb's even less attractive, so some game balance would have to come into play. Commandoes in Flames allows you to build new road and rail lines. Cost = motorized movement cost of the hex. C Miami Beach quote: ORIGINAL: Zorachus99 The two things about RAW that I feel is overlooked: 1) Damaged ships should be returned to a port and be bombable. 2) The change between USSR and German rail-gauge is not modelled at all. I feel that it is correct that there is no rule for changing the rail-gauge. The Germans had indeed supply trouble during operation Barbarossa but that was more because German planning had been optimistic and "normal" logistical problems rather than on that the conversion on the raillines was to slow. Remember that each impulse is almost a weeks time even during the summer. The allies had supply troubles in France 1944 after their breakout of Normandy with its much better railway and road net and there it was no railway-gauge to consider. On the subject of supply I consider unlimited seasupply and that even a minor port can support unlimited troops more troublesomme.

Mad Russian -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (4/14/2009 1:34:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Orm quote: ORIGINAL: Mad Russian The ability to build airbases. As a house rule we allowed each nation to build 3 airbases. They had a 3 stacking capacity and had to be bought. This allows for places like Malta, Guadalcanal, Norway, parts of Russia, etc.�to have the air coverage they actually got during the war. Good Hunting. MR I have no trouble with not being able to build airbases. Each AC counter represents around 250-500 aircraft. The "free" stacking you get more than well represents several built airbases. So how do you explain when a HQ moves those represented several built airbases just disappear? To the point of even costing you any that are left overstacked. That doesn't work too well for me. quote: Malta can in WIF base 3 AC-counters and that represent 750-1500 aircraft. A number that was not even closed to be based on Malta during WWII. Henderson Field on Guadacanal holds 500-1000 AC and the other hex on Guadacanal 250-500. In Narvik you get to have 500-1000 aircraft. That may be true now. It didn't used to be. [quote} I would say most (all?) areas in WIF can get the aircoverage they got during the war and then some. Works for me. It was just a suggestion to get away from the unrealistic HQ magical airfield rules. Changes to the map and the rules may well have taken care of this. From what I'm being told a HQ can still do magic though and that's not realistic. Good Hunting. MR

composer99 -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (4/14/2009 2:10:16 PM)
I think someone else mentioned the grass-and-mesh temporary airfields in another thread. Engineer and HQ units may well represent the capacity to maintain such temporary landing strips over time. That said, it's not often that the HQ/engineer overstacking of aircraft gets used for precisely the reason that (a) no one wants to lose planes and (b) it usually isn't necessary (though perhaps it can be for the Western Allies in 1944-45 with their enormous air forces...).

bredsjomagnus -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (4/14/2009 8:05:46 PM)
I hope that FiF will be implemented in futher MWiF products. I like the new production, combat, damage, offensive point and manpower system. Trying it out in a game now and it really makes combat and produciton more fun.

Mad Russian -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (4/14/2009 8:16:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: composer99 I think someone else mentioned the grass-and-mesh temporary airfields in another thread. Engineer and HQ units may well represent the capacity to maintain such temporary landing strips over time. That's fine except if they move away you can have 200-250 aircraft destroyed in overstacking. quote: That said, it's not often that the HQ/engineer overstacking of aircraft gets used for precisely the reason that (a) no one wants to lose planes and (b) it usually isn't necessary (though perhaps it can be for the Western Allies in 1944-45 with their enormous air forces...). Historically there were several locations that were improved during the war to increase the air capacity. Many of those can be simply dispersed a single hex further out. Other places you don't currently have that ability. It can get very important in places where there are islands, few cities or ports. Malta was one of the places that needed a larger airfield. A HQ was almost always sent there to improve the airfield capacity. How long do you think it would take to improve a locations ability to support more aircraft? And even more important why would a HQ leaving reduce that capacity? Good Hunting. MR

Jagdtiger14 -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (4/14/2009 8:17:55 PM)
Have you referred to "O" points as "crack" yet? Our group is playing FiF for the first time...we are in S/O'41. Production is much better, and everyone really likes shipyards. quote: ORIGINAL: bredsjomagnus I hope that FiF will be implemented in futher MWiF products.�I like�the new production, combat, damage,�offensive point�and manpower system. Trying it out in a game now and it really makes combat and produciton more fun.

paulderynck -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (4/15/2009 12:41:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mad Russian It can get very important in places where there are islands, few cities or ports. Malta was one of the places that needed a larger airfield. A HQ was almost always sent there to improve the airfield capacity. How long do you think it would take to improve a locations ability to support more aircraft? And even more important why would a HQ leaving reduce that capacity? Good Hunting. MR It is exceedingly unlikely that this rule will be changed because you don't like it. Here is the solution if you are concerned about losing those numbers of aircraft: Do not move the HQ away.

gridley -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (4/15/2009 2:31:32 AM)
House Rules. We beefed up Malta too. We played many games before our Malta Change and many after...it wasn't a game breaker. The important thing it did do is make our player from Malta happy.[;)] Weather you agree with Mad Russian and his airbases or the change we made, historically accurate or not, I will miss some of the house rules we generated over our years of playing. Most will now be taken over by the computer. That being said some of our house rules wouldn't be necessary anyway as many were just a way for us to understand odd rules or conflicting ones. Some we can still incorporate in the computer game. We made one when retreating your opponents you had to retreat him to a hex that made sense. Even when using the four priorities outlined in rule 11.16.5, sometimes you could retreat a unit to a suicide hex when he could have also gone to a hex along the defending line or at least in the right direction.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (4/15/2009 2:57:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gridley House Rules. We beefed up Malta too. We played many games before our Malta Change and many after...it wasn't a game breaker. The important thing it did do is make our player from Malta happy.[;)] Weather you agree with Mad Russian and his airbases or the change we made, historically accurate or not, I will miss some of the house rules we generated over our years of playing. Most will now be taken over by the computer. That being said some of our house rules wouldn't be necessary anyway as many were just a way for us to understand odd rules or conflicting ones. Some we can still incorporate in the computer game. We made one when retreating your opponents you had to retreat him to a hex that made sense. Even when using the four priorities outlined in rule 11.16.5, sometimes you could retreat a unit to a suicide hex when he could have also gone to a hex along the defending line or at least in the right direction. Well, in this case you could still apply your house rule. You just need to get your opponent to agree.[;)] MWIF enforces the 4 priorities, but beyond that it is up to the attacking player.

gridley -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (4/15/2009 3:18:39 AM)
Getting the opponent to agree would probably be easy. Listening to him later explain why the suicide hex he sent the unit to "makes more sense" than the obviously better defending hex...that's where problems would arise.[;)]

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (4/15/2009 4:44:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gridley Getting the opponent to agree would probably be easy. Listening to him later explain why the suicide hex he sent the unit to "makes more sense" than the obviously better defending hex...that's where problems would arise.[;)] You could always record his 'explanation'. U-tube loves that kind of thing.

Maesphil74 -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (4/15/2009 3:18:32 PM)
Apologies if this has been asked before (I looked everywhere but couldn't really find an answer): Will it be possible to play just 1 major power in 'solitaire play' or do you have to play all axis (or allied) major powers vs an AI playing all the other sides major powers?

composer99 -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (4/15/2009 4:31:35 PM)
As an AI Assistant is not part of MWiF product 1, you will have to play all the major powers on your side in a solitaire game against the AI Opponent.

bredsjomagnus -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (4/15/2009 5:42:15 PM)
quote: Have you referred to "O" points as "crack" yet? Our group is playing FiF for the first time...we are in S/O'41. Production is much better, and everyone really likes shipyards. Crack!![X(] No, not yet. But mayby we should because you can�t afford it but you can�t live with out it either. Yes, crack is a good name for O-points.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (4/15/2009 6:35:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fleming Apologies if this has been asked before (I looked everywhere but couldn't really find an answer): Will it be possible to play just 1 major power in 'solitaire play' or do you have to play all axis (or allied) major powers vs an AI playing all the other sides major powers? Against teh AI Opponent and when playing by email, a lpayer plays all the major powers on one side (i.e., Axis or Allies). However, ... There are 4 scenarios which do not involve the entire world: Barbarossa: USSR & Germany Guadalcanal: Japan vs. CW, & US Fascist Tide: CW, US, France, & USSR vs. Germany & Italy Day of Infamy: CW, US, China, & USSR (in 1945) vs. Japan. The latter two are "half the world" scenarios and major powers which span the globe get roughly half their units et al. As an intro to MWIF I strongly recommend Barbarossa (the major land war) followed by Guadalcanal (major sea operations).

macgregor -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (5/17/2009 4:13:06 PM)
An idea occurred to me that would be nice for some future WiF product. Since the game (netplay anyway) is likely to involve teammates, some program that will expedite taking a section of board to draw up plans, and then send them to your partner. This can be done now using MSpaint, though perhaps a program could facilitate it, while allowing one to include more details. Just a thought.....

Zorachus99 -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (5/18/2009 5:10:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: Fleming Apologies if this has been asked before (I looked everywhere but couldn't really find an answer): Will it be possible to play just 1 major power in 'solitaire play' or do you have to play all axis (or allied) major powers vs an AI playing all the other sides major powers? Against teh AI Opponent and when playing by email, a lpayer plays all the major powers on one side (i.e., Axis or Allies). However, ... There are 4 scenarios which do not involve the entire world: Barbarossa: USSR & Germany Guadalcanal: Japan vs. CW, & US Fascist Tide: CW, US, France, & USSR vs. Germany & Italy Day of Infamy: CW, US, China, & USSR (in 1945) vs. Japan. The latter two are "half the world" scenarios and major powers which span the globe get roughly half their units et al. As an intro to MWIF I strongly recommend Barbarossa (the major land war) followed by Guadalcanal (major sea operations). Can we expect the AI for these two scenarios be better developed as a result? Being such short scenarios their overall OOB (order-of-battle) should be more elementary.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (5/18/2009 5:31:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zorachus99 quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: Fleming Apologies if this has been asked before (I looked everywhere but couldn't really find an answer): Will it be possible to play just 1 major power in 'solitaire play' or do you have to play all axis (or allied) major powers vs an AI playing all the other sides major powers? Against teh AI Opponent and when playing by email, a lpayer plays all the major powers on one side (i.e., Axis or Allies). However, ... There are 4 scenarios which do not involve the entire world: Barbarossa: USSR & Germany Guadalcanal: Japan vs. CW, & US Fascist Tide: CW, US, France, & USSR vs. Germany & Italy Day of Infamy: CW, US, China, & USSR (in 1945) vs. Japan. The latter two are "half the world" scenarios and major powers which span the globe get roughly half their units et al. As an intro to MWIF I strongly recommend Barbarossa (the major land war) followed by Guadalcanal (major sea operations). Can we expect the AI for these two scenarios be better developed as a result? Being such short scenarios their overall OOB (order-of-battle) should be more elementary. Maybe.

coregames -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (5/20/2009 5:02:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: macgregor An idea occurred to me that would be nice for some future WiF product. Since the game (netplay anyway) is likely to involve teammates, some program that will expedite taking a section of board to draw up plans, and then send them to your partner. This can be done now using MSpaint, though perhaps a program could facilitate it, while allowing one to include more details. Just a thought..... if the full unified scale map is available as a PDF, then cyberboard, vassal, zun tsu could be used in this regard.

Page: << < prev 17 18 [19] 20 21 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.53125