RE: Uncertainty (Full Version)

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



Message

pasternakski -> RE: Uncertainty (2/13/2004 2:30:05 AM)

Three things about AI:

-No AI, no sale. As I have been posting since almost the first day I started running my mouth in these forums, most wargamers who play computer games do so because they either have no human opponent or prefer playing games against the game, not against other people.
-Game designers seem to spend their time on the game and not on a cybersystem that can play the game. It's time to wake up and smell the coffee. Advances in technology have made many things thought unrealistic or impossible realistic and possible. Why not a truly challenging AI that doesn't have to cheat to get results?
-The AI hates you even when it works for you. UV is a perfect example. How often have you muttered underneath your breath, "Thanks for sending my bombers on a suicide mission against a worthless target?" If you can't make it work for me, let me micromanage it.



yamaslob -> RE: Uncertainty (2/13/2004 3:10:30 AM)

Well I downloaded the rules and am now skimming through em. Man does wif look to have a lot of things covered. I am so stoked about this project.

As far to the AI, I use it to learn how to play. I can play a game without dedicating the time when I don't fully know how to play at that point.Then I learn from the computer what to do and what not to do. It is very important to me and I surely would not purchase the game without an one. Just wouldnt be attractive to me. But I think that question has been solved with the product description.

I still think 2 months turns make for too short of a game but I could be wrong.

Do any others feel the same way about turn length?

yamaslob



Fred98 -> RE: Uncertainty (2/13/2004 3:11:34 AM)

I have played many games on PC and after a while the AI becomes an easy beat. My view is that the AI can be used to practise against. Or to test/check cartain game features.

In a game like this, the AI will place a unit in an excellent position and do the little things very well. And you can learn from this and use it against a human player.

The first few games against an AI are challenging until I learn the game system. After that the AI is hopeless.

So a game against the AI eventually is out of the question – a game against humans is the only way to go.



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> RE: Uncertainty (2/13/2004 4:25:13 AM)

I must say though, I have had to deal with saying there would never be a 4th Mega Campaign and to get used to it (the one I helped produce hehe :) ).

I would like to see my Combat Leader show up something fierce though.

I can't see how they will be able to make cWiF see the light of day, but what the heck, I can deal with being wrong on that issue hehe.

Wargames just seem to have a fiercesome dedication to unruly time frames of arrival eh.



Mziln -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (2/13/2004 5:31:17 AM)

quote:

Hell prove to me you can't play both sides of the board game now. Prove to me you could not do the same thing on a computer interface.


[X(] I tend to unknowingly cheat against myself without an AI. [X(]

But I agree it wouldn't be a necesity but would be nice.



Greyshaft -> RE: Uncertainty (2/13/2004 6:29:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: yamaslob
I still think 2 months turns make for too short of a game but I could be wrong.


In WiF each two month turn is composed of an unpredicatable number of identical IGOUGO impulses so there are a lot more than 36 turns in a 6 year war. I'm not looking at the tables now but I think there are between 2 and 10 impulses per turn.



Moriturus -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (2/13/2004 8:47:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1



Welcome to wargaming dudes. That's how I did it for 20 years before computers.
Now you know why some of us actually CAN play wargames better than some.


Now that's not very nice of you.[:-]

I played wargames 20 years before computers as well. I now have a job, kids, a life, etc., and I don't want to spend a lot of time just figuring out how a game works before being able to play it. A good tutorial helps teach the game quickly, because it's much easier to understand various funcitons, concepts, etc. by actually doing them. Also, despite the best efforts of game designers, game manuals are not always models of clarity. A good example of a helpful tutorial is the one that comes with Korsun Pocket; it was very useful for getting me into the game quickly.

An AI opponent is essential if Matrix wants to market the game effectively; many people will not be able to, or will not want to, find human opponents. We can all berate the stupidity of current AI opponents, but it's still necessary to sell games. Bow to the inevitable . . . [&o]

Now to specifics: what I'd like to see is a function where you can click on a hex and all of the units are laid out in detail full-screen. Also, a zoom feature wherein the area visible on the large map can be shrunk or enlarged would be very uselful in allowing players to change their focus on the amount of the battlefield that thy're interested in. Having a "rollershade" feature, where the functional portion of the screen can be removed with just a small tab to pull it back up, would also be helpful in allowing better map visibility. Finally, in close zooms, have tiling that shows most, if not all, of the attributes of all units in a hex and its six immediate neighbors.

No six-sided die like in Korsun Pocket; that's the cheesiest thing I've seen in computer gaming in a while, and I think it really is a major flaw in that game. The combat predictions and results in The Operational Art of War are much more realistic and interesting.

A user-friendly interface is very important, and it's hard to achieve with a complex wargame. Playtest, playtest, playtest, I guess . . .

Division breakdowns could be a real problem if there is no transaction costs for doing so. Making the divisional strengths of breakdowns significantly lower than the parent corps, and/or imposing a significant reforming penalty (or simply disallow reforming, perhaps allowing the division to be removed and thrown into the replacement pool) would limit the use of breakdowns. As to the fear that, e.g., the German player on the Eastern Front would use them to slow the Soviet player while re-grouping, well, that's what a rearguard is for, right?

Having some uncertainty as to the actual combat stregth of untried units is a good idea; it puts a premium on retaining veteran units and makes things more interesting when green units go into battle.

I don't think the game needs to be released with "alternative universe" scenarios, just with a good game editor. The alternate scenarios will then be designed by people who are much more interested in that sort of thing, leaving the game designers to concentrate on the game itself. Also, the game should of course have the widest possible methods of play: single-player, hot seat, PBEM, maybe LAN and Internet, and perhaps multiplayer.

And most important, make it FUN![:)]



Caranorn -> RE: Uncertainty (2/13/2004 2:02:05 PM)

I almost certainly won't even find a single WiF or CWiF player in my country. But over the internet that is not a limiting factor. TCP or Pbem can get you those opponents and the onlty question will be how many turns you can coordinate to play per week. And the same way I played WiF the boardgame solo for years (since version 4 iirc) I will be able to play CWiF solo in hotseat mode (I played Chris's demo that way too).

Marc aka Caran...

P.S.: Don't worry about opponents now, WiF has a good fan base now and I'm certain it will expand for CWiF, almost any time zone you live in you will find a number of good and dedicated players.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead

It's easy for those of you with local opponents to say "don't worry about AI, it's not important, just get us the game on PC." Those of us who have been unsuccessfully searching for local opponents have a different attitude. If 9 out of 10 potential buyers of this game are without local opponents, it's worth attempting AI.



Caranorn -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (2/13/2004 2:22:07 PM)

In WiF iirc, you automatically lose at least 50% combat strength when you break down a corps. That is if you breakdown an 8-6 ARM for example you can only draw 2 divisions neither of them with a strength higher then 2. Also, only the first division (except for INF and MOT) so created is of the same type as the corps. The second is always eitehr a MOT or INF. When you recombine later you cannot draw a corps (a division plus a MOT Div gives the first type corps) more then twice the combined strength of the divisions. So, using divisions you first have a clear loss of combat power (but with added stacking capacities as you can stack a division or artillery unit in addition to the 2 corps in a hex, and/or garrison capacities etc.). Even once you recombine the divisions into a corps you will almost certainly have a lasting strength loss (say in the previous example you drew a 2 strength ARM div and a 1 strength MOT div, you could only re-create a 6 strength ARM for a net loss of 2 strength points).

But there are still many benefits of using divisions, one of the countries that will profit most I expect is Japan, both in it's Chinese campaigns (garrisons mostly) and island hopping (SCS (Surface Combat Ships) used to transport infantry type divisions).

Lastly, I typed this out of memory, I haven't been able to play WiF in ages (I have the room, but setting up a game takes a lot of time). So my memory of how exactly Corps split could be off.

A last remark, corps and armies are treated exactly identically for breakdown. The only difference between WiF corps and armies these days really is what country they belong to (China almost exclusively uses armies, the USSR mostly armies, many minors use armies too, most other majors use corps only).

One area I'd like to see change back to the earlier versions of WiF is headquarters. I'd prefer them to once againbe division size, low combat capacity units (and add the then missing corps and armies back into the game). But that's just a minor pet peeve of mine and will almost certainly be editable in CWiF.

Marc aka Caran...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moriturus

Division breakdowns could be a real problem if there is no transaction costs for doing so. Making the divisional strengths of breakdowns significantly lower than the parent corps, and/or imposing a significant reforming penalty (or simply disallow reforming, perhaps allowing the division to be removed and thrown into the replacement pool) would limit the use of breakdowns. As to the fear that, e.g., the German player on the Eastern Front would use them to slow the Soviet player while re-grouping, well, that's what a rearguard is for, right?



stewart_king -> RE: 2 month turns (2/14/2004 2:05:46 AM)

A turn in WiF is two months long, but it is sub-divided into a variable number of impulses, in which units get to move. A ground unit in a summer turn could move a half-dozen times. Each impulse is maybe a week or two. The variation -- when the turn is going to end -- is randomly determined and varies with the weather, the season, and choices that the players make. Manipulating turn length is one of the big strategic criteria of the game. So board WiF is really some 400 "impulses" long.

A game of CWiF I takes about six months of regular play (say 12-15 hours a week) to finish. If you're fast... Don't worry about this game being too short.



Moriturus -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (2/14/2004 3:04:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

All book-keeping functions to be automated wherever possible.

Lots of information screens that can be sorted by title as they are in UV. One screen for all the hexes on the map, one screen for ground units and for air units and one for naval units. And probably other screens fopr other issues.

A Combat Advisor similair to that in KP.

A short cut key that gives me a total of all the ground attack factors in each hex and another that gives me a total of all the defensive factors (inclusive of the defensive bonus for that type of hex).

A short cut key that gives the all the ZOC for all enemy units - and shows the penalties I would incurr if I attempt to move through the ZOCs

A short cut key that provides quik info on which ground units can move where this turn, in the case of transport by fleets - and the fleets required.

In Third Reich there is a strict turn sequence. But players often played through the sequence on one front first then another front second and the third front last. But the PC version, forced you follow the turn sequence strictly so you were constantly jumping from one place to another around the map. I would like to see some flexibility in the turn sequence to increase the fun.

I have not actually played this game so I am sure others can think of information required - and a short cut key can be applied.


I am but a simple caveman wargamer unfrozen byyour scientists; your brave new world of hexes and numbers overwhelms me at times. Joe 98 speaks the truth: many, many hotkeys and information screens (cross-referenced/hyper-linked whenever possible) will make the game much easier to understand and play for my rock-and-stick-originated mind.

Another thing: have a prominent onscreen button, and well as a hotkey, to release whatever unit is highlighted/selected. How many of you have played Steel Panthers, Operational Art of War, or similar games and moved a unit or done something else totally ridiculous because you forgot that you had a unit highlighted/selected? This should be an easy feature to implement, and it will reduce much frustration. (An "Undo" button is of course essential as well, but this feature would reduce the need for the "Undo" button somewhat.)



yamaslob -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (2/14/2004 6:47:21 PM)

This all started in the KP forum where it was posted that PC Zone gave Korsun Pocket an awful review, a 20%. What a joke. KP is a great game and very user friendly IMHO.

The part that bothered me most was this;

' Even the combat system features dice. This is 2003 not 1990!'


Com' on. I love the die rolls! I think it greatly improves the feel for the game and brings a feeling of playing a tabletop version. When I see a die roll I know exactly why something failed, or doesn't. I like the proof.

So please include the dice for everything that was needed in the original. That way when I get the result I wanted/hated I have nothing to blame but a bad roll.


Also, thanks to those that enlightened me as to the turns. I was not aware that there were impulses and the game was actually longer than just the simple 2 month turn.

Yamaslob

PS...I hear talk about a demo to a previous version of WIF. Where can I get it and does it work on xp?



Moriturus -> Die Rolls in Korsun Pocket (2/15/2004 2:25:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: yamaslob

This all started in the KP forum where it was posted that PC Zone gave Korsun Pocket an awful review, a 20%. What a joke. KP is a great game and very user friendly IMHO.

The part that bothered me most was this;

' Even the combat system features dice. This is 2003 not 1990!'


Com' on. I love the die rolls! I think it greatly improves the feel for the game and brings a feeling of playing a tabletop version. When I see a die roll I know exactly why something failed, or doesn't. I like the proof.

So please include the dice for everything that was needed in the original. That way when I get the result I wanted/hated I have nothing to blame but a bad roll.


The "die roll" is simply a dumbed-down version of the computer-generated combat result. I can see a need for greater transparency in potential combat reults, but the die roll system makes about as much sense under your logic as flipping a coin. Also, KP goes back to the old 1993-style odds system, with the picking apart stacks anad sorting through attack ratios for various attacks to get the best mathematical results (just like in real life, right? "General Schwarzkopf, we need to move in another battalion to get a 4-1 attack ratio. Oh, and we need an armored company in the attack to get the +1 die roll bonus . . . ") Maybe PC Zone's 20% is a bit harsh, but KP definitely was the most over-hyped game last year. You'd think Matrix could have designed a game more, instead of less, advanced than The Operational Art of War.



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> RE: Uncertainty (2/15/2004 4:31:28 AM)

I guess it is similar with why so many incredibly dumb people smoke.

Everyone is doing it.

Or why some fashions become popular, have to be "in" to be successful.

They don't include AIs with board games, yet they sell. Thus, it is proven a person will indeed buy a wargame when it is clear they won't be getting an artificial opponent in the box.

Now of course Matrix Games has commented it will be there (the AI that is). And I highly doubt my comments are enough alone to sway them :) (man if that was the case, I would tell David to halt everything and put everyone onto polishing off Combat Leader hehe).

I have heard many times the old refrain "I don't have any local opponents". It doesn't sway me. Unless you live as a hermit way up on a mountain, it doesn't count.
I live in a city of 20k, right in the middle actually. Heck if I want to be the pessimist, I could say there couldn't pooooooossibly be more than say 100 potential wargamers living here. And who's fault is it if I never meet them?

If you don't have any wargaming friends, get off your butt and make some. Or are you just to socially challenged perhaps :)

The attraction of shooters is actually quite simple. They don't require the same sort of AI. Arcade games are nothing new though.
RTS games are abou the same in my view. If they possess an AI, it is not self evident by the way they play at least.

I do hope the AI can be left out of the loop in whatever becomes cWiF. I would not likely be inclined to buy another persons idea of HoI regardless of who tries to sell i to me.
I hope the inclusion of the AI, or rather the difficulty in making one for it, doesn't cost over much to the point it makes the game over expensive. Nor would I like to see the game languish on a to do list for yet several more years while everyone insists on making an AI for it at all costs.

Like I said, and no I'm not saying others needs are not important, just making the observation, that the insistence of some, no matter how many they might be, might in the end be the downfall of the project.

The game is not revolutionary, nor ground breaking in software or graphics. Just a board game made for the computer. Ideally, you would think that could only require what maybe a year's worth of work if that?
If this time next year there is no cWiF, then it is possible I will have been right. And the designers have been trying to do to much.



amwild -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (2/15/2004 8:47:42 AM)

I have only played a couple of limited-area games of WiF, mainly due to the incredible amount of space the boardgame takes up for such a long period of time, and my incredible lack of the aforementioned space [:(]. My suggestions are therefore mostly cosmetic.

1. Make the unit counter and map hex graphics user-customisable, for all those who don't like the standard options. I say options, since some will want the traditional military symbology, and others will prefer pretty pictures, and both should be included.

2. Allow an option for "fog of war", where only the top unit and the number of units in a stack of units in a hex/box can be seen - and allow the players to sort their stacks.

3. When a unit is selected or mouse-overed, display its characteristics in an optional detail window or tooltip.

4. Where a combat would take many backward and forward interactions between players, allow an option of manual processing or AI processing based upon preselected rules (to speed PBEM and other play)

5. I have been playing Neverwinter Nights a lot recently, and while it is not really a wargame, it is based upon pencil-and-paper D&D. One of the things that it does that I think is a really great idea, is that it can show everything the AI is doing, the die rolls that are made and the outcome of the roll in a transparent overlay window. To expand on this idea, cWiF could log each move and die roll, with an option of just storing the last few dozen actions in memory, or saving a log/replay file. With such a log file, a game could be saved and replayed at a user-selectable speed, and players could even stop the replay and jump in at any stage and change their decisions (creating a new log file identical to the old up to that point). Logging would also allow an unlimited "undo" functionality. Since these logs may take up a fair amount of drive space, permanent logging (as opposed to limited in-RAM logging) should be an option at the start of the game. Besides, gamers (at least those I know) would really like to have evidence to back up their bragging.

6. Allow players to micromanage or optionally set AI management goals. Where the AI takes over management of building and battles, allow an option of seeing the AI at work.



yamaslob -> RE: Die Rolls in Korsun Pocket (2/15/2004 8:52:32 AM)

Moriturus said;

quote:

The "die roll" is simply a dumbed-down version of the computer-generated combat result.


Hehe. I understand that there is not a virtual die rolling around the screen. What I don’t understand is what you see is wrong with it? Most games have you just click for the combat and then decipher the results and that is all. With KP you actually get to see what you need to get before you roll…er…get the ‘computer-generated combat result’. For me it greatly enhances the feel for the game and immerses me further. I enjoy the bare-knuckles feeling of hoping for a good roll and then seeing it in front of me. It is a throwback to the games that line my bookcase behind me as I now type.

I guess there could have been more possible results from combat in KP such as; reduce entrenchment, an enhanced/reduced state for the attacker/defender etc., but I think as it stands now it conveys the things that were overall important for the various commanders at this scale of operations; the attack has been blunted (loss of step) the defense has suffered (loss of step), the defenders have been forced to fall back (retreat) or nothing at all.
That being said, most wargames use one form or another of a Combat Result Table a.k.a CRT. WIF surely does. In fact I think a 10 sided die is used for some results.(could be wrong for as stated in an earlier post, I am unfamiliar with it’s mechanics) so what is wrong with letting those that enjoy the look and feel of the board games to see the roll. Maybe it could be optional. If it is you could choose to never look at the CRT, disable the ‘dice roll function, and it could always be a mystery as to how close you were to succeeding or not. The end result is the same.

Now to the part about KP being an overhyped, outdated, less advanced game I totally disagree. There are many strong points in KP that other games of this scale have not touched upon. First and foremost is the great user interface. There is so much info on your screen without the need for many clicks. Just scroll around one info screen to see numerous areas of interest. In TOAW, a game I happen to love btw, look at how many clicks you had to make just to see the losses. Or the make-up of a stack. Other things that set the decisive battles series apart are Combat Remnants, Alert Points, Reserve Operation Points, Supply Interdiction, Detachments, Divisional Integrity etc.

quote:

"General Schwarzkopf, we need to move in another battalion to get a 4-1 attack ratio. Oh, and we need an armored company in the attack to get the +1 die roll bonus . . . ")


Yes that is sort of how it works. High Command had to choose where to put its limited resources for an attack to best achieve a favorable result. It is assumed that there has been reconnaissance in force to understand the make-up of the enemy. It is more like ‘Oh, and we need an armored company in the attack to better our chances at a breakthrough.’ Remember that all results are not always favorable for the attacker and there is almost always a chance for failure. In this case it happens to be a +1 modifier. Therefore we are back to some form of CRT. Unless there is just some random result given for the combats at hand there will be a need for the CRT and modifiers. It would instead be as you called a ‘coin flip’ if there wasn’t. Like it or not, games do have to be structured and IMHO the designers of KP did a good job of creating a wide spectrum of CRT’s.

Tell me what you would propose to achieve a combat result for each terrain and condition?

There are some things in KP which I wish would change such as the magnifying glass zoom. The whole map should be zoomed instead. I would also like to have the units that received step loss be shown in the combat screen automatically when multiple units attack from different hexes. As it is now you have to search a little too much to see quickly which units suffered losses. A combat description would also be nice to see where the losses came from or were delivered to. But overall it is an awesome game imvho.


Back to my initial reason for this post; Give me the die rolls (they will be there whether we can see them or not) , make them optional if need be, but let me see how I came to get that result. WIF is a great boardgame from what I gather. Let’s keep it that way, only on my monitor.

Yamaslob



Greyshaft -> More suggestions... (2/15/2004 10:15:57 PM)

"Enough of the politics!" I sez to myself. "Let Matrix evaluate other player's half-baked suggestions on their own merits. I've got too much work to do in creating my own half-baked suggestions!"[:D]

* Unit upgrades: If there is a technology tree available then allow players to refit their Armor units to new values e.g.in 1943 Adolf finally invents the Tiger tank. During the next production phase he removes an 8-6 armor unit from the board and pays 'x' production points. A 10-5 armor unit is placed on the production spiral for deployment on the following turn
* Pilot experience: Allow pilot counters to gain experience. If a pilot counter survives (say) 5 successful combats without loss or aborting then it becomes an ace and gets +1 on all combats. This bonus lasts until it is aborted or lost in combat.
* Hidden factors: Let the enemy know that I have a Spitfire counter based in London, but why should he know the exact combat factor? Same with ships yes I know that some geeks already know all of the combat factors in WiF off by heart. I can't help that.



Greyshaft -> Even more suggestions... (2/16/2004 10:09:24 PM)

I put some of this in before but I couldn't see it here so it must have been in the pre-hack Forum:

* Keep a running total of the Build Points on map so (say) the UK player can aim for a Navy size twice the size of the German/Italian.

* Allow name changes on units. I can't imagine anyone wanting to change the name of existing ships but new ones should be nameable. Likewise with armor units etc.

* Put some randomness in the Italian/minor axis surrender rules.

* Provide a summary sheet of all air units so it's easier to see the result when a player scraps an air unit class. I've been caught out before when scrapping an air unit only to find out the following turn that I also had one on the production spiral.

* provide combat strength summaries on task forces so we can see at a glance what is its total AA factors etc.

* stand by for words of wrath from the die-hards!!! Convert all of the existing combat tables to strict percentages rather than forcing players to keep hunting around for the extra factor to bump up a column on the combat table. Every extra combat factor should increase the % chance of a hit.



WRP -> RE: Even more suggestions... (2/17/2004 2:40:38 AM)

I'd like to offer my positive and negative memories of playing ftf WiF with my friends many years ago...(and I walked 5 miles uphill both ways in the snow to get to school and back [;)]). I do this as an attempt at communicating what I would like to see in CWiF...

Positive:
- I think the most tense (thus exciting) moments in our games was the naval engagements, especially when Italy finally decided to contest control of the Med or the first "Midway type" encounter and all h*ll broke loose with land based Naval planes and fleets duking it out. I really thought the "At Sea" boxes (or whatever they were called) were an elegant solution to moving/sighting/fighting naval engagements. I really don't care to count 157 hexes from Portsmouth to Gibralter to see if my destroyers can make it in one turn or two.
- Rolling the dice made the game fun, thus I would like to see something similar in CWiF. It really irks me in UV when a bad result is shown for my units, but I can't figure out if I did something tactically wrong or I just had bad luck. Of course, this becomes more apparent with experience in a game, but I still think rolling the "bones" is an essential part of the "wargaming experience" and should be captured in the computer version.
- I think the randomness of unit strengths when selecting new units to build (I think they were upside down and randomly selected to place on the production track?) incorporates the uncertainty of research paths to a good approximation. Of course, when to place the higher value units into the pool would influence this as well....I can't remember how this was achieved in WiF, but it felt right with regard to research and added the right amount of uncertainty with regard to research.
- I loved the counter art on the Planes in Flames expansion....I hope this can be retained somehow.

Negative:
- The number and size of charts was a nightmare. Of course, putting this game on a computer just about automatically solves this problem by making them invisible until needed and more manageable to manipulate.
- The upgrades/options/versions etc, etc, etc was endless. I gave up trying to keep up with all the errata, versions and optional rules very early on. We spent hours trying to decide which rule set and options to use before a game. A waste of valuable gaming time, IMO. Perhaps this was just a function of our group, but the fact that there didn't seem to be a final, final, really final official version exacerbated this. This last issue is starting to sound like a pointless gripe since I'm not sure what the solution is....perhaps it needs more discussion on the forum.

Anyway, that's my two cents....I'm very excited to see the release of this product. I hope it will be as much fun as we had playing the original paper version years ago.

Oh,yeah...I really enjoyed Days of Decision, but some of the others in my group didn't...I'm hoping it can be at least added in a second version or as an option as in the original.

Cheers...



Caranorn -> RE: Even more suggestions... (2/17/2004 2:57:02 PM)

Technically, the creation of CWiF should lead to a truly final version of the rules. As I understand it, that was certainly one of the reasons for the mssive work on RaW (Rules as Written) the past years. In the end I expect the makers of CWiF will need a comprehensive error free set of rules. As I haven't been able t play the board game for a whil, I'm not certain in what state RaW is now, but I expect it must be close to done.

For the rest, I always favoured optional rules as some aspects of the game are unrealistic to me (others to other players). Many things can easily be fixed by slightly tweaking a rule. The main part is of course agreeing to the rules used before the game starts. Most groups I understand always play the same optional rules, or at least only with minimal variation. On the other hand, I doubt there are any two groups using the exact same rules in their games (even in tournaments).

Marc aka Caran...

quote:

ORIGINAL: WRP

I'd like to offer my positive and negative memories of playing ftf WiF with my friends many years ago...(and I walked 5 miles uphill both ways in the snow to get to school and back [;)]). I do this as an attempt at communicating what I would like to see in CWiF...
<snip>
- The upgrades/options/versions etc, etc, etc was endless. I gave up trying to keep up with all the errata, versions and optional rules very early on. We spent hours trying to decide which rule set and options to use before a game. A waste of valuable gaming time, IMO. Perhaps this was just a function of our group, but the fact that there didn't seem to be a final, final, really final official version exacerbated this. This last issue is starting to sound like a pointless gripe since I'm not sure what the solution is....perhaps it needs more discussion on the forum.

<snip>

Cheers...



Greyshaft -> RE: Even more suggestions... (2/17/2004 9:57:42 PM)

Currently WiF asks players to pay 6 production points (IIRC) up front for a carrier which then takes six turns to build. I'd prefer to see the players slugged one PP per turn for six turns. This gives them the opportunity to suspend work on ships like happened in virtually every navy at one time or another.

Possibly also give players the chance to scrap hulls and reclaim PP. If the Graf Zepplin is still a hull in 1944 then she'll never fire her guns in anger. I'm sure the Germans would love the chance to recast all of that metal into Tiger Tanks even if they only got back (say) 1/3 of the original PP



Mziln -> RE: Even more suggestions... (2/18/2004 5:26:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft
* provide combat strength summaries on task forces so we can see at a glance what is its total AA factors etc.


[:)] I agree, a summary of Task forces/Fleets at sea would be a great enhancement. [:)]

quote:

ORIGNAL: WRP
The number and size of charts was a nightmare.


Yes they are. Lucky its CWiF instead of the board game. [:)]



wintercorn -> RE: Even more suggestions... (2/18/2004 6:22:09 PM)

One of the major draws for was the high attention given to the game mechanics (complexity of the system) and, with the later versions, the detailed chits. Picking a specificly named ship or aircraft type is what really adds to the excitment of the game, especially for us historical types that drool at the possiblities of getting the ship into combat that was historically sunk in the harbor! Seeing what these actual machines of war looked like, right there in front of you really adds a whole new level and flavor to the game that is absent in most other games of this type and size. There are already so many other games out there that have beer and pretzels, "ooo look I rolled sixes, you're dead" type mechics and others with the primative military symbols. WiF, to me, was the first to combine both the rigors of a complex military game system with the eye candy of simpler games of the genre.

The whole reason I am looking forward to the Computerized version is that the board game's size prohibits long term set up at any single place. A computer version allowing for email and/or network connectability would resolve that.

Accordingly, anything less than what the board game presently offers would be a step backward and pull me away from why WiF caught my attention in the first place!



WRP -> RE: Even more suggestions... (2/18/2004 8:06:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wintercorn

One of the major draws for was the high attention given to the game mechanics (complexity of the system) and, with the later versions, the detailed chits. Picking a specificly named ship or aircraft type is what really adds to the excitment of the game, especially for us historical types that drool at the possiblities of getting the ship into combat that was historically sunk in the harbor!


[:)]Agree....these picks are tense moments and can turn the game in unforseen directions

quote:

There are already so many other games out there that have beer and pretzels, "ooo look I rolled sixes, you're dead" type mechics and others with the primative military symbols. WiF, to me, was the first to combine both the rigors of a complex military game system with the eye candy of simpler games of the genre.


[:'(]Everybody bashes beer and pretzels...good stuff, IMHO.

quote:

Accordingly, anything less than what the board game presently offers would be a step backward and pull me away from why WiF caught my attention in the first place!


[:)]Couldn't agree more...major deviations from the original (with the exception of widely accepted improvements) would be a buzz kill.



Greyshaft -> Lend-lease etc (2/18/2004 11:16:00 PM)

In 1944 the British transferred their battleship Royal Sovereign to the USSR where she became the Soviet Arkhangelsk. There were many other examples where existing ships, tanks and aircraft were transferred from one country to another under lend-lease or other schemes. This was obviously a lot more efficient than simply giving Production Points.

The current Lend Lease rules (13.6.4) allow players to trade units between their force pools and to give build points... but they don't allow the doner to actually BUILD the unit and ship it to the recipient e.g. Dear Winston, I hope you find the enclosed Air Group of F4U-1 fighters useful. They came off the USA production line last week and I am giving them to you as a gift. Just add a British Pilot Point and they'll be shooting down the Krauts from the start of next turn. Regards, Franklin

Will this aspect of CWiF be refined?

On a similar note can Matrix consider the staggering of additions to the Force Pools? Currently all new models of aircraft are added to the Force Pools in January each year. It would be more realistic to add them in the turn which they historically became available... maybe allow a bit of randomness +/-1 turn so it was less predictable.

BTW: I trust that if the US do use the entry option to inter the French CV “Bearn” then it will reappear in US markings - it always annoyed me that I couldn't repaint the counter once I enlisted it in the US Navy!



caine -> Unit symbols and hidden naval movement (2/19/2004 11:05:14 AM)

I would like to keep unit symbols, including aircraft pictures in the counters.It is great to see actual models of aircraft in the counters.



Caranorn -> RE: Lend-lease etc (2/19/2004 2:05:01 PM)

Which reminds me, include the Normandy (plus another liner) in CWiF so the US get to foolishly burn down one of the fastest transports[:-]) Might be nice to have a french (possibly later US at the same time the Bearn is transferred) liner in addition to the British Queens.

Marc aka Caran... with a semi serious post

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

BTW: I trust that if the US do use the entry option to inter the French CV “Bearn” then it will reappear in US markings - it always annoyed me that I couldn't repaint the counter once I enlisted it in the US Navy!



Greyshaft -> Zoom (2/22/2004 11:44:08 PM)

Wif always had problems with stacking too many units (land + air + naval) in the one hex. Hamburg was always a nightmare as were other key ports in the Pacific. Could Matrix consider a filter option that lets players display just air or just naval counters on the map? That would make life easier when hunting around for another uncommitted air unit to help the Panzers reach 3:1 for the final attack on Paris



Greyshaft -> Map overlays (2/24/2004 10:21:44 PM)

Still on the subject of filters, will we get a political control overview? Actually why not go the whole hog and steal the five strategic map overlays from HOI?

Standard
Political
Economic - oil and factories
Weather
... aw snot! I can't think of the fifth one... someone help me out here



Greyshaft -> Most jobs have KPIs... why shouldn't wargames :) (2/26/2004 9:53:21 PM)

...and just for fun how about a historical overlay?

Click the right mouse button while pressing CTRL-ALT-F1 and a grey overlay comes up on the map showing what the Axis had conquered at that time in the war eg. mid 1942 and the overlay covers most of Europe and is licking at Stalingrad, Alemein and Midway. It would be great to compare your own progress to what the bad boys achieved historically.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.703125