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

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (6/8/2010 6:33:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Skanvak A possibility to continue the game after the official end is interesting and should be added. The bottomline is that the game don't go far without extension (Patif). Yes, this is an optional rules in MWIF. I haven't coded it yet because, unlike other optional rules, this is something the players are likely to want to change during the game. I am going to take a look at other optional rules to see if changing them "on the fly" might be a reasonable thing to enable (the coding would have to be simple though - I don't want to be adding all the light cruisers in the middle of a game). Suggestions for which optional rules to make dynamic?

CrusssDaddy -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (6/8/2010 6:48:26 PM)
A debug option to let you sandbox your own scenarios, like that of the old CWiF, would be golden. I've had the Axis invade America in 1939, giant German v. Russian tank battles in Africa, and Risk-style games where each side drafts minors, gets 100 build points to field a starting army, and then goes to town. That would also eliminate the need to program all of the default scenarios - we could just set them up ourselves.

Anendrue -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (6/8/2010 7:29:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy A debug option to let you sandbox your own scenarios, like that of the old CWiF, would be golden. I've had the Axis invade America in 1939, giant German v. Russian tank battles in Africa, and Risk-style games where each side drafts minors, gets 100 build points to field a starting army, and then goes to town. That would also eliminate the need to program all of the default scenarios - we could just set them up ourselves. Are you talking about the ability to mod and create your own scenario or use debug to change the things you don't like on the fly?

micheljq -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (6/8/2010 7:59:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Skanvak A possibility to continue the game after the official end is interesting and should be added. The bottomline is that the game don't go far without extension (Patif). Most players have more than enough with just the basic version of WiF without the options, especially when not very experimented. Then just adding the various options, is just enough already for most of them. [:)] I find that WiF is not Axis & Allies on steroids, it's even beyond that.

michaelbaldur -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (6/8/2010 8:11:33 PM)
I don´t have a group to play with ...so I play alot of sandbox ... Spain is a good place to fight .... I play with 20 random units from 2 random major powers. with free scrapping ....

Simulation01 -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (6/9/2010 2:52:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: Skanvak A possibility to continue the game after the official end is interesting and should be added. The bottomline is that the game don't go far without extension (Patif). Yes, this is an optional rules in MWIF. I haven't coded it yet because, unlike other optional rules, this is something the players are likely to want to change during the game. I am going to take a look at other optional rules to see if changing them "on the fly" might be a reasonable thing to enable (the coding would have to be simple though - I don't want to be adding all the light cruisers in the middle of a game). Suggestions for which optional rules to make dynamic? I am definitely glad to hear this. If you truly do this...despite my anxiety over these impulses....I will get the game. Also, will the major powers have the ability to switch sides in the conflict or make peace? I would really like to see that. Also, how far does the research and weapons go? Will we be able to use nukes in any way? That is a request if it is not in the game.(I don't see how it couldn't be in the game) I know you said that invading the USA would not be possible, but I was wondering if you meant that was literally a restriction built into the game code or is it simply unrealistic because of because of the magnitude of the feat? Will you add and Alternate History scenarios? I'm requesting them if you don't have any? Thank you, Shannon for replying and trying to dispel my bewilderment.

paulderynck -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (6/9/2010 3:31:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Simulation01 quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: Skanvak A possibility to continue the game after the official end is interesting and should be added. The bottomline is that the game don't go far without extension (Patif). Yes, this is an optional rules in MWIF. I haven't coded it yet because, unlike other optional rules, this is something the players are likely to want to change during the game. I am going to take a look at other optional rules to see if changing them "on the fly" might be a reasonable thing to enable (the coding would have to be simple though - I don't want to be adding all the light cruisers in the middle of a game). Suggestions for which optional rules to make dynamic? I am definitely glad to hear this. If you truly do this...despite my anxiety over these impulses....I will get the game. Also, will the major powers have the ability to switch sides in the conflict or make peace? I would really like to see that. In the board game, they can make peace if both (or all those involved) powers agree under any terms that don't directly violate the rules. This is almost impossible to code in a computer game. There is a special rule for peace between Russia and Japan (if they have a war) that is specific enough to be coded. quote: ORIGINAL: Simulation01 Also, how far does the research and weapons go? Will we be able to use nukes in any way? That is a request if it is not in the game.(I don't see how it couldn't be in the game) Research is represented abstractly by the ability to build units ahead of their year of arrival, providing all of that type are already built. Of course they cost more to build in that case. Edit: Only the U.S. can build A-bombs and can deliver one (only) in each of the last three turns of the game. quote: ORIGINAL: Simulation01 I know you said that invading the USA would not be possible, but I was wondering if you meant that was literally a restriction built into the game code or is it simply unrealistic because of because of the magnitude of the feat? It is possible given the right conditions, by any of the Axis. quote: ORIGINAL: Simulation01 Will you add and Alternate History scenarios? I'm requesting them if you don't have any? Thank you, Shannon for replying and trying to dispel my bewilderment. Alternate history scenarios are not the focus for MWiF version 1. What happens after that is dependent on a great many factors.

Anendrue -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (6/9/2010 3:36:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Simulation01 I am definitely glad to hear this. If you truly do this...despite my anxiety over these impulses....I will get the game. Also, will the major powers have the ability to switch sides in the conflict or make peace? I would really like to see that. Also, how far does the research and weapons go? Will we be able to use nukes in any way? That is a request if it is not in the game.(I don't see how it couldn't be in the game) I know you said that invading the USA would not be possible, but I was wondering if you meant that was literally a restriction built into the game code or is it simply unrealistic because of because of the magnitude of the feat? Will you add and Alternate History scenarios? I'm requesting them if you don't have any? Thank you, Shannon for replying and trying to dispel my bewilderment. Playing solitaire you can play both sides. Same for Hotseat. I am unsure if you can swith against the AI. The other two modes (Internet and PBEM) are vs. live players. V-Weapons and atomic bombs are part of optional rule 23 from PiF (Planes in Flames) Research in WiF is not like HoI. This game has variations in the thousands of units that exist. Building new units and scrapping old units represents a part of research and unit upgrades. So these differnces in unit capabilities combined with drawing from a blind force pool covers the success and failure aspect of research. So even if you are building and creating new units it must be balanced with a solid production plan. However, if Germany wants a navy the counters do exist. It is somewhat unrealistic to invade the US but it can be done. However you would probably need to subdue France, England, and keep the USSR at bay or conquer them too. I believe the scenario choices were fixed a long time ago. I strongly suggest you download the free Rules as Written (RaW) from ADG's website and see what the game is about. In my own opinion it is a strategic and tactical simulation of the second World War forcing players to deal with the availability and capability to produce combat units to conduct warfare. Since not every location in the world can be ideally covered, the game may branch into unexpected directions. Therefore deviating from history. Russia invading Persia, Japan sending units to the Med, and so forth. It is not your typical free wheeling game for an afternoon. Instead it is an extremely massive chess game of thousands of pieces and locations. quote: ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur I don´t have a group to play with ...so I play alot of sandbox ... Spain is a good place to fight .... I play with 20 random units from 2 random major powers. with free scrapping .... Well depending on how moddable WiF ends up being recreating the Spanish Civil War could be very interesting indeed.

paulderynck -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (6/9/2010 3:38:39 AM)
About alternate histories - having said the above, I 've found every game of WiF I've ever played has been "an alternate history".

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (6/9/2010 3:48:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: paulderynck quote: ORIGINAL: Simulation01 quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: Skanvak A possibility to continue the game after the official end is interesting and should be added. The bottomline is that the game don't go far without extension (Patif). Yes, this is an optional rules in MWIF. I haven't coded it yet because, unlike other optional rules, this is something the players are likely to want to change during the game. I am going to take a look at other optional rules to see if changing them "on the fly" might be a reasonable thing to enable (the coding would have to be simple though - I don't want to be adding all the light cruisers in the middle of a game). Suggestions for which optional rules to make dynamic? I am definitely glad to hear this. If you truly do this...despite my anxiety over these impulses....I will get the game. Also, will the major powers have the ability to switch sides in the conflict or make peace? I would really like to see that. In the board game, they can make peace if both (or all those involved) powers agree under any terms that don't directly violate the rules. This is almost impossible to code in a computer game. There is a special rule for peace between Russia and Japan (if they have a war) that is specific enough to be coded. quote: ORIGINAL: Simulation01 Also, how far does the research and weapons go? Will we be able to use nukes in any way? That is a request if it is not in the game.(I don't see how it couldn't be in the game) Research is represented abstractly by the ability to build units ahead of their year of arrival, providing all of that type are already built. Of course they cost more to build in that case. Edit: Only the U.S. can build A-bombs and can deliver one (only) in each of the last three turns of the game. quote: ORIGINAL: Simulation01 I know you said that invading the USA would not be possible, but I was wondering if you meant that was literally a restriction built into the game code or is it simply unrealistic because of because of the magnitude of the feat? It is possible given the right conditions, by any of the Axis. quote: ORIGINAL: Simulation01 Will you add and Alternate History scenarios? I'm requesting them if you don't have any? Thank you, Shannon for replying and trying to dispel my bewilderment. Alternate history scenarios are not the focus for MWiF version 1. What happens after that is dependent on a great many factors. Simulation01: Paul's answers are good enough for me. And Andy's (abj9562) augment them somewhat. I'm busy coding and debugging, so I'll let their answers serve as stand-ins for mine.[:)]

Orm -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (6/9/2010 4:57:32 AM)
Invading USA is not that unrealistic with a very succesfull Axis. For example. A successful unexpected invasion on United Kingdom during 1940 and conquering both United Kingdom and France during 1940. Then a combined attack by all 3 axis in USSR in 1941 pushing the Soviet Union into the Urals and eventually conquering USSR in 1943. Meanwhile USA is desperate to help the USSR and loses alot of his fleet against land based axis air force. During 1940-1943 axis launches successful attacks on the mediteranian and eventually on India as well. Not all of this would be needed to invade USA. But for a successful invasion, getting more than a few hexes, it is probaly not far from what is needed. Most of these games would have been surrendered far before the invasion. I also belive that the skill of the Axis players would need to be superior of the Allied players for this to happen. Edit: The Axis would also need to be lucky. [:D]

Joseignacio -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (6/9/2010 9:59:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: micheljq quote: ORIGINAL: Skanvak A possibility to continue the game after the official end is interesting and should be added. The bottomline is that the game don't go far without extension (Patif). Most players have more than enough with just the basic version of WiF without the options, especially when not very experimented. Then just adding the various options, is just enough already for most of them. [:)] I find that WiF is not Axis & Allies on steroids, it's even beyond that. My eyes almost came out of their sockets when I read that, but I didn't want to be a fanboy or sound like that. I have played both and the difference between WiF and A&A is bigger than between chess and "snake and ladders". I wonder what steroids mean in this case, but I think WiF is way much more... [sm=fighting0056.gif][:D][sm=00000289.gif]

Patience -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (6/19/2010 4:53:44 PM)
Steve, Just a question, not sure if this has been talked about before. In the game do you have the options through buttons or whatever to narrow the view of military pieces by type. so if i want to just see where all fighter aircraft are i can press a button or make a selection and only the location of fighter aircraft of all nationalities are displayed on the map.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (6/19/2010 10:43:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Patience Steve, Just a question, not sure if this has been talked about before. In the game do you have the options through buttons or whatever to narrow the view of military pieces by type. so if i want to just see where all fighter aircraft are i can press a button or make a selection and only the location of fighter aircraft of all nationalities are displayed on the map. Nope, not available. You can use the Units form to filter by dozen of factors: nationality, unit type, location (e.g., on map), year built, etc. That form has an insert map that will center on any unit you click on. The main detailed map can be linked to center onthe unit too. So, if you bring up the Units form, you can see a shortened list of just your fighters that are on the map, and then click on each one of them in turn to have the map(s) center on them. Not exactly what you are looking for, but a close proximity.

38special -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (7/22/2011 8:46:03 PM)
Personally, I see many German options in WIF. Attacking France Early, especially with optional setup rebuilds allow France 39 option. UK invasion by summer of 40 and maybe the Germans can invade Iceland as a precursor to USA invasion by then as well. I will have to try that in my next game.

brian brian -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (7/22/2011 9:42:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: paulderynck About alternate histories - having said the above, I 've found every game of WiF I've ever played has been "an alternate history". this is what makes the game so engrossing. every game is like reading a detailed alternate history of WWII. and it's a page-turner you just can't put down. All that in standard vanilla World in Flames.

Patton_71 -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (7/22/2011 10:10:28 PM)
My personal favorite is a plan Z scenario where the German navy has been built up to the level Raeder was promised by 1944. Granted all other powers would have been on a faster building clip than historically, but I always wondered what a WWII version of Jutland would be like.

oscar72se -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (7/23/2011 7:34:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 38special Personally, I see many German options in WIF. Attacking France Early, especially with optional setup rebuilds allow France 39 option. UK invasion by summer of 40 and maybe the Germans can invade Iceland as a precursor to USA invasion by then as well. I will have to try that in my next game. When attacking France early, I setup my RES off the Belgian border together with Rundstedt and a "reasonable" force. IF the weather is fine I reorganize the RES and attack Belgium, I always ignore Holland this early on since the US Entry chits in the '39 pool really can punish you (do this later). I gave up on Operation Seelöwe for two reasons: 1. It's really, really hard to land. If the royal navy finds your task force it's game over. 2. Even if you land some units, maintaining supply is nearly impossible. But hey, it's fun! [8D] Regards, Oscar

Empire101 -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (6/4/2012 11:20:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brian brian quote: ORIGINAL: paulderynck About alternate histories - having said the above, I 've found every game of WiF I've ever played has been "an alternate history". this is what makes the game so engrossing. every game is like reading a detailed alternate history of WWII. and it's a page-turner you just can't put down. All that in standard vanilla World in Flames. I could not agree more sir!![:)]

bosbes -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (9/10/2013 7:10:36 PM)
I am disappointed that no AI is included in the initial release. Hopefully later?[&:]

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (9/10/2013 8:55:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hoe ist? I am disappointed that no AI is included in the initial release. Hopefully later?[&:] What do you think I'll be doing in 2014?[;)]

bosbes -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (9/11/2013 6:48:13 PM)
That's positive news. What's the timeframe on the development of the AI?

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (9/11/2013 8:26:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hoe ist? That's positive news. What's the timeframe on the development of the AI? Now, now, as anyone who has followed this forum will be quick to tell you, having me provide a time estimate is like asking a two year old to explain the theory of relativity.[;)]

bosbes -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (9/12/2013 7:54:18 PM)
Well, try to explain the theory of relativity then...[;)]

composer99 -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (9/12/2013 8:09:06 PM)
"Well, it's like this, when a supermassive star and a nearby planet love each other very much..."

bosbes -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (9/13/2013 7:19:22 PM)
Wow!![X(]

warspite1 -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (9/13/2013 8:23:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: composer99 "Well, it's like this, when a supermassive star and a nearby planet love each other very much..." warspite1 Do they do a special cuddle?

bk19@mweb.co.za -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (10/2/2013 7:48:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: composer99 "Well, it's like this, when a supermassive star and a nearby planet love each other very much..." I am not that certain that what 'The Big Bang' is all about.. Steve Hawkins may be able to clarify this though.

bo -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (10/2/2013 10:26:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: hoe ist? That's positive news. What's the timeframe on the development of the AI? Now, now, as anyone who has followed this forum will be quick to tell you, having me provide a time estimate is like asking a two year old to explain the theory of relativity.[;)] Yes, please dont give a time estimate or I will give everyone your post # in Nov 2009 about estimates [:D] On second thougt it is better left unsaid. Bo

Greyshaft -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (10/2/2013 11:34:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Patton_71 My personal favorite is a plan Z scenario where the German navy has been built up to the level Raeder was promised by 1944. Granted all other powers would have been on a faster building clip than historically, but I always wondered what a WWII version of Jutland would be like. If I had my druthers on alternate histories I'd like to see a MwiF 39-45 campaign with no air units or (obviously) carriers. All those build points would be available for reincarnation as battleships or artillery etc in the initial setup and perhaps allow Japanese saboteurs a free mission against Pearl Harbor to balance the Pacific War. Of course it wouldn't be realistic but I'd be curious to see how it all played out. Would it be a replay of WW1?

Page: << < prev 21 22 [23] 24 25 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1