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

AlbertN -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (6/10/2014 11:19:24 PM)

I'd try to put some DoD stuff into it - even if limited.

To expand trades or buying resources without DoWing could be a possibility in my eyes.

I think anyhow the most important things are already on a "To do" list.
AI - I'd keep it for Barbarossa and Guadalcanal. Easier to do - and useful to train up against. But I cannot fathom an AI on the whole map world campaign working at any given rate - by working I mean to tactically be functional and challenging.
Multiplayer - That is the must. This is a tabletop game brought on PC platform. Besides the economical gain to buy it in this form, and the space requirements gain (as per you won't need a whole room dedicated to it)- what you want is to play it against human opponents (Even if an AI was present, it will be far from being of any satisfaction.). Now probably if I can meet face to face with someone, I'd play something quicker, that does not require me to setup many tables and eventually keep the game to take dust for weeks between few sessions.
PBEM is not so functional imo - due to the many interactive decisions required, therefore NetPlay functionality comes out to be a main priority.



Halbart -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (6/11/2014 7:48:13 PM)

A nice feature would be a tag on naval units, to write in a fleet name. This should be added to the filters in the Naval window.
This would make the organization of fleets and their duty easier and replaces the lot of small fleet stacks in the board game next to Plymouth :)

Hal



paulderynck -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (6/11/2014 11:02:26 PM)

Good suggestion!



Centuur -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (6/12/2014 6:14:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Good suggestion!


+1



Platon -> RE: Uncertainty (6/15/2014 8:04:23 AM)

It is my belief that there has to be CAP for the phasing player during Ground Support.



Centuur -> RE: Uncertainty (6/15/2014 10:40:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Platon

It is my belief that there has to be CAP for the phasing player during Ground Support.


Well, that seems to be a bug...



Platon -> RE: Uncertainty (6/15/2014 11:06:37 AM)

I am not quite sure about that. According to RAC, yes. According to Player Manual, no.

with kind regards



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Uncertainty (6/16/2014 2:40:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur


quote:

ORIGINAL: Platon

It is my belief that there has to be CAP for the phasing player during Ground Support.


Well, that seems to be a bug...

I'll investigate this. At one time I convinced myself that CAP wasn't necessary for one side during Ground Support. But right now I don't agree with that assessment [sometimes my younger self was more clever than I am today, sometimes he was dumber[;)]].



Edfactor -> RE: Uncertainty (6/22/2014 6:23:28 AM)

Pretty much anytime as the phasing player you are flying air missions the enemy is supposed to fly CAP missions first.

It's pretty rare that cap missions are flown, most fighters are using their intercept range instead. However rare things do happen just not often.

As the phasing player you fly escort missions with your bombers, and also CAP at the same time. You could effectively call that flying an escort mission to a hex without having any bombers.



Auchinleck -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (6/27/2014 1:52:29 AM)

Besides an AI, I would like to see a simulated number of casualties list to keep track of losses during the war for each side, like in Guns Of August. That's one of the most interesting aspects in Guns Of August. It reminds you you're not just seeing a chit disappear, a board piece. Give that board piece some significance, by reminding us those are men that are being destroyed, not just a little square icon. So if you lose a corps, it shows you lost between 20,000-45,000 men. If you lose a Division 10,000-15,000 men etc. Remind the player the real cost of war, to remind us that war, especially a World War, is not a game, but an appalling amount of men's lives being wiped out for a cause their leaders believe in. Right or Wrong.



Viktor_Kormel_slith -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (6/30/2014 6:24:53 PM)

I agree with you Auchinleck.At least, it would be good if the program will show a list of total units lost by class and this it would be easy to code, I think[;)]



billcorr -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (10/2/2015 8:29:29 PM)

Suggestion: Make oh-so-easy for a newbie to load and offload land units from a naval transport. Thanks! For example, right click on the land unit that pops up a menu selection to include "Load onto transport" or "load off of transport." Or click and drag.



juntoalmar -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (10/3/2015 1:18:25 AM)

Have you tried from the Naval Review Details form? It's pretty easy from there. Click on the land unit, then on the transport.

If loading into a transport at sea, when you move the transport to a sea area, there is a "Load from coastal hex" button. Click it and you will be able to choose the land unit to load into the transport.

Both ways are pretty simple. If you have problems with interface, I suggest to check the tutorial videos. They are very helpful.



billcorr -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (11/25/2015 4:35:39 PM)

No response necessary. This comment pertains to World in Flames version current as of 20 Oct 2015.

Suggestion: when entering players names in a head-to-head game, make it easy to figure out where to type in the names of the gamers. When I played with a friend, he was a bit confused of how to enter his name into the system. Also, make it very obvious which name is associated with which faction/country.

Thanks to everyone who is making this game better.



billcorr -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (11/25/2015 4:38:02 PM)

No response necessary. This comment pertains to World in Flames version current as of 20 Oct 2015.

Suggestion: Auto back-up the game to last pulse (during the scrapping unit phase of the set up, my friend did not scrap Naval or Land units...had to restart the game so that he could go back and scrap the Naval and Land units).

Thanks to everyone who is making this game better.



billcorr -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (11/25/2015 4:43:34 PM)

No response necessary. This comment pertains to World in Flames version current as of 20 Oct 2015.

Suggestion: During the scrapping units segment at the start of a game, directo player to Land/Navy units that need scrapping as well...in addition to the default air unit scrapping list. For newbies, there's an element of "Fooled you!" when it finally becomes apparent that there are other units (navy and ground) to scrap in addition to the air units.

Also (perhaps the juice is not worth the squeeze), during the scrapping process, highlight a recommended scrap list.

Also, for a newbie, it is a bit confusing during the scrapping process why some models of units disappear when one type of aircraft is selected. The other models go away.

Thanks to everyone who is making this game better.



billcorr -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (11/25/2015 4:54:12 PM)

No response necessary. This comment pertains to World in Flames version current as of 20 Oct 2015.

Suggestion: When setting up units and there is a mandatory placement of units, have the computer automatically place the unit and inform the player (e.g. militia in Moscow -- BENEFIT = it minimizes the number of mouseclicks). Also, have the program direct the player to place mandatory units at the beginning of the set up session. There is an element of "Gotcha!" upon setting up all your forces and at the end, a notification says something like, "Invalid set up, you must place 10 corps level units along the Romanian border." But the player just spent 30 minutes setting up their units elsewhere and now has to adjust the forces. Takes another 30 minutes. Perhaps just autopopulate the Romanian border with 10 corps level units at the start and let the player adjust as needed. Add a mouseover information tag on these units which states, "Adjust as needed, you must place 10 corps level units along the Romanian border."

Thanks to everyone who is making this game better



billcorr -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (11/25/2015 5:08:11 PM)

No response necessary. This comment pertains to World in Flames version current as of 20 Oct 2015.

Suggestion: After the dice are rolled during combat (specifically, Ground Strike Attack), highlight the results. Currently, the font of the results is lost in all the other information. Use big bold font to display the combat results.

Thanks to everyone who is making this game better



billcorr -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (12/3/2015 6:02:56 PM)

No response necessary.

Suggestion: make the map and unit icons high definition (HD) friendly (and ultra HD too while we're at it). In October, I put in 40+ hours into WiF and leased a 55 inch 4k HD TV to see if it would make a difference. It did not. The icons and symbols were a bit grainy and not defined.

This might have already been addressed.

Thanks to everyone who is making this game better.



AlbertN -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (12/5/2015 9:02:10 PM)

After enough gaming - I'd like two extra things.

A- In the "Destroyed" pool, the count of Pilots lost, Convoy Points lost, Strategic damage inflicted, ships moving from the map to the Repair pool.

B- An excel alike record of units coming in - and lost turn by turn. A tracker of reinforcements and casualties pratically.



jardail -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (3/26/2016 6:58:02 AM)

A proper AI that you can use to play the game without having to play both sides.



Mayhemizer_slith -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (3/26/2016 12:19:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cohen

After enough gaming - I'd like two extra things.

A- In the "Destroyed" pool, the count of Pilots lost, Convoy Points lost, Strategic damage inflicted, ships moving from the map to the Repair pool.

B- An excel alike record of units coming in - and lost turn by turn. A tracker of reinforcements and casualties pratically.


+1



warspite1 -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (3/26/2016 12:38:41 PM)

I know this comment will be unpopular but....

The clue is in the title. PC Game and World In Flames.

The next big project in my opinion is the convoy system. The game does what it sets out to do so incredibly well in most areas by taking out the time consuming, manual calculations and the need for cross referral to the rules on things like supply and movement etc, that face the board game player. BUT the convoy system as it is at the moment is actually harder to understand and more frustrating to operate than the board game ever was - I think the rules are pretty straightforward.

Someone made the blindingly obvious point the other day (so obvious I never even thought about it [:D]) that an AI will be impossible to code if the convoy system isn't attended to - as at present the computer cannot generate the most efficient routes (and in some cases cannot do so without huge manual intervention - which not everyone (myself amongst them) has the brain capacity and/or patience to cope with).

Looked at from a new player's perspective, I think it is a game killer in terms of keeping peoples interest when faced with such a complicated structure.



juntoalmar -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (3/26/2016 12:48:08 PM)

Would it be possible to set convoy routes manually? Something like:

- Click resource
- Click port
- Click sea area
- Click sea area
...
- Click sea area
- Click port
- Click factory

(approximately, maybe ports aren't needed)




warspite1 -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (3/26/2016 1:37:49 PM)

I am not sure whether that is the answer as an auto version will need to be made for the AI in any case. Not suggesting there are easy answers, but AM suggesting this is an issue that needs looking at as it is an area where newcomers to the game can be turned off from continuing.



paulderynck -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (3/26/2016 6:09:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: juntoalmar

Would it be possible to set convoy routes manually? Something like:

- Click resource
- Click port
- Click sea area
- Click sea area
...
- Click sea area
- Click port
- Click factory

(approximately, maybe ports aren't needed)




You can do this now by using the Route function in Production planning.



juntoalmar -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (3/27/2016 12:07:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
You can do this now by using the Route function in Production planning.


Thanks! I never tried that (but I will).

What happens when a convoy is sunk? Does the computer recalculates all the routes by itself (meaning you have to redo all your work)?


Another question pops up in my mind. I thought that production bugs came from the computer failing to set routes. If you can set the routes manually. What are the bugs? The manual set routes don't work?



paulderynck -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (3/27/2016 1:21:55 AM)

Manually setting routes means they will be defaults or overrides (overrides are one-time directives). If CPs are sunk the program should only deliver what can be delivered, but will preempt any manual plan in order to deliver promised lent resources or BPs if at all possible.

The process to set the convoy routes is cumbersome. That's the main reason it is not done a lot, and the program is so insistent on certain routing that you may very well have to route every single resource that goes overseas before you end up with what you want. And then for the CW a bad turn for CP losses to sub warfare might mean you have to do a lot of manual overriding just for that one turn.

So - it is do-able but it can be tedious for the CW especially.



rkr1958 -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (3/27/2016 2:13:29 AM)

Let me give an example of what MWiF wants to do that the only way to get around it is to manually set the routes yourself. I wanted to route two CW oil points that were currently being saved in Canada to England and save them there. I had two spare CPs in each of the East Coast, North Atlantic and Bay of Biscay. Should be no problem right?

So, for the first oil point I changed it's save location from somewhere in Canada to somewhere in England. The result was that the oil point was now saved in England as I wanted. However, I noticed that an oil point from Venezuela that I was also saving in Canada now went idle. What?! When I looked at the route the was used for the first oil point that I changed, it was being railed through the USA to be routed starting in the Caribbean - East Coast - North Atlantic - Bay of Biscay. That was madness! Why did it start it's sea route in the Caribbean instead of the East Coast. So I had to go and manually set the route to start in the East Coast and then to North Atlantic an then to Bay of Biscay. Once I did this the Venezuela oil point that had went idle was now, correctly being saved in Canada.

Now, when I changed the saved location of a second oil point being saved in Canada to England guess what? The same thing happened again. And I had to manually route this second oil point as I did the first to ensure that the Venezuela oil point was not idle and was being saved as intended.

I must admit that it's taken me some effort to learn how to do all this. It isn't nearly as intuitive as it should be, but if you take the time to learn how to do it then it pays big benefits. I'm at a point now where I can get things routed and setup the way I want them about 99% of the time. The other 1% of the time I just live with it.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (3/27/2016 6:56:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

Let me give an example of what MWiF wants to do that the only way to get around it is to manually set the routes yourself. I wanted to route two CW oil points that were currently being saved in Canada to England and save them there. I had two spare CPs in each of the East Coast, North Atlantic and Bay of Biscay. Should be no problem right?

So, for the first oil point I changed it's save location from somewhere in Canada to somewhere in England. The result was that the oil point was now saved in England as I wanted. However, I noticed that an oil point from Venezuela that I was also saving in Canada now went idle. What?! When I looked at the route the was used for the first oil point that I changed, it was being railed through the USA to be routed starting in the Caribbean - East Coast - North Atlantic - Bay of Biscay. That was madness! Why did it start it's sea route in the Caribbean instead of the East Coast. So I had to go and manually set the route to start in the East Coast and then to North Atlantic an then to Bay of Biscay. Once I did this the Venezuela oil point that had went idle was now, correctly being saved in Canada.

Now, when I changed the saved location of a second oil point being saved in Canada to England guess what? The same thing happened again. And I had to manually route this second oil point as I did the first to ensure that the Venezuela oil point was not idle and was being saved as intended.

I must admit that it's taken me some effort to learn how to do all this. It isn't nearly as intuitive as it should be, but if you take the time to learn how to do it then it pays big benefits. I'm at a point now where I can get things routed and setup the way I want them about 99% of the time. The other 1% of the time I just live with it.

The computer does not 'see' the map. As far as the computer is concerned, what connects to what (be that hexes or sea areas) is completely arbitrary. For example, early in the development of the map, data for some hexes in the Caucasus were coded as being adjacent to the Bay of Biscay). The program code had no trouble with that. You could unload land units from the Bay of Biscay directly into the Caucasus.

My point is that though a human looking at the map 'knows' that Canadian resources going to the United Kingdom can go more directly through the East Coast rather than through the Caribbean. But the program only determines routes by trying all possibilities. When it fines one that works, it stops looking.

As for coding the AIO, I will write code to be more thorough for optimizing routes. Note that the determination of 'optimal' is in the eye of the beholder. The risk of convoys being sunk is something the AIO will worry about. But that is not part of the current code for setting 'computed' routes for the player. How brilliant should the 'computed' route be? I drew a line for how much 'help' the program would provide to the player when Computing routes. Note that some experienced players complain bitterly about the program's initial pass on Computed overseas routes not being what for them is 'optimal'.

On the other hand, no one has ever complained about the overland routes the computer finds and uses. Indeed, as far as I know there has never been any mention in the forums about the overland routes - and there is a lot of code executing to find and implement the overland routes. That that code works correctly is taken for granted.



Page: <<   < prev  24 25 26 [27] 28   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.671875