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

stewart_king -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (6/4/2004 11:12:59 PM)
Just so things don't get too dull...I think the corps/single capital ship/air division scale is just fine. I too would like there to be more possibilities in the political realm. I have played DoD III twice now and found it really adds to the experience of playing the larger game. Especially if you play with countries having the ability to change factions [sm=00000643.gif]. China won the last game we played by switching to fascist and declaring war on the USSR. Using the supply unit rule (and some loaned supply units from their cooperating ally, Japan), the Mao headquarters (don't ask me how he became a fascist but deleted units return to the force pool after a while when you change sides -- maybe it's his evil twin) and a bunch of pretty good units schlepped across the border from Urumchi into Kazakstan and conquered most of Siberia. The Russians were holding on to eastern Siberia, but lost Vladivostok to repeated attacks from Stilwell (easier to believe him as a fascist...) with air support from US lend-lease planes the Chinese got while they were still Democrats. Since the Russian oil was located west of the point where the Chinese cut the trans-Siberian rail line, the USSR air units in the far east couldn't re-organize. Talk about the worm turning...this is a (admittedly far-fetched) example of the alternative histories you can get with a political add-on. Beats the heck out of deciding if you're going to launch Barbarossa in 1941 or 1942. Stewart

Mziln -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (6/5/2004 12:26:14 AM)
So basically you’re saying... The great and wise Chairman Mao sensing the deep ideological differences between Maoism and Stalinism. Chose to temporarily forge a bond of friendship and cooperation with the Axis powers. In order to promote World Communism as defined by Karl Marks and Friedrich Engles, as interpreted by Chairman Mao. This freed the oppressed downtrodden eastern masses of the Soviet Socialist Republics from the oppressive yoke of Stalinism. And reclaimed the rich eastern resources of the people that were being squandered by the counter revolutionary Stalinist clique. While the Peoples Republic of China only received minimal assistance from the Imperialist lackys of the west. In the form of supplies of "Radio tubes". The Western Powers still angered by the repulsion of their invasion of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in World War I provided some minor support units. [:D]

stewart_king -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (6/12/2004 1:00:27 AM)
One problem with DoD III is that the US and China are played by the same player. This guy was _not_ into "winning" the game so much as having fun [:D] So he lendleased all the planes he could to China, and they were flying B-24's, P-47's, A-20's, etc. He also sent them oil galore. Then, China switched sides (and he _did_ give control of them to the German player, me), beat the commies in the civil war (thanks to all that air support) and turned on the USSR. The Japs had made a peace treaty with the USSR but this didn't preclude them from letting Chinese units transit Manchuria (with a level III alliance) and loaning supply units. The CW was tearing his hair because of course the really important result of this was that Japan had all its resources free for a Pacific war instead of fighting a stalemate in China. As a result, Japan conquered India and New Guinea and was threatening Australia. The American fleet was strong but Japanese defences held on through 1945 in the Central Pacific (at which point the western democracies conceded to the Axis). The Japanese player had lots more objectives than China, but they had also bid high for Japan. China had the most points after bids were deducted. Stewart

Windfire -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (6/18/2004 5:20:54 AM)
A good AI, not one that has to artificially build more or modify its rolls to be competative Interface that is easy to use Ability to PBEM

paladin4me -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (6/24/2004 5:46:45 PM)
I have played WiF since the first edition (still have some of the original issues). I have played CWiF once the original alphas/betas became available. I want the issued CWiF to be as per the desktop game. The options currently available are all there to be selected or not as the case may be. DOD III inclusion would be great but nbot essential - DOD can have a very large impact on WiF - some good, some bad - overall I liked it. As for playability, PC hosting over LAN and/or WWW would be absolutely great. Play anyone from anywhere. PBEM is a bit of a misnomer, I know some guys who use the original beta, the phasing player generally makes the decisions for all sides. PBEM has the potential to cause angst this way, but to perform a phase, write it up and send to the next in line and so on and so on would potentially take weeks just to do one sides turn. AI - who cares, the game is meant to be played by two or more people; besides people have more variability and bleeding cunning moves. There also needs to be a "chat" feature so that players of same side can converse plans, etc - and to also chat with the opposition. The chat feature would need to be closed (secret talks) or open (sent to all). Just my 2 bobs worth.

BurntFingers -> RE: Uncertainty (6/28/2004 6:38:44 PM)
Here's my idea of the best computer version of WIF;- 1) The game mechanics to be true to the ADG board game. It's been tested over many years - it works. No sense in trying to do a new version that may or may not work. 2) The interface to be as user friendly and click free as possible. Board WIF relies on 1,000s of cardboard counters being moved - that needs to replaced with something a lot less cumbersome. 3) The avatars for the AI players need to be developed along the lines of Sid Meir's Civilisation avatars - each with their own distinctive personality. 4) Not putting AI in there is a non-starter. The reviewers will rubbish it, they are the gateway through which a game takes off or not. I'm sure Matrix games have suffered from this before. 5) There is no 5.

Arnir -> RE: Uncertainty (6/29/2004 6:58:49 AM)
I would like the game to be as close to the boardgame as possible (with an AI, of course). Somethings may have to be changed for the computer, but I agree with the poster who said that if one doesn't want to make WiF then don't buy the name. Go make WWII the MegaCool version or whatever. I would also like to see a comprehensive editor to allow the player to create his/her own scenarios or situations. (Like if B. Mitchell would have had his way in the US, etc.) From reading the WitP boards, it looks like the editor in that game will be used quite heavily. The more historical detail the better. Having my 8-4 take Paris is not the same as having a named unit do it. I loved that the CW was more than just the British. I like production so that players can choose their own strategies, not just those dictated by the OOB. On the flip side, a player should be able to play out a historical version of the game. Allow smaller scale units (divisions). Nothing I hate worse than not being able to do XYZ simply because I have to use a whole corps. Make lots of things optional. For those who grow red with fury at the thought of someone invading Normany 3 days early, they can feel that the rest of the world uses their dictated options. The rest of us won't tell them what we are really doing. [:D] (Make corps only an option, for example) One of the reasons I look forward to this game is that I really really really want a global scale WWII era game that lets me set global strategies. Let me decide if that squadron (or whatever) should go west or east.

Mziln -> RE: Uncertainty (6/29/2004 5:57:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arnir The more historical detail the better. Having my 8-4 take Paris is not the same as having a named unit do it. (1) Allow smaller scale units (divisions). Nothing I hate worse than not being able to do XYZ simply because I have to use a whole corps. (2) Make lots of things optional. (3) One of the reasons I look forward to this game is that I really really really want a global scale WWII era game that lets me set global strategies. (1) Building Divisions was an opion in the beta version (see: Additional Units). Especialy Marines and paratroopers. (2) Opions in the beta version there were options for: Additional Units, Land Rules, Air Rules, Naval Rules, Supply Rules, Production Rules, and Other Rules. (3) "One of the reasons I look forward to this game is that I really really really want a global scale WWII era game that lets me set global strategies. " This is exactly my feelings on WiF [:D] [&:] (Q) I was wondering would it be possable to combine the Weather Display Option with the Movement Map? i.e. instead of a "rain drop" icon or a "NT" the hex could be Shaded Gray to denote storms etc (this would work well on land hexes and sea zones). I realizes this may not be practical with the many diferent weather conditions.

paladin4me -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (7/1/2004 1:43:46 PM)
A thought on how to "automate" some of the opposing player moves during an impulse. Most of these interactions are aircraft related - CAP, Intercept, Escort, ground support. THe other interaction is (if the option is selected) shore bombardment to support units being attacked. Each player in their impulse "tags" fighters, bombers, NAVs, ships, etc as being usable during the opposing sides impulse - sort of like on 5 minute take off alert for example. While I cannot speak for other players of the boardgame, not one person in our little group of WiF gamers uses CAP; basically as it is too wasteful of an aircraft capability. The removal of CAP from CWiF means that the tagged stuff can then automatically be used if required. The tagging may also need to state how many can be used per hex. Eg a number of fighters and tactical aircraft are tagged and rules established/stated that only one ftr is used per interception attempt and (say) up to 2 ftrs and 3 tactical can be used for ground support missions. This scheme has the potential to free up the PBEM workings of the game - it would not be required for LAN/WAN or solo games though as the player(s) are all hotseat.

meyerg -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (8/11/2004 2:33:01 AM)
i disagree. i do not like a prohibition against using good strategy (like concentration of force) to make PBEM easier. i do agree PBEM is essential, and some compromises have to be made, but this is too much (limiting airpower).

meyerg -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (8/13/2004 12:31:46 AM)
Lets talk Fog of War. As long as we are starting with a blank sheet of paper, can we have a Fog of War? It would be even neat to have units produced be untried units until combat (a la Panzergruppe Guderian) when they would flip over to their tried strength. A good example of Fog of War is the Aide de Camp version of War in Europe. You can find out where enemy units are in theatre, but the exact disposition of the troops "out of sight" is unknown.

MButtazoni -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (8/13/2004 2:13:17 AM)
quote: As long as we are starting with a blank sheet of paper who said that?

meyerg -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (8/13/2004 4:23:46 AM)
i guess i assumed any game that hasn't really been started is "starting with a blank piece of paper". no has even said if Chris' legacy code is being used as a starting place. i guess i worry a faithful adaption of the deluxe boardgame will neglect many opportunities to improve on the original and take too long to develop (and neglect PBEM too). i worry we can't follow the same path as Empire in Arms (complete, faithful boardgame adaption) and have many compromises to make. If major changes are necessary, shouldn't we look at things from the ground up?

coregames -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (8/13/2004 11:17:50 PM)
I have played the Marrinaci computer beta as well as several campaign scenarios of various versions of WiF; I thought the beta take on CWiF was pretty good, but I didn't like the unified scale of the whole map for the purposes of this game. WiF has variable scale, and this is for a reason. The European maps emphasize a war of land maneuvering, whereas the Asian maps emphasize a war of naval maneuvering. India, Vladivostok, and even China when it comes down to it, are strategic sidelines for the Japanese, and do not require European scale. Moreover, the counter mix of WiF has so much playtesting behind it so that it works with the variable scales provided. China and Japan would need changes to the counter mix to reflect the European scale, and substantial additional playtesting would be required. I believe that what the Matrix version should provide is a very faithful computer version of WiFFE. Users should be allowed to play with only the basic maps, or use anything up to America in Flames for additional maps. Similarly, counter mixes to be used should mirror the expansions and options chosen, to effectively simulate the board-gaming experience and increase the customizability. A VERY hot feature that the beta lacked would be a pivot view option, so you could see the board from an angle (really enhance the boardgame feel). DoD3 could either be included, or (for marketing purposes) be released as part of a scenario editor expansion (and I would buy it).

coregames -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (8/13/2004 11:31:28 PM)
As far as A.I., I realize that the game will need this feature to please critics and have as wide and appeal as possible. The game is so complex that the task of programming a strong opponent seems unattainable, but a respectable A.I. is not unthinkable if you model certain subroutines and build strategies on the behavior of strong WiF players. This might not help against unorthodox players, but in standard strategic directions (e.g., Barbarossa, Sea-Lion, Southern Strategy), the computer could be effective. One thing is for sure, Matrix has its hands full here.

Tharkun -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (8/18/2004 7:46:01 PM)
Hm...I've never played the game World In Flames but I think that if it correctly handled the rules and did a lot of the things most people don't want to do in such a game then it should be a good game to play. I think you should put out a demo with screenshots and include multiplayer into the game so each major power can be played by a human opponent.

Mziln -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (8/19/2004 10:59:52 PM)
In CWiF has anyone tried: Rule 9.5 - Neutrality pacts. 13.7.3 - Mutual peace - especialy Option 50 (USSR-Japan compulsory peace). [&:]

Froonp -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (9/3/2004 10:38:02 AM)
If I remember correctly, 9.5 was no completely implemented, and 13.7.3 was not at all. Patrice

meyerg -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (9/4/2004 7:09:12 PM)
quote: I didn't like the unified scale of the whole map for the purposes of this game. WiF has variable scale, and this is for a reason. The European maps emphasize a war of land maneuvering, whereas the Asian maps emphasize a war of naval maneuvering. India, Vladivostok, and even China when it comes down to it, are strategic sidelines for the Japanese, and do not require European scale. Moreover, the counter mix of WiF has so much playtesting behind it so that it works with the variable scales provided. China and Japan would need changes to the counter mix to reflect the European scale, and substantial additional playtesting would be required. Couldn't have said this better. Another way to prove this point: if you change all of Russia to Pacific scale, would it significantly change the game? Of course it would. Japan's superior movement and the fact that they have the initiative would make defending China much more difficult. Finally, the old style offmap boxes weren't a bad thing. Good players never really fought in them much, and if a bad player was getting stomped, it gave him a chance to at least hold an off-map box. greg

sirgrognard -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (9/11/2004 10:46:32 AM)
IMO, there HAS to be a version of the game that is faithful to the existing maps. I know that in early development, the map is all on "European" scale... which will be a different and interesting game. That said, given the existing board game owners and players, Matrix needs to include a duplicate of the existing game maps. -Groggy

macgregor -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (9/14/2004 10:37:01 PM)
In short, I disagree. To save game space, Harry Rowland made some brilliant compromises which allowed him to change mapscales while maintaining most of the historical accuracy. However,I feel these are better represented by universal terrain effects not based on mapscale. An unlimited no. of units can be broken down to protect the now longer and more vulnerable supply lines (personally, I think HQs should be able to break off their organic unit to become like the old HQs.) Though this I feel is more historically accurate. ADG has never shied away from what could be important detail, and for that I commend them.

YohanTM2 -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (9/14/2004 11:07:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: macgregor In short, I disagree. To save game space, Harry Rowland made some brilliant compromises which allowed him to change mapscales while maintaining most of the historical accuracy. However,I feel these are better represented by universal terrain effects not based on mapscale. An unlimited no. of units can be broken down to protect the now longer and more vulnerable supply lines (personally, I think HQs should be able to break off their organic unit to become like the old HQs.) Though this I feel is more historically accurate. ADG has never shied away from what could be important detail, and for that I commend them. I'm on the fence on this issue. I will buy the game no matter what but hope the one size map does not skew what was the most balanced game I have ever played.

Neilster -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (9/15/2004 5:37:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yohan I'm on the fence on this issue. I will buy the game no matter what but hope the one size map does not skew what was the most balanced game I have ever played. A single scale, spherical map. Mwahahahahahahaha. I want to conquer the globe![:'(] Cheers, Neilster

vonpaul -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (9/15/2004 7:58:37 AM)
the pacific is a big theatre for not many units, old wiffers will have to adjust. Might be a whole new ball game in the pacific

Cheesehead -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (9/15/2004 6:18:37 PM)
quote: IMO, there HAS to be a version of the game that is faithful to the existing maps. I know that in early development, the map is all on "European" scale... which will be a different and interesting game. That said, given the existing board game owners and players, Matrix needs to include a duplicate of the existing game maps. -Groggy My preference is for a single (European) scale, but I'm not too concerned if they stay true to the boardgame scales, either. That said, I would be terribly concerned if they released different versions with different scales in order to make eveyone happy. Lets be consistent.

stewart_king -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (9/25/2004 1:59:09 AM)
I think the single scale is fine. In the CM version of the game, the action in China was faster but I didn't note any seriously ahistorical outcomes. Certainly, out-and-out conquest of China by Japan was still tough. The reverse was more likely if the Japanese got into a serious fight with the USSR, but most likely was a stalemate. I never got into a serious land battle in India. In the board game, I have seen India conquered by Japan. I never liked the off-map boxes in the older versions of the board game. I thought they were a messy compromise. I always used the extra boards (Scandinavian extension, Africa in Flames, Asia Aflame, America in Flames) as available. The area movement concept works great for naval battles but not for land. Stewart King

macgregor -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (9/27/2004 9:44:34 PM)
Here's an idea (shouldn't be too tough). How's about naming the SUB pieces so I can learn a little more about subs. I've figured each piece's values have been calculated to pertain to a particular class of submarine. If you title them, I can know which class.

macgregor -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (9/29/2004 11:14:11 PM)
Well if no one else is going to post I guess I'll keep going. I'm sitting here checking out the Marinacci demo and all I can say is: what an absolutely fabulous game! If only I could play it by email with my friends. The learning curve for wiffers (which my friends and I are) is next to nothing. If I could get a debugged, PBEM version now I'd gladly pay the full price for the final matrix version. So would my friends. Of course even the thought will send the AI control freaks into a tantrum of threats and predictions of doom for WiF, Matrix, and probably the programmers themselves. Email me. We'll talk. Fifteen years of promises I've been waiting. My money is ready to go. From what I can see, so is this game.

Cheesehead -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (9/29/2004 11:37:11 PM)
Hey Macgregor I have not seen CWiF in any form yet...are you saying that there is a pbem method already worked out? I would love to see an early release w/o AI, but only if we can pbem. If this is so, could you explain how this is supposed to work. How are they going to work in all the steps that require opponent feedback (Interception, blitz or assault, air ops., etc.). I've been curious as to how they are going to handle this. Any insight you could provide in this regard would be appreciated. I haven't been waiting 15 years...but I'd give up my left nut for a well-functioning computer version of WiF.

Greyshaft -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (9/30/2004 12:45:02 AM)
All of the steps that require opponent feedback (Interception, blitz or assault, air ops., etc) are in the current CWiF. Every last one of them... I think we worked out that the current CWIF had over 100 interactions in every IMPULSE even without counting naval interceptions or resolution of air battles to determine aborts/kills. Multiply that by 6-8 impulses per turn and 36 turns and you'd be starting a game that your grandchildren will finish. Don't go there [>:]

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.28125