starting from scratch?

starting from scratch? (Full Version)

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

Message

coregames -> starting from scratch? (5/7/2005 5:21:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: macgregor Paa-leeez !(2 words) We're not starting from scratch here. Did you(coregames) play the demo? -and did you not feel that it kept with the quality that was WiF? Yes, I've played the Marinacci beta extensively, and despite the bugs it was pretty good, and very faithful... and if you've played it you would realize that to playtest it in PBEM would take ridiculously long to finish a campaign scenario, given the game's frequent involvement of the non-phasing side. I don't advocate starting from scratch, as you might have realized from all of my posts. I was responding to Cheesehead's suggestion that they redesign the game specifically for PBEM, changing the name even if it departed too much from ADG's game. I am against wasting 20 years of extensive playtesting that have produced such a balanced, playable and enjoyable game. On the other side of the coin, I don't advocate slapping together a version of the old beta and putting it out, because as gifted and dedicated as Chris Marinacci is, it was simply too cumbersome, an opinion shared by ADG and Marinacci.

macgregor -> RE: starting from scratch? (5/8/2005 10:09:57 AM)
Coregames ,ADG, and Chris Marinacci huh...well I guess you can't all be wrong. IMHO it just seems to me, that the reason given for the lack of pbem feasability is the amount of non-phasing player decisions. My point is that in the boardgame these decisions still have to be made. It takes as long for me to click my mouse button a couple of times as it does to say, arrange my air units for combat. In fact I'd dare say it takes me less time. Now if you're on dailup this would be pure hell -as are most IP games if you have dailup. The time consumption is the same as in the boardgame, it's for things like deciding whether to use that plane as a fighter or a bomber( as an example) Now if you want to reconsider if all those rounds and phases are necesary you'll have to take that up with Harry Roland. But I personally like the game the way it is. Some phases are long -like the movement phase(allowing the non-phasing player some respite) while things suchas combat rounds require steady attention. The computer saves time with beancounting and computation not to mention clarity of placement. You cannot cheat and should not have to be looking up rules quite as often -and you don't have to be near an opponent. Space is yet another issue. A father could watch his kids and still play -and not a cat, toddler, or jealous girlfriend can mess up your board. This isn't enough for you guys?

coregames -> RE: starting from scratch? (5/8/2005 5:50:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: macgregor ... IMHO it just seems to me, that the reason given for the lack of pbem feasability is the amount of non-phasing player decisions. My point is that in the boardgame these decisions still have to be made. It takes as long for me to click my mouse button a couple of times as it does to say, arrange my air units for combat. In fact I'd dare say it takes me less time. Now if you're on dailup this would be pure hell -as are most IP games if you have dailup. The time consumption is the same as in the boardgame, it's for things like deciding whether to use that plane as a fighter or a bomber( as an example) Now if you want to reconsider if all those rounds and phases are necesary you'll have to take that up with Harry Roland. But I personally like the game the way it is. Some phases are long -like the movement phase(allowing the non-phasing player some respite) while things suchas combat rounds require steady attention. The computer saves time with beancounting and computation not to mention clarity of placement. You cannot cheat and should not have to be looking up rules quite as often -and you don't have to be near an opponent. Space is yet another issue. A father could watch his kids and still play -and not a cat, toddler, or jealous girlfriend can mess up your board. This isn't enough for you guys? For some reason, you seem convinced that I want to change WiF for the computer. I would prefer to change it as little as possible, or not at all even. In fact, I am one of those so-called purists who would enjoy having the option of implementing the multiple scales of the boardgame when playing over the computer. This would allow MWiF to be used as a training tool, practicing strategies and tactics to be used over-the-board. I understand that unified scale will be a feature of the game, but I would still like to have the other option available. While it is true that the amount of time to click a mouse will not add to the time required for WiF, PBEM will, if the sequence and non-phasing interactions remain as they are, be much more time consuming than over-the-boad play, even if players check for the updated game file several times a day. I am not endorsing changing the sequence of play for MWiF, just stating a fact that makes coding the game for email play difficult. Since you seem convinced that PBEM will not slow down WiF when played in its current form, I would be interested to hear your solution to the issue rppeatedly having to wait for the non-phasing sides decisions for CAP, naval and air interception, choice of combat tables, etc...

macgregor -> RE: starting from scratch? (5/8/2005 9:31:47 PM)
If all players have a high speed connection, your problem is not then with the game, but the attentiveness of the players.(something I've experienced with boardgame players as well.) I get that there's a point you're making that I'm not getting - as of yet I'm not sure what it is. Keep trying. I make no claims of understanding the mechanics of computer programming -I just play the game -and as it sits now.I believe I could play this one. It wouldn't exacly be pure pbem anyway. All non-phasing player decisions are handled by instant messenger. End of impulse -you email the updated board. How difficult can that be? Perhaps matrix could find a way to launch a prepared game message or response through IM -with something to facilitate a decision. Example - 'Which one of these planes you wanna kill? or Jap fleet entering Coral Sea. Intercept? Yes or no. In the demo it would hand the game over to the non-phasing player. Though really a simple question and answer is all that's necesary. A mouseclick could then send the the information back automatically. Hell, you do it with spam all the time. This is so obvious -I believe matrix(and ADG as well) must have already considered it. The more I think about it -the less I believe your argument about 'additional time consumption'. I'm back to thinking it's got to be something else that's got the brakes on this.

Tetchyy -> RE: starting from scratch? (5/9/2005 2:01:17 AM)
I've tried WiF PBEM in various forms, including with the aid of IM. It seems ok at first but eventually becomes very tedious, especially once a second theater opens up. Even Cyberboard can be frustrating. So far, live on-line play seems like the most viable option without an advanced AI.

macgregor -> RE: starting from scratch? (5/9/2005 3:40:00 AM)
Okay. If that's true then open a link with IP. If I can play operation flashpoint on gamespy then I could sure as hell make the decisions required for Wif. Keep in mind the game would only be emailed at the end of every impulse(not phase). Which if you don't know can be like between 2-12 times per turn which equals 2 months. That's not alot of emails. I find it hard to believe IM wouldn't work for the non-phasing decisions. I've held conversations on it. Which when you think about it -look at your keyboard. One key is is selected out of some 50 or so possible characters. 90% of the non-phasing decisions are of 5 options or less. I cannot believe this tiny amount of information will slow up IM. Are we talking about different sized files? If so, then it's not a fair comparison. what I'm talking about and Aide de Camp or Cyberboard.

coregames -> RE: starting from scratch? (5/9/2005 3:39:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: macgregor If all players have a high speed connection, your problem is not then with the game, but the attentiveness of the players.(something I've experienced with boardgame players as well.) I get that there's a point you're making that I'm not getting - as of yet I'm not sure what it is. Keep trying. I make no claims of understanding the mechanics of computer programming -I just play the game -and as it sits now.I believe I could play this one. It wouldn't exacly be pure pbem anyway. All non-phasing player decisions are handled by instant messenger. End of phase -you email the updated board. How difficult can that be? Perhaps matrix could find a way to launch a prepared game message or response through IM -with something to facilitate a decision. Example - 'Which one of these planes you wanna kill? or Jap fleet entering Coral Sea. Intercept? Yes or no. In the demo it would hand the game over to the non-phasing player. Though really a simple question and answer is all that's necesary. A mouseclick could then send the the information back automatically. Hell, you do it with spam all the time. This is so obvious -I believe matrix(and ADG as well) must have already considered it. The more I think about it -the less I believe your argument about 'additional time consumption'. I'm back to thinking it's got to be something else that's got the brakes on this. The point you seem to be missing is that there are far more than 12 responses required from the non-phasing side per turn. That might be a good estimate of interactions per impulse, and there are an average of 5 or 6 impulses in each turn. For PBEM (or IM) to work and not add substantially to the time required for play, the non-phasing side would have to sit by their computers waiting for the call for a decision, which eliminates the appeal of PBEM (might as well just play TCP/IP at that point). PBEM, to work in a way that conserves time, will require at least one of the following (and perhaps a combination of them): 1. Turn non-phasing decisions over to the AI; 2. Provide contingency scripting, where the non-phasing side includes a detailed set of instructions for how to handle various eventualities when they send their gamefile; or 3. Streamline the sequence of play to require less interaction from the non-phasing side. Each has its drawbacks. Your belief in the 'additional time consumption' is not required for its reality; it is a fact that if the Marinacci beta was adapted as-is for PBEM play (no AI, no scripting contingencies), the players would all have to be logged on at the same time and paying attention, or else the game would take far longer to play.

macgregor -> RE: starting from scratch? (5/9/2005 5:14:15 PM)
I used the wrong word. The game would get emailed only at the end of each IMPULSE. Not each phase.Per turn yes of course there are more than 12 responses. There were nights we'd play that we'd only finish one turn. The game should be able to automatically shoot the question across as soon as you say, enter a contestable sea area. It pops up like spam on the other guy's computer and he says 'N. Sea? Yes.' a moment later, 'Denmark Strait?Yes' and so on. I'll take the hit for using the wrong word but now your back to changing WiF by injecting the AI again(which will be fine for the 2015 version). You don't get the updated map emailed to you until the end of the entire player impulse. Now that I'm using proper terminology is it making any more sense? If i was playing against myself, I'd answer all the non-phasing questons. Well, I'm just instant messaging the simplest questions and answers to my opponent. He can patiently wait until the end of my impulse to see the updated map. Can't he? If you start injecting AI into WiF. You're going to end up with something more like WaW. IMHO the entire concept of AI is anathemic to WiF. Play WaW then. .

Catphish -> RE: starting from scratch? (5/9/2005 10:42:56 PM)
never played WIF before but i have followed a few games (sitting and watching as I do not have the time) I have played a few board games in my time (mostly AH SSI and Victory games) I even have WITP glued to a sheet of 8x8 plywood and cover in plastic I would love to see MWIF but PBEM does not seem to be a option based on what I have read in the forums What is wrong with TCP/IP play? I would compare tcp/ip play closer to sitting around in someone basement playing a board game than PBEM TCP/IP is real time, and fairly easy to set up, so you have to wait on your buddy to finish you can still talk to them (IM, VOIP anyone) if you can not see them basicaly I would like to see TCP/IP and hotseat before PBEM in anygame

macgregor -> RE: starting from scratch? (5/9/2005 11:09:01 PM)
Nothing is wrong with IP. I'm just afraid it would take longer setting up the interface. After 8 years waiting, we just want to be able to play in the shortest time possible. I would think setting up an IM interface(like I explained ) would be easier -not to mention would work better on slower computers/modems.

SamuraiProgrmmr -> RE: starting from scratch? (5/9/2005 11:40:09 PM)
If they write the game from scratch and.... If they plan for TCP/IP from the beginning... Then it should not be that big of a deal to include TCP/IP. My nightmare was that they would decide to add TCP/IP after much of the design cycle was over. That would be difficult, slow, costly and probably ineffective. My 2 cents. Dean

coregames -> RE: starting from scratch? (5/10/2005 12:14:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: macgregor ...You don't get the updated map emailed to you until the end of the entire player impulse. Now that I'm using proper terminology is it making any more sense? If i was playing against myself, I'd answer all the non-phasing questons. Well, I'm just instant messaging the simplest questions and answers to my opponent. I totally see what you are saying, and certainly, if all of the players were gathered around their computers at the same time, such an "instant message" solution would work fine. The issue arises when you realize what it is that gamers who prefer PBEM are looking for: they want to be able to get the latest game file at any time (not just when the other players are logged on) and at their convenience, open it and respond by making the decisions for their turn (like GGWaW). If all of the players are logged on at the same time, the net effect is much like that of TCP/IP, and the game would definitely play much faster. This is how I would want to play computer WiF. Unfortunately, PBEM (as described above, without need of being tied to a schedule of play) has been identified by the Matrix powers-that-be as essential for a modern game to succeed in the marketplace. That is the issue I refer to when I bring up ideas for handling PBEM non-phasing player decisions.

coregames -> RE: starting from scratch? (5/10/2005 12:19:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: macgregor I would think setting up an IM interface(like I explained ) would be easier -not to mention would work better on slower computers/modems. If the swap-files are fairly small, even slow connections can handle TCP/IP. IM or voice is great for diplomacy and hatching mutual plans, but how does the application handle IM input? Do the players need to learn a special language to make sure their words are clearly put? TCP/IP would allow a custom pop-up within the game window that would prompt non-phasing players for their decisions. This takes out the middle-man of requiring your opponent to read your IMs and input them into the system, and would speed play (even a slow connection is much faster than typing).

Greyshaft -> Asynchronous play and an AI. (5/10/2005 12:27:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: coregames Unfortunately, PBEM (as described above, without need of being tied to a schedule of play) has been identified by the Matrix powers-that-be as essential for a modern game to succeed in the marketplace. Absolutely!!! If I could reserve a regular night to go on-line then I'd rather use the time to play Face-to-Face I see the major benefits of MWIF as asynchronous play and an AI. Take away those two benefits and I'm not sure why I need MWiF

coregames -> RE: Asynchronous play and an AI. (5/10/2005 8:55:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greyshaft I see the major benefits of MWIF as asynchronous play and an AI. Take away those two benefits and I'm not sure why I need MWiF I admit I would enjoy having AI to play against when human opponents aren't available. If asynchronous play means a dramatic redesign of WiF I am less enthused about it (to put it nicely); I don't see how that fits into the entire WiF product line... is the idea to hamstring ADG by supplanting the tabletop version? I don't think they would have sold the rights if they thought someone was going to take too many liberties with their game. I know much has been said in the forum on this issue, from both sides. I hope sincerely that there is a way to satisfy both purists and PBEMers. I wonder if Harry Rowland reads these posts, and if so, what is his opinion regarding the PBEM vs. purism issue? I think many people reading this would agree that his is the opinion that should matter most. I am put in mind of Stan Lee and Sam Raimi. Raimi wanted to redo the Spider-man concept to include organic webshooters, a departure from Peter Parker as gadgeteer. The public was uncertain at best regarding this issue, but Raimi handled all the other aspects of Spider-man so well that, with Stan Lee's endorsment, the new treatment was accepted and the movie was a blockbuster. It is easy to speculate that, had Stan the Man not been publicly supportive of the change, fan support would have been damaged and the movie could have done far less box office.

macgregor -> RE: Asynchronous play and an AI. (5/10/2005 10:01:36 AM)
I understand what you guys want. And I'm all for it. However, the game you want is still on the drawing board. I already have the game I want. I just want a file I can send back and forth. Is this too much to ask? Is the language Chris Marinacci wrote it in that difficult? After all didn't I hear he was still on the team? Forgive me for having this fear that (and articulate it however you want) Matrix bought this demo from ADG with the intention of killing it in order to come up with something with 'asynchronous' capabilities. And when it comes out I'm sure it will be a great game -it wont be WiF if you can't make all the 'non-phasing decisions' however. Matrix doesn't have to release the Marinacci demo with a mailable savefile -let alone the IM or IP interface discussed.All I'm saying is that for us players that have patiently waited for 8 years -certainly many with no need for AI or asynchronous play. Would it be too much to ask to let us work with this demo in the arcane programming code. I'm sure if you would provide us with means to play against each other we'd all be happy customers. I suppose the point I'm unwilling to accept is the idea of a game without non-phasing decisions (the only way to play asynchronously) calling itself WiF. It's not. And if you pursue the other game INSTEAD of Wif. I think we have a right to be furious, if nothing else.

coregames -> what us guys want (5/10/2005 4:11:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: macgregor I understand what you guys want... Who are "you guys"? Your response was to my post -- if you are lumping me in with those who are primarily interested in PBEM, you obviously haven't read my posts. I want the sequence of play, complete with non-phasing interaction, to remain intact, at least as an option. If they can find a way to implement a dual-mode solution, perhaps they can fulfill both categories of player... quote: Matrix doesn't have to release the Marinacci demo with a mailable savefile -let alone the IM or IP interface discussed.All I'm saying is that for us players that have patiently waited for 8 years -certainly many with no need for AI or asynchronous play. Would it be too much to ask to let us work with this demo in the arcane programming code. I'm sure if you would provide us with means to play against each other we'd all be happy customers. So what you are asking is for Matrix to create a "freshened up" version of the Marinacci beta, to tide people like you over until the full product comes out, or to release the beta code for manipulation by the public. The latter is essentially shooting themselves in the foot, and the former is a long detour in their process. Unfortunately, even if they did take the detour of spending time on such a project, the beta had plenty of bugs and your WiF experience would still be problematic. quote: I suppose the point I'm unwilling to accept is the idea of a game without non-phasing decisions (the only way to play asynchronously) calling itself WiF. It's not. And if you pursue the other game INSTEAD of Wif. I think we have a right to be furious, if nothing else. Unless faithful adaptation is at least an option, I tend to agree with you here. I can't see how they can replace hundreds of thousands of man/hours playtesting WiF, to arrive at a game that does justice to it. I've said before in this forum that I believe a computer version of a game should not be oversimplified; if anything, it should offer more features, not less (as would be the case if they streamlined the non-phasing interactions). Aren't computers supposed to help solve problems? I feel that Matrix has the answers somewhere in all of these ideas -- they just have to find them and put them all together.

macgregor -> RE: what us guys want (5/10/2005 7:35:42 PM)
It was 2 am - I didn't mean to lump every one together. I hinted at asking matrix to release the code(perhaps if it's written in such an arcane language). Though what I'd like for them to do is to kill the bugs (and the cap phases) and add some interface that would allow us to only have to mail the game at the end of each player impulse(IP or IM for the non-phasing decisions). This is perhaps a tall order. If this is the case, then just create a mailable savefile so we can at least slog it out that way. Then matrix can devote all it's resources to the new project if they desire. And provided it mantains the non-phasing player decisions as an option, can still call it WiF.(essentially what you said coregames- I just wanted to clarify) To be honest, I haven't played WaW. But isn't that precisly what Greyshaft & co. are looking for? If not, what is WaW lacking? If Greyshaft has any experience with playing WiF -and knows it's advantage over other wargames, why in hell would he want to kill that advantage to have a game that would essentially play like WaW? And yet I feel he's fighting against, not me personally, but WiF itself. WaW covers the same scope as WiF,yet was designed for asynchronous pbem. If Greyshaft doesn't like WaW it must not be very good - or he's making money from it and wants to kill the competition.

ASHBERY76 -> RE: what us guys want (5/11/2005 12:42:14 AM)
No A.I,No �'s from me.[:-]

Greyshaft -> My POV (5/11/2005 1:08:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: macgregor To be honest, I haven't played WaW. But isn't that precisly what Greyshaft & co. are looking for? Nope. WAW has its own fanclub but I'm not in it. It may be a very good game but I want more meat! quote: If Greyshaft has any experience with playing WiF -and knows it's advantage over other wargames, why in hell would he want to kill that advantage to have a game that would essentially play like WaW? My experience? 20-30 full campaigns played over many years until other complications (work/wife) changed my priorities. I do know WiF and I'm eager to play it again. Just because I support streamlining WiF to support asynchronous play doesn't mean I want it reduced to the level of WAW. I say that if an exisiting WiF feature can be supported for PBEM then keep it in. I also said a long time ago that it makes sense to have one of the setup options as "SEQUENCE OF PLAY = FULL" or "SEQUENCE OF PLAY = QUICK". If you guys want a seperate email for every PiF Abort v. Kill decision then I don't see why you can't have it. Just don't make it compulsory. quote: And yet I feel he's fighting against, not me personally, but WiF itself. WaW covers the same scope as WiF,yet was designed for asynchronous pbem. If you see the only difference between WiF and WAW as the provision of asynchronous PBEM then I think we're on different planets. Greetings from Earth... Sydney sector quote: If Greyshaft doesn't like WaW it must not be very good - or he's making money from it and wants to kill the competition. heh... thanks for the faith in my judgement, but its just a matter of personal taste. WAW just doesn't push my button. I want a game where I'm expected to sit motionless in front of the screen for 30 minutes just planning my turn. If I had the time I'd be playing WitP but reality intrudes... as will a baby in about 2 months

macgregor -> RE: My POV (5/11/2005 2:10:47 AM)
quote: If you guys want a seperate email for every PiF Abort v. Kill decision then I don't see why you can't have it. Just don't make it compulsory. How do I argue when this wasn't what I was advocating in the first place. quote: If you see the only difference between WiF and WAW as the provision of asynchronous PBEM then I think we're on different planets. Greetings from Earth... Sydney sector I see nothing as I have yet to play WaW. I take it you're not a big fan. quote: I want a game where I'm expected to sit motionless in front of the screen for 30 minutes just planning my turn. Did you mean to say "I don't want". Look, I do understand the value of asynchronous play. I'm a huge TOAW fan. I question if WiF is the way toward achieving a global asynchronous game. quote: If I had the time I'd be playing WitP but reality intrudes... as will a baby in about 2 months WiTP looks like a pretty cool game. Could there be a global version of this? I mean...what is a game? It's not so much about the topic, because if it's successful, the same game can be re-released to cover a different conflict or theatre. It's the way a particular game is played that is the game. You want to change the way WiF is played -why? You're better off taking another game engine and getting it to cover the global capaign. Oh yeah, good luck with your baby.

Grotius -> RE: My POV (5/11/2005 2:21:08 AM)
quote: WiTP looks like a pretty cool game. Could there be a global version of this? WITP is a wonderful grognard-oriented game. It's got its flaws, but it's a serious operational-level treatment of the whole war, in single-day turns. That's a 1600-turn PBEM, which for most players will take years. (One PBEM is now in 1945; the game was released 10 months ago.) If you like detailed games like WiF or ASL, you might like WITP. Anyway, all of this leads me to a question: Would a full PBEM treatment of WIF -- including e-mailing every little decision by non-phasing players -- involve more than 1600 e-mails? I have only tooled around a little with WIF, so I honestly don't know. All I'm saying is that there is a commercially-significant number of gamers who will play a PBEM game that requires thousands of e-mails to complete one game. I'm one. If you told me "you have to e-mail each decision you make as a non-phasing player," my reaction would be: cool.

macgregor -> RE: My POV (5/11/2005 2:32:45 AM)
The difference between WiF and all the other games are the opportunities to affect the battle as the non-phasing player. Take away these and it's no longer WiF. Obviously not for everyone, still for some - it's the best game ever made. It's a shame Matrix couldn't have decided to buy the stagnantware TOAW series from take two. They could've much more easily made that global -and it fits with all their pre-requisites. quote: Would a full PBEM treatment of WIF -- including e-mailing every little decision by non-phasing players -- involve more than 1600 e-mails? If that's the way Matrix decided to do it -yes. I pray they don't.

Greyshaft -> ...say 18,000 emails (5/11/2005 5:59:33 AM)
If you guys want a seperate email for every PiF Abort v. Kill decision... >> maybe you don't want this, but there seems a lot of differest sweet spots out there for what will make the perfect MWiF game. I don't see why most of them can't be done in the same game just through changing config options. My understanding of WaW comes from Matrix Forum & web site. I'm not a big fan but I expect others will be. To clarify my original point: * I DO want a game where I'm expected to sit motionless in front of the screen for 30 minutes just PLANNING my turn as opposed to playing a dumbed-down version of WiF. * I DON'T want a game where I'm expected to sit motionless in front of the screen for 30 minutes just WAITING for you to finish your turn. So I want the complexity of the boardgame along with asychronous play. quote: Would a full PBEM treatment of WIF -- including e-mailing every little decision by non-phasing players -- involve more than 1600 e-mails? Well each WiF IMPULSE has over 100 consecutive interactions between the players (not allowing for PiF Kill v. Abort discussions). Multiply that by an average of (say) 5 impulses per turn. Multiply that by 36 turns. ...say 18,000 emails Of course that doesn't include the emails of introduction involved when both players eventually die and their children try to keep the game going.

Grotius -> RE: ...say 18,000 emails (5/11/2005 6:07:09 AM)
Heh, 18,000 would be a lot of e-mails. But if most of them are pretty quick decisions, maybe people could turn around a bunch of e-mails a day? Some WITP players somehow manage to do 4 or 5 PBEM turns a day, and each e-mail in that game is massive. If you could somehow do 10 e-mails a day in CWIF, why, that's just 1800 days of gaming. [8D] About the same as WITP. I can tell you're not buying it. I just thought I'd ask. [;)]

macgregor -> RE: ...say 18,000 emails (5/11/2005 6:23:32 AM)
quote: I don't see why most of them can't be done in the same game just through changing config options. I agree. quote: Well each WiF IMPULSE has over 100 consecutive interactions between the players (not allowing for PiF Kill v. Abort discussions). How ya figure? If you were to say 100 interactions are possible in a single impulse I'd say maybe -but that would indeed be a climactic impulse. I'd say the average would be more like 10 to 20 interactions. Let's clarify the definition of interaction: anything from yes or no to the single interaction of assembling an air defense -or the single interaction of post air or naval combat where non-phasing player decides to stay and if so,with what (and in what order). Even the return to base phase could be handled as a single interaction. At any rate I should be able to recieve, read, and select off the little spam-like IM window as fast as my opponent could announce his intentions across the board, while picking up the tiny cardboard pieces with his tweezers.

Greyshaft -> RE: ...say 18,000 emails (5/11/2005 8:34:58 AM)
I did the math in a long forgotten post... I'll try and dig out the original doc

coregames -> RE: My POV (5/11/2005 9:41:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greyshaft If you see the only difference between WiF and WAW as the provision of asynchronous PBEM then I think we're on different planets. Greetings from Earth... Sydney sector LOL... Yeah, GGWaW is fun, but the comparison is akin to that between checkers and go. That's what makes asynch play such a tough challenge for MWiF. Grigsby had the advantage of knowing he wanted PBEM as the primary multiplayer mode. If they do have a toggle for the non-phasing decisions, that could be where they implement some scripting features. During PBEM games, the phasing side could tack on a contingency script file with their turn when submitting it. The decisions would be resolved as the situations arose during their opponents' turn. I am convinced that will be at least part of the solution.

coregames -> RE: ...say 18,000 emails (5/11/2005 9:50:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Grotius Heh, 18,000 would be a lot of e-mails. But if most of them are pretty quick decisions, maybe people could turn around a bunch of e-mails a day? This is where some scripting will make the game much more managable. Perhaps you don't have to submit all of your contingencies for the next impulse at once, but even if you can decide, say, 10 or 12 things in advance, the number of emails exchanged would be dramatically reduced. As has been mentioned elsewhere, perhaps strategic bombing, carpet bombing and ground strikes could be combined into one air phase without substantially altering the play of the game. Many such ideas will probably be needed to make WiF suitable for PBEM in a reasonable amount of time.

Hortlund -> RE: ...say 18,000 emails (5/11/2005 12:28:50 PM)
Basically there are two options here. 1) keep the current sequence of play - will make pbem impossible, and tcp/ip as only possible multiplayer variant 2) rework the sequence of play - will make pbem possible, will remove alot of what wif is. I dont know which route Matrix will take. Honestly I think cwif is vaporware.

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.953125