WiF on the computer (Full Version)

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



Message

Hortlund -> WiF on the computer (10/18/2004 12:39:54 PM)

WiF is probably the best grand strategy table-top wargame there is. And alot of people want a computer version, because lets face it, when you have kids and a job, its getting increasingly difficult to find 8-12 hours on a weekend to get together with the buddies and play. So there is definitively a market for computer WiF.

The problem is this:
Sequence of play needs to be completely reworked.
Alternatively, online TCP/IP is only way to make MP work.

Basically, for this game to be playable at all the sequence of play needs to be completey reworked. It works very well in board-game WiF, it would be a complete disaster to try in computer WiF.

The current sequence of play could work in MP if you only allow online games, but it is not possible to do it via email. Problem is, if you do it only online, then you will force the players to spend several hours online together just to do one impulse in one turn. And then you are back to square one, because one of the reasons why cWiF would be so attractive is because its getting harder to be able to dedicate those 8-12 hours on a weekend to a game.

Where is the discussion on this? Where are the developers inputs and ideas? I've been keeping half an eye on this forum because I thought cWiF might be a competitor to HoI2, but since February 2004, I have not seen anything except some very very vauge "we will start on it soon".



peskpesk -> RE: WiF on the computer (10/18/2004 1:46:48 PM)

There is away to make WIF manageable with PBEM! The many interactions make it very hard to do a normal PBEM solution but there is another way. [:)]
For the non phasing player is most interactions about commit airplanes, try to intercept fleets, start naval combat or carry out HQ defensive support, etc.
All of this is very limited and perfect for a AI to handle. Think about it! The phasing player would need a minimum of email going back and forth with this solution.

How would it work?
Lets sat you have three AIs Land, Sea and Air. All these can be set to different options for each nation, and can be change each impulse.

For the AIR AI the options could be

• Numbers of planes to commit
-Conserve air fleet (Use few planes, save for later impulses)
-Normal
-Spend air fleet(Save few planes, for later impulses)

•Equality (What odds are you ready to fly at)
-9 to +9

•CV usage
-Offensively
-Defensively

•Protect priority order
-Capital
-Fleet
-Airbase
-Army
-Factories
-Sea area
-Allied countries
-Specific hexes

•Airbase
-Return to starting hex
-Forward airbase
-Rear airbase

•Naval target priority
-Transports
-CVs
-Battleships
-Subs

Etc

So each phasing player makes normal turns, and sets the AI options.
The AI answers with the oponents settings. Then the email goes to the oponent
who makes his impulse and get answered right away by tje AI( with the selected options), then set his AI options...

The only time you need a email from the oponent is for setting up countries, etc.



Hortlund -> RE: WiF on the computer (10/18/2004 3:28:59 PM)

No, its not perfect for an AI to handle. Far from it. There are too many parameters. Would quickly make the game pointless since the alternatives would be: let the AI handle my forces in crucial situations, or play the game without the ability to intercept, bombard, etc.

Just as an example; Aircombat:
Do I set my fighters to intercept? Do I intercept over target hex, or enroute? What happens if I want to intercept a bomber just to draw his fighters there? What if I want to intercept attacks with two or less escorts but not others? What if I want to intercept everything in one section of the front, and not in another? Pretty soon you will have either 5-6 pages worth of parameters along the lines of "ftr 6 at Hamburg, intercept over Cologne IF enemy bomber is alone OR escorted by <2 fighers AND there are no other enemy fighters able to do a final intercept OR if there is an attack on Copenhagen by a Nav".

Or naval combat:
Do I try to intercept a single ship moving through, do I try to intercept a fleet-counter. If I know what 4 of 6 fleets consists of, and I know that this is either a 15-ship CV-group OR a lone DD, do I try to intercept with my 2 BBs? It will just create situations where the player can "Play the AI" to get the desired situation.

During the reaction phase there are a million super important desicions to make, and you cant just hand these desicions over to the AI without creating situations where frustrated players will throw their computer into the wall because of a bad AI desicion.

I dont think that it is a good solution.



Cheesehead -> RE: WiF on the computer (10/18/2004 8:10:30 PM)

I agree with you. All the interactive decisions you mention are what make WiF fun. Assigning them to some default setting will greatly reduce the fun of this wonderful game. This type of decision is too important to trust to some default setting. It reminds me of the old saying, "for want of a shoe the horse was lost, etc.....battle lost." I could envision an improperly used Stuka on the Eastern front costing Germany the war!

It is because of this that I don't see MWiF being a great PBEM game. This is the big reason for developing a sound AI (computer opponent). I wouldn't expect a computer opponent to beat a skilled player, but it would be fun to try some alternative strategies. It would also introduce the game to more people which would then result in more ftf oppoonents down the road.



Hortlund -> RE: WiF on the computer (10/18/2004 9:10:27 PM)

Well, at the same time, you cannot just give up the MP aspect of the game, because that would kill it for sure.



Cheesehead -> RE: WiF on the computer (10/18/2004 11:20:20 PM)

What is MP?



SamuraiProgrmmr -> RE: WiF on the computer (10/18/2004 11:57:18 PM)

I think MP stands for Multiplayer



meyerg -> RE: WiF on the computer (10/19/2004 6:25:33 AM)

Let us summarize:

(1) We would prefer multiplayer (or MP) CWIF be PBEM for convenience. We can't wait for everyone to be online at the same time. Not to mention getting everyone to resume a suspended game or the issues of different time zones.

(2) The sequence of play needs serious rework to reduce the decisions to get the interactions down to a manageable level for PBEM.

(3) We have no hope the AI will be more than an amusement (and hopefully a way to train Newbees from raw recruits to just Green).

(4) So serious compromises have to be made to make CWiF a successful multiplayer game with PBEM. It will no longer be true to the original boardgame and 6 players can't wait for an email to find out if the DA result will be implemented on the front bomber or fighter.

(5) To be true to the game we all know and love, we need to all be sitting at our computer interacting at the speed of the person with the slowest network connection waiting for every decision. This will fill a "niche" market and appeal only to those who play the boardgame now (not a large group).

I felt CWiF needs to start with a "clean sheet of paper" to get to a playable game that can have universal appeal and is playable by email. I am confident compromises can be made that streamline the game without giving up too much control. The air phases are the most critical. When I sign up for a five-player game I don't want to wait months for enough competent opponents or have newbees constantly dropping out because the game is too complex.

quote:

Pretty soon you will have either 5-6 pages worth of parameters along the lines of "ftr 6 at Hamburg, intercept over Cologne IF enemy bomber is alone OR escorted by <2 fighers AND there are no other enemy fighters able to do a final intercept OR if there is an attack on Copenhagen by a Nav".


I think each player can set some general intercept/escort priorities each turn and the AI will have to fill in some blanks. Naval, strat, and ground strikes may need to be combined. Consider this the cost of having thousands of PBEM opponents versus 3 online opponents.
All these are my opinions and do not reflect the views of Matrix or ADG.
greg



coregames -> RE: WiF on the computer (10/19/2004 7:46:14 AM)

Many phases can be combined, it's true. But some variability in how detailed the players want to be could be a plus too, allowing the game to be played on a simpler, faster level, or more closely approximating the actual board game. I don't want WiF to be too unrecognisable by necessity. It would be nice if some of the intricacy was maintained, even with some modification and streamlining of the sequence. The farther MWiF is from ADG's current version, the less synergy it will experience from a marketing standpoint, and the less true it will be to the claim I read on the ADG site when Matrix acquired the project:

Woodbridge, NJ, October 21st, 2003 - Matrix Games and Australian Design Group are pleased to announce that the international award-winning wargame World In Flames will be faithfully adapted for computer play...
Game Features
Faithful adaptation of the latest Deluxe version of World In Flames
Network play
Play by Email support
Intelligent computer opponent
Many optional rules and game system enhancements

The best experience for me would be to receive my opponent's impulse, possibly make some compulsory rebases or casualty decisions, then take some time on my impulse, with some limited scripts (fleets set to rebase when a threshold of damage is reached for instance) set by my opponent when they sent their completed impulse to me. It would be worth it to me to spend 10 minutes at the end of my impulse, scripting contingencies for my units during the enemy's turn.

Surely there is a workable solution that fulfills at least the spirit of Matrix's pledge to ADG.



Hortlund -> RE: WiF on the computer (10/19/2004 11:30:53 AM)

The more I think about it, the more I reach the same conclusion. The only two alternatives are: Change sequence of play drastically OR only multiplayer game via online TCP/IP connection.

Consider the level of interaction between two players during one simple air combat phase. Let me post an example, and then try to explain how to break that up in PBEM turns or what the AI should control.


1 - Move attacking bomber together with escort to target hex.

2 - Decides to intercept bomber enroute to target hex.

1 - Decides to intercept player 2's intercept.

AIR COMBAT in interception hex

2 - Rolls defender clear through

1 - Chose what bomber to clear through

1 - Rolls defender clear through

2 - Choses what fighter to use to bounce, and selects what target to bounce

Etc

AIR COMBAT in interception hex is over

1 - Moves surviving bombers and escorts to target hex

2 - Chose what airunits to intercept

1 - Chose if to intercept player 2's interceptors

2 - Final intercept

AIR COMBAT in target hex

2 - Roll defender clear through

1 - Chose what bomber to clear through, or if to use a fighter to bounce

1 - Bounce attack

2 - Bounce attack

1 - Roll defender clear through

2 - chose what fighter to use for bounce attack, and what target

2 - Bounce attack

1 - Bounce attack

1 & 2 - Decide whether to stay in fight or abort

2 - Roll attacker abort, decide whether to abort enemy front fighter or front bomber

1 - Roll AE (wohoo) remove enemy front fighter

1 & 2 - Decide whether to stay in the fight or abort

2 - decides to abort aircombat

2 - decide whether to use anti-air division against attack

2 - resolve anti-air

1 - decide which factors to remove

1 - roll attack

1 & 2 - land airunits



Now...this is just one small dogfight, involving maybe 3-4 airunits on each side. CLEARLY this cannot be simulated in PBEM without axing several features of the sequence of play. Imagine what it will look like in 1944 with 20-40 airunits in and around France on both sides.

Like I said, it is pretty clear that the sequence of play will need to be changed for WiF to become cWiF. And I think that this is the discussion that we should have here. Before anything else.

Forget about release dates, we need to decide on core features first.



Cheesehead -> RE: WiF on the computer (10/19/2004 4:49:32 PM)

How much can you change the sequence of play before it becomes a different game entirely? I don't mean to say that that is a bad thing. I've only played WiF for a year now, but I recognize that what makes this game special is the numerous interactions that take place within each impulse between the different sides. These decisions are critical to winning the game...especially the air/ground stike/ground support/defensive gs/ air-to-air combat that takes place during a crucial battle for France, for example, or Barbarossa. I'm not against making a streamlined game modeled after WiF for PBEM, but then I think we need to start from scratch...create a new game. It should still be turn-based, on a hex grid with weekly or monthly turns encompassing the whole world. That might actually be easier than trying to turn WiF into a reasonable PBEM game. We certainly have enough computer war games to draw on for examples. Take elements of WaW, SC, RGW, WitP, HOI and of course WiF.



coregames -> RE: WiF on the computer (10/19/2004 5:13:11 PM)

I wish there was some way to have a final MWiF version that allowed TCP/IP, network, or hotseat of a more faithful rendition, and a streamlined PBEM setting that can be played impulse-by-impulse, though I know this makes the project more complex. I for one would rather the game not have PBEM than to have the game barely recognizable, but I do realize on the other hand that Matrix wants to appeal to as wide an audience as possible. It has been said in this thread and elsewhere in the forum that too much change or simplification means a different game that really should have a different name, since it won't feel like WiF. Please don't use the name World in Flames just as a marketing gimmick for some other vaguely similar game.



meyerg -> WiF as a Marketing Gimmick (10/20/2004 4:18:42 AM)

First, WiF can never be a marketing gimmick. The fan base is loyal but too small. All the add ons that have "... in Flames" (where the ... was not the word Ships or Planes) were marketing gimmicks, and I am still waiting on the Lord of the Rings, Return of the King in Flames expansion to be released.

The valid point of this thread is the first and last sentence of this quote are non sequitors (one cannot follow from the other).
quote:

Faithful adaptation of the latest Deluxe version of World In Flames
Network play
Play by Email support


We cannot have a PBEM faithful adaption of WiF. A faithful adaption with network play and an AI that will challenge only beginners as a single player game can work. I can see two player games in network (TCP/IP) mode working. A solid five player network game is ludicrous.

I believe we need to have (1) a multiplayer (or solitarire) network mode first (seems like Chris' code was coming along) (2) AI added for single player and to fill seats in network MP and then (3) a compromise for PBEM only that minimizes interactions. The WiF purists will never realize the advantages (3) has over (1) until they play some network games with Newbees in different time zones and find out PBEM games are being completed much faster because they have to wait for everyone to be at the computer at the same time, and some of the players are playing Doom 3 in another window to overcome boredom.

These views are mine alone greg



SamuraiProgrmmr -> RE: WiF as a Marketing Gimmick (10/20/2004 6:19:38 AM)

I tend to agree with Greg.

One of the great things about WiF was its ability to capture the 'flavor' of the three types of combat (Land, Sea, and Air).

The thing, for me at least, that made the Air Phase so realistic was the decisions that had to be made about air power on the defensive.

The tactical allocation of air defense and ground support while being a defender was a very fluid situation that required decisions be made often before there was enough solid intelligence to know what the right answer was. Failure to act quickly was often, in and of itself, a decision. All the planes in the world arriving too late are of no help. (More information available on request, but think of the Battle Of Britain.)

Even though this is a strategic game, it captured the strategic side of these tactical decisions. Sometimes, the object of an attack was to consume air power so they would not be available in later impulses.

We used to have a saying about this game... "The threat is more important than the effect." In other words, having the ability to throw an attack causes the defender to defend several possible targets. Once that attack was thrown, non involved units previously 'frozen' were then avaiable for use. This works in reverse as well. Once the defense has flown, much smaller forces would be be able to attack because the air power would be much more likely to get through.

I guess the point of my rambling is this: Be VERY careful in tinkering with the air rules. They are the war gaming equivalent to the Mona Lisa.

I freely concede that there are too many interactions to be workable as PBEM and that something must be done to allow PBEM. But it must be done carefully.

There is one thing to remember, though. If both players are playing at the same time, they can easily exchange 30 e-mails in an hour or so. It just requires continual hitting of the send/recieve button.

Let's take it one step further.

Has anyone considered the possibility of allowing a mixture of PBEM and TCP/IP Connection in the same game? Players could plan their turns at leisure and connect for the air combat phase (and the naval equivalents). I realize this may make life difficult for the programming team, but it should be considered as a possible solution.

If done, this would soften any outcry against the inevitable changes to interception (both Air and Naval) for a pure PBEM game.

One last thought. Time is saved by not having to schedule only when everyone can show up at your house. Time is saved by not having to constantly shuffle stacks of counters and carefully restack them. Time is saved by not having to dig through the rules and charts. Time is saved by not having to dig through the baggies for the force pool additions due this month. Time can be saved by two attackers in different theaters being able to execute attacks simultaneously. Time will be lost in interactive portions of the impulses. It is still possible that the length of real life time that it takes to play the computer game may be comparable to the length of real life time that it takes to play the tabletop game.

As long as the net change in time expended to play the game is postive or slightly negative, the convenience of not having three tables covered for weeks and weeks should still make the comptuer game a positive experience for those of us who have played the tabletop version.

Face it, this game will never be for the 'weak at heart'.

Opposing opinions are welcome. "Who is right" is not nearly as important as "getting the right answer."

Thanks for reading this and have a great day.

Dean



Fred98 -> RE: WiF as a Marketing Gimmick (10/20/2004 9:03:02 AM)

What ever the outcome of the discussion here is my view:

I played Rise and Decline of the Third Reich and I enjoyed. Many of you say that WiF is a whole lot better.

WiF will be complex and take many hours to play. I am already busy with PBEM wargames and there is no point playing any game unless I can get into it and become familiar with the game and become adequate to good at the game.

Using the AI to resolve these issues would fail. It would ruin the game play. Sending numerous emails within one turn would fail only because it would take so long to play one turn.

There needs to be a third solution. Hotseat is not it.

If you all come up with a third solution I will get the game, otherwise not.

BTW, where are the screenies???? The PC version seems to have been under development for years!



coregames -> RE: WiF as a Marketing Gimmick (10/20/2004 10:35:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meyerg

The valid point of this thread is the first and last sentence of this quote are non sequitors (one cannot follow from the other).
quote:

Faithful adaptation of the latest Deluxe version of World In Flames
Network play
Play by Email support




I didn't write the blurb on ADG's site, and don't know what there stand is on any apparent contradiction; I'm pretty sure it was based on what ADG and Matrix worked out at the time. I was excited by the news, since if Chris Marinacci could accomplish what he did, I figured an organized, established company like Matrix could take it even farther.

While it may be true that a faithful adaptation and PBEM are not compatible ideas, it is clear to that only a drastic alteration would make it substantially more suitable to PBEM. Frankly, the more I think about it, I can't imagine how PBEM will work for anything resembling WiF. If anything has to go, I hope very much that the PBEM feature is the first candidate, rather than the established elegant mechanics that make WiF so unique and rewarding.

I am pensive about the direction this project seems to be moving in. It may be true that dedicated WiF fans are not numerous enough to make the game a success. Still, I feel Matrix needs to take us into account, as we will be the sure early market, and thus, the source of much of the game's early word-of-mouth.



Hortlund -> RE: WiF as a Marketing Gimmick (10/20/2004 10:49:16 AM)

Well, the reason I started this thread was because in my opinion THIS is where the discussion on cWiF needs to start.

Im not claiming to have any answers really, what I am saying though is that it is impossible to "port" the boardgame into a computergame. Unless you make the game playable online TCP/IP only.

I am slightly concerned that no one of the developers have popped in to give their perspective on things though.

Basically, the alternatives are

1) Do a faithful conversion of the boardgame. This alternatives prevents PBEM.
2) Rework the sequence of play.


Now, clearly this is a management desicion that can only be taken by Matrix. The thing is, this is also an issue that will have to be sorted before any work is started on cWiF.

Presumably Matrix will want to keep the turn-based aspect of the game. The alternative would be to go continuous time, but that alternative is not really feasible with HoI2 coming out early next year. No point in making an exact copy of that game really.

So turn based it is, and that pretty much guarantees that PBEM needs to be an option. The market for turn based grand strategy games without a PBEM option can probably be descirbed as "minimal". Because it would require 2-7 guys sitting online at the same time doing exactly nothing while they are waiting for the phasing player to do his turn. It wont work.

So basically everything comes back to the one conclusion that the sequence of play needs to be reworked to make cWiF playable via PBEM. And while there are problems with this too (since we will have situations with more than 2 players) that can be solved.



pzgndr -> RE: WiF on the computer (10/20/2004 3:26:09 PM)

quote:

It has been said in this thread and elsewhere in the forum that too much change or simplification means a different game that really should have a different name, since it won't feel like WiF.


Perhaps Matrix should consider renaming this project then. Is a 100% accurate adaptation of the boardgame to the PC even possible or practical? Maybe, if against a competent AI that's always available for every little interactive action. But against other players via PBEM? Not likely. Compromises will be necessary or else games will take forever to complete.

The compromises needed to improve PBEM playability would necessarily have to rely upon decent AI routines (probably with some adjustable settings a player can make for automated air and naval intercepts), and this should help reduce the overall AI programming challenge. If Matrix really wants to make this happen as an attractive PC game for newbies, then it needs to address PBEM and solitaire play and make both workable. If that can't happen, then diehard WiFers may as well stick with ADC.

I like the scale and scope of WiF, but personally have not invested the time or money to play this interesting boardgame. There are probably many more fans like me lurking here in the stands waiting for a decent PC adaptation. So whether it's called WiF or something else doesn't really matter to us. It won't be HOI or GGWAW, that's for sure. But close enough to WiF to warrant ADG's endorsement of its product. Matrix needs to consider the broader customer base and make some serious marketing decisions accordingly.



Hortlund -> RE: WiF on the computer (10/20/2004 4:44:36 PM)

Of cource they are not going to drop the "World in Flames"-title. That is 80% of the sales right there.



SamuraiProgrmmr -> RE: WiF as a Marketing Gimmick (10/20/2004 4:52:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
So turn based it is, and that pretty much guarantees that PBEM needs to be an option. The market for turn based grand strategy games without a PBEM option can probably be descirbed as "minimal". Because it would require 2-7 guys sitting online at the same time doing exactly nothing while they are waiting for the phasing player to do his turn. It wont work.


Arranging for two or three to be online at the same time to complete interceptions and combat will not be that bad. The bulk of the waiting would be while the phasing opponent were planning his moves for all of his units.

I m most familiar with the rules from version 5. Have there been changes that allow interceptions during air movement instead of right before combat?

Dean



Hortlund -> RE: WiF as a Marketing Gimmick (10/20/2004 5:55:41 PM)

Phasing player moves his airunits from base to target in intervals of 4 hexes, at each "stop" the defending player may initiate aircombat by intercepting those airunits.



SamuraiProgrmmr -> RE: WiF as a Marketing Gimmick (10/20/2004 6:25:03 PM)

*OUCH*

That would be rough.

I still hope that any changes implemented for the sake of PBEM are optional so purists can still play the full game when playing solitaire or TCP/IP.

The amount of time spent gathered to play TCP/IP or LAN will still be shorter than the time spent playing Face To Face.

Dean



Cheesehead -> RE: WiF as a Marketing Gimmick (10/20/2004 8:04:00 PM)

Calling David Heath...any comments on the ideas you fellows may have had regarding starting from scratch with a new game modeled after WiF, but simplified for PBEM purposes?



MButtazoni -> World In Flames (10/20/2004 8:13:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead

Calling David Heath...any comments on the ideas you fellows may have had regarding starting from scratch with a new game modeled after WiF, but simplified for PBEM purposes?


there's always GG's World at War.

World in Flames is a great board game and we want to create a "faithful adaptation" of it. as seen from the above posts no matter which decisions we make this "adaptation" can not make everyone happy as there are many opinions on how it should be designed.

There is much design work to be done yet on MWiF. i am a strong believer in the 80% design / 20% development process.



MButtazoni -> RE: World In Flames (10/20/2004 8:20:44 PM)

IMO: here are the major hurdles to overcome in the design process:

1. Multiplayer capability

2. AI - both strategic and tactical (IBM has spent millions of dollars on a chess AI; Chess has 1 page of rules, WiF has 60+ ...)

3. WiF's Optional Rules and Add-On Games - (which also horribly permutate the AI programming/scripting)

and to a lesser extent:

4. Map Hexes vs. Map Boxes - and their impact on play balance. (It's interesting that some of the same ppl calling for exact adaptation of the game are also wanting hexes throughout the world instead of Map boxes)

5. New player indoctrination - this is a complex game that should still be playable by ppl that have never played the boardgame.



SamuraiProgrmmr -> RE: World In Flames (10/20/2004 9:15:58 PM)

This is probably intuitively obvious to a casual observer, but...

As for indoctrinating new players, it could be accomplished by a series of mini-games that
start out with very limited pieces and objectives. These mini-scenarios could start with a subset of the sequence of play that is built upon in successive tutorials. The first ones would perhaps last only one impulse.

It is likely that these could be presented in chapters, each containing several training missions.

A. Ground movement and combat (without air or naval)

B. Air movement and combat (without ground or naval)

C. Combined ground and air movement and combat (without naval)

D. Naval movement and combat (without air or ground)

E. Naval and Air movement and combat (without ground)

F. Combined Naval, Air, and Ground (perhaps a mini D-Day)

G. Events outside of the impulses. For the early production tutorials, it might be a good idea for the student to manage only the production and let the AI play the turns quickly so the student can get a feel for the delayed effect of production decisions.

H. Miscellaneous -- such as Lend-Lease, US Entry, and anything not already covered.

The sequence of training might not have to be carved in stone, however it is likely a good idea to make certain lessons a prerequisite to others.

The current scenarios like Barbarossa could be inserted into the training schedule as 'exams' with grades given. I think that something along the lines of a % score would be better than Decisive, Undecisive, Draw, etc.

The important thing is to not overwhelm the new player with all of the rules at once while at the same time giving him/her a sense of accomplishment. The relative level of the challenge will be a key factor in the success of the tutorial (and ultimately, the game).

If there are differening levels of complexity for certain functions (such as allowances for PBEM), those 'stairsteps' of complexity would lend themselves to this method.

In fact, there may be people who will be forever content to play with whatever simplifications are arranged for ease of PBEM.

Feel free to comment on, expand, or change the proposed outline.

Dean



amwild -> RE: WiF as a Marketing Gimmick (10/20/2004 9:20:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer

Let's take it one step further.

Has anyone considered the possibility of allowing a mixture of PBEM and TCP/IP Connection in the same game? Players could plan their turns at leisure and connect for the air combat phase (and the naval equivalents). I realize this may make life difficult for the programming team, but it should be considered as a possible solution.

If done, this would soften any outcry against the inevitable changes to interception (both Air and Naval) for a pure PBEM game.



In some situations direct TCP/IP connections may not be possible, such as when behind a firewall, but this has given me an idea...

Considering that most e-mails are delivered in quite a short period of time, and most e-mail servers use standardised interfaces, it may be possible for MWiF to substitute inbuilt POP/SMTP/IMAP interfaces for direct TCP/IP by sending the PBEM e-mails directly to recipient players mailboxes via its own SMTP interface, and the recipients querying the player's mailbox via its own POP/IMAP/MAPI interface, looking for specially formatted MWiF e-mails and grabbing them from the server or the e-mail client app as soon as they appear.

Since WiF is a turn-based game, there are no latency issues to worry about other than the patience of the players.

This system would allow a rapid exchange of e-mails without the delays for attaching and mailing that would otherwise occur, as long as both players were logged on at the same time. By including "Player X has logged off" and "Player X has logged on" messages, players would be able to tell when to and when not to stay at the computer waiting for another e-mail. Finally, by building a limited e-mail capability into MWiF itself, messages can be automatically compressed, and long stock messages such as the aforementioned examples could be reduced to a simple message code number, greatly reducing the size of e-mails.



SamuraiProgrmmr -> RE: WiF as a Marketing Gimmick (10/20/2004 9:37:19 PM)

That is a great idea!

One of the games I played by e-mail, Space Empires IV, had a community sponsored web application that handled the exchange of e-mails using a java application. You started the java application and chose the game you wanted to particpate in. After that, the game would open itself, the appropriate file, let you play and upon ending the turn, it would close and send the appropriate file back to the server.

If the players were all playing at the same time, you could just stay connected and when the file was available, the program would start up ready to begin playing.

I played many games this way. It was exceptionally great during the quick turns early in the game.

As a developer, I have recently had many problems with WinXP's SP2 firewall interfering with FTP traffic when the user was behind a router. I have been seriously considering an embedded e-mail suite to bypass that problem.

On the downside, anything short of TCP/IP will not allow the other users to watch as someone moves their units, or chat with each other.

Dean



Fred98 -> RE: WiF as a Marketing Gimmick (10/21/2004 2:28:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: amwild

as long as both players were logged on at the same time.




Sorry, this does not interest me.

If the game is faithful to the original, then the grog players are happy to play the whole game PBEM in its original form. It will take a long time to complete a game but the grog players will be happy.

I would like to see it succeed. But the great weakness of the game is that it is still a cardboard and counters game. It is not a computer game.

I don’t know how the table top version works. But the solution might be to make it highly structured just like 3R Within any one turn there are various sub-phases. And they are carried out in a strict sequence. EG:

Air interception is done once, right across the map all in one go.

Amphibious assault is done once, right across the map all in one go.

etc etc

It will be up to the game designers to arrange a sequence.

Or, instead of a strict sequence ( I am not familair with the game ) instead you get a check list. Within any one turn you get a check list of things that need to be done and you do them one at a time, in any sequence, and check them off as you go.



SamuraiProgrmmr -> RE: WiF as a Marketing Gimmick (10/21/2004 3:02:00 AM)

Joe 98,

In reading what I wrote, I realize that some of this might seem harsh. Please don't take it that way. Many things are softened by tone of voice and mannerism. These things are not always conveyed by emoticons. [:)] Please take all of this in a friendly context. It is certainly how it is offered.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe 98
I don’t know how the table top version works.


If you would like to know more, visit http://www.a-d-g.com.au/ and go to the downloads section. There are many things to look at including complete rules sets.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe 98
But the solution might be to make it highly structured just like 3R Within any one turn there are various sub-phases. And they are carried out in a strict sequence.


That is exactly how the game is laid out. In fact, it is one of the most detailed sequences of plays I have seen. There are just many cycles of the sequences to make up the turn.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe 98
Air interception is done once, right across the map all in one go.

Amphibious assault is done once, right across the map all in one go.

etc etc


Unfortunately that would change the game more than you might imagine. It is true that this is one of the possible solutions, but I (along with others) would rather turn the decisions over to a scripted AI that we have loose control over than make this particular concession.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe 98
It will be up to the game designers to arrange a sequence.


He did. His name is Harry Rowland. He has been working on this game for 20 years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe 98
But the great weakness of the game is that it is still a cardboard and counters game. It is not a computer game.


Some of us feel that that is its strength. There are several WWII computer games already. These games have been judged inferior for one reason or another. Maybe what we need is a failthful adaptation of a 'cardboard and counters game'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe 98
Sorry, this does not interest me.


I am sorry to hear that. Have you played many large 'cardboard and counters' games? If not, you might do some research. Look at the prices of the game on the website mentioned above and think about what they imply as to the quality of game. Could a merely average game command those prices? The thing that has many of us excited is that this is one of the very BEST.

Maybe the upcoming World At War is more your style. Maybe what you are looking for is somewhere in the middle.

It is clear that some compromises will have to be made in order for WiF to be appealing as a PBEM game. Perhaps these will make it more palatable to you. But the changes have to be made without destroying what makes this game special. Please familiarize yourself with this game before trying to change it.

In friendship,

Dean



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8125