RE: WiF on the computer

RE: WiF on the computer (Full Version)

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

Message

coregames -> RE: WiF on the computer (12/4/2004 5:11:21 AM)
So much feedback on this topic has been in favor of somehow preserving authenticity. I really believe a major selling point of CWiF can be as a training tool -- keeping close association with the boardgame and thus cultivating synergy between the two products. It has been said that a dual-mode approach that provides authenticity as well as a streamlined mode for PBEM suitability would be more difficult to program. I strongly believe that this difficulty would be worth it and possibly the only way to save this project. This view is clearly widely-held from what I've read in these posts. A drastic alteration to the sequence for PBEM suitability will make the relevance to the boardgame very minimal, and so eliminate any usefulness as a training/experimental tool. On the other side, a faithful adaptation is very poorly suited to PBEM. A dual-mode approach could be marketed that gave the "basic" mode PBEM suitability while introducing the game's simpler ideas to players to prepare them for the intensity of the full (or "advanced") game, which would only be suitable for TCP/IP or other concurrent connections. The added difficulty would be compensated by an increased functionality that would translate to a larger market. People probably would be willing to pay a bit more for the increased options available for how they play the game.

stewart_king -> RE: Underway interception of air units (12/7/2004 12:53:12 AM)
This is an optional rule. I never use it. I think it adds way too much complexity for what you gain in realism. I think you could dispense with it in CWiF without harming the game. On the larger issue, I have to say that an AI to make the defensive decisions for the player would be perfectly acceptable to me, as a person who has played WiF extensively since the 3rd edition. If the AI screws up, well, that's the breaks. Learn to set your parameters better next time. Think of it as a failure of a subordinate commander. If you like, you can have him shot [:D] I played a game of WiF via email (using the boards and counters, not Chris' CWiF) and we usually exchanged five or six emails per impulse. This was not an impossible amount of correspondence -- worked out to a full turn, two months, per real-time week or so. We trusted each other to do the interceptions, counterinterceptions, etc. I was playing Wendell Albright, who may be familiar to those of you on the WiF list. He is a very honest guy. If there was a computer to keep track of where units were and roll the dice we'd still be playing. Stewart King

coregames -> RE: Underway interception of air units (12/7/2004 5:16:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stewart_king This is an optional rule. I never use it. I think it adds way too much complexity for what you gain in realism. I think you could dispense with it in CWiF without harming the game. While we have only used interception en-route in one game we played a few years back, David Noel (Germany in our current game) insists that if he did have that capability now it would make the defensive shore bombardment keeping the CW in the Netherlands easier to accept (at least he could guard his factories more effectively with it). I agree that this option is silly for PBEM, but if played TCP/IP some might still enjoy the added realism.

Froonp -> RE: Underway interception of air units (12/8/2004 2:03:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stewart_king This is an optional rule. I never use it. I think it adds way too much complexity for what you gain in realism. I think you could dispense with it in CWiF without harming the game. My opinion about this is very different. First, let me state that I played all our 39-45 WiF FE campaigns using this rule. It adds absolutely no complexity to the cardboard game as 99,99% of the missions flown during the whole game are not impacted by this rule, either because the range for the mission is too short, either because the bombing planes have enough range to go around the possible intercepting fighters, or either because the intercepting player can sees that he can achieve the same battles if fighting over the target or en-route, so he forget about intercepting en-route. For the computer game it sure adds complexity to the programming team and to the players because it adds a routine asking the bombing player to give waypoints, and asking the bombed player whether he intercepts or not for each mission. Just an idea to help going around this added complexity : The bombing player could be prompted with a message asking him if he wants to try and go around possible intercepting fighters after having selected each target, and the target player could be prompted with a message asking him if he is willing to only intercept over the target (given the information for where the bombers come from). This could make this optional rule less a burden for the players in the computer game. I think that the historical feel that it gives to the game is far superior to the difficulty added, so for me it is a must. Best Regards Patrice

SamuraiProgrmmr -> RE: Underway interception of air units (12/8/2004 5:17:01 PM)
Patrice, Great to see you here! Perhaps you should link to your website in your signature so everyone can visit it. It might be useful for those who may be looking on with interest but have never actually played WiF.

coregames -> RE: Underway interception of air units (12/9/2004 8:50:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer Patrice, Great to see you here! Perhaps you should link to your website in your signature so everyone can visit it. It might be useful for those who may be looking on with interest but have never actually played WiF. It's true Patrice; yours is the best site dedicated to WiF (among some really good ones). I'm curious to hear your opinion re: PBEM suitability in MWiF vs. faithful adaptation.

Larry Smith -> RE: Underway interception of air units (12/13/2004 12:20:58 AM)
Following up on that thought; different AI sub-routines could be programmed for different situations and/or fronts. You could name them,like set up a routine for the 8th Army in Egypt and call it Auchinleck. Then, should you want to change the CinC of a Theatre/Front, just sack him! This can either result in the AI going into a reserve pool of sorts, or being "deleted" (ie: shot, purged, sent to count trees, exiled to Tulsa, etc...) and thus is not available for re-use (after all, didn't Hitler sack Rundstedt three times!). The AI's could even interact with one another...the Patton/Montgomery AI's could hurl insults at one another and race each other to objectives.

Larry Smith -> RE: Underway interception of air units (12/13/2004 12:24:07 AM)
Sounds like a feasable solution. Sending in fighters one at a time would only lead to them being overwhelmed by interceptors. Unless the game were redesigned to allow one escort per interceptor until all interceptors were screened. Interceptors could attack the fighter screen or opt to bypass, just like in the Europa system. However, such a change would be Harry's decision, not ours.

Froonp -> RE: Underway interception of air units (12/15/2004 11:03:59 AM)
quote: Great to see you here! Perhaps you should link to your website in your signature so everyone can visit it. It might be useful for those who may be looking on with interest but have never actually played WiF. Thank you. I did put the link in my profile if someone is interested. Best Regards

Froonp -> RE: Underway interception of air units (12/15/2004 11:25:15 AM)
quote: It's true Patrice; yours is the best site dedicated to WiF (among some really good ones). I'm curious to hear your opinion re: PBEM suitability in MWiF vs. faithful adaptation. Hello, Thank you too for the website. My opinion between PBEM suitability & Faithfull adaptation is that I would hate if WiF FE mechanisms were drastically changed to have the game more suitable for PBEM. I think that WiF FE is not suitable for PBEM gaming anyway because it is simply too long even in face to face gaming (more than 150 h). I can only see it played by TCP/IP through Internet or over LANs, or on the same PC. What I want to see in MWiF is a faithfull adaptation of the paper game I love to play, with exactly the same sequence of play, and if possible the same graphics and a decent AI. Chris Marinacci did a great job putting it into a playable code, and I really enjoyed betatesting / playing it, even without AI nor TCP/IP implemented. I think that PBEM may be simply more suited for a simpler faster paced WWII game, and Matrix has 2 of them in developpement if I understood correctly. For what it's worth these were my 2 cents. Best Regards Patrice

macgregor -> RE: WiF as a Marketing Gimmick (12/20/2004 9:14:29 PM)
I suppose it will always be a 'boardgame' in the sense that it will require much more interaction than your typical PBEM game. And as one of the 'grogs',I'll be happy to agree with the project coordinator. Decisions take as long as it takes a player to see all of his options(if he's smart). Through the computer interface, those options could be sorted , clarified and perhaps even assessed by a few AI 'leaders',speeding-up the decision making process-perhaps allowing those who desire the ability to delegate to a particular AI leader. 'Leaders in Flames' units all add some benefits. Perhaps that could offset the fact that the player has delegated a decision to an AI. The slowest part of world in flames to me was the 'beancouting', odds assessment, and at times,rule clarification. I think that as a computergame it will inevitably move along much faster. Godspeed you guys! I'm dyin' over here.

Hortlund -> RE: WiF as a Marketing Gimmick (6/1/2005 10:33:30 AM)
In light of the other threads I think this one needs a punt.

coregames -> RE: WiF as a Marketing Gimmick (6/1/2005 8:27:44 PM)
When it became known to me that Robert Crandall was not starting over, PBEM suitability suddenly looked like a bigger challenge. Some of the ideas we bounced around in this thread seem to require a redesign, not simply a retrofit. Still, Panzerjaeger Hortlund is right... we should be providing Robert and his team with as much of our creative energy as possible; hopefully, ideas he finds useful are either in here already, or can be added before the game's concrete vision has been established.

macgregor -> RE: WiF as a Marketing Gimmick (6/2/2005 6:05:51 AM)
quote: In light of the other threads I think this one needs a punt. Thanks for doing that Panzerjaeger Hortlund. Seems I've had little else to say for the last 5 months. Well, origins will be over ...4th of July? It'd be nice to go. Matrix seems to want to hold off making decisions until after the origins discussion. Which I guess will mean they won't have much to announce at origins, at least about CWiF. I hope alot of WiF players show up. I wonder how many games of WiF have actually been sold. Does anyone have an idea? I know I've bought 3 of them.

coregames -> RE: WiF as a Marketing Gimmick (6/2/2005 7:09:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: macgregor I know I've bought 3 of them. 3 for me also, along with the original PiF, Africa and Asia in Flames, plus DoD2 and Fatal Alliances. I love WiFFED, but I don't have Leaders, America or Patton in Flames, or the newest stuff. ADG just plain kicks butt... 7 Ages is up to the EiA/WiF standards as well. I'm sure the number who have played must be in the many thousands. I wonder if total sales are available from the ADG site? I'll ask Beth (their U.S. rep) next time I talk to her by email.

macgregor -> RE: WiF as a Marketing Gimmick (6/2/2005 7:41:18 AM)
I never had DOD but I did have Leaders(which I liked alot). I once tried getting into a game with players off the internet. I found it not as much fun as with my friends. Not because I didn't like them,it's just that I found hanging all night with people where WiF was the only thing we had in common got a little taxing after awhile. CWiF(or MWiF) should change all that I hope. It's no surprise I got into WiF. I started playing wargames in the late 70s when I was in ASW school. The amazing thing to me is that friends of mine who would have nothing to do with boardgames, just perhaps a common sentiment that they understand WW2 better than the next guy, found WiF irresistable. To me this is the sign of a very special game.

coregames -> Passion for it (6/2/2005 8:26:34 AM)
It's true mac... I agree 100%. WiF is unique among wargames for over-the-board play from my experience, the perfect union of game mechanics and passion for a subject. I haven't played with people I met online; my gaming group consists largely of members of an SCA household, and some musicians I used to be in a band with. We all share the wargame bug fortunately. I do want to try Harper's World at War by way of comparison... Third Reich was, after all, the game that paved the way for a game like World in Flames to be possible. I suspect PBEM will be easier to achieve for the Matrix version of HWaW than for WiF, if the sequence is similar to Third Reich's.

Cheesehead -> RE: Passion for it (6/2/2005 8:28:49 PM)
I'll give BHWaW a try, too...but what I like about WiF compared to other WWII "3 month turn" games such as 3R and WaW is WiF is more forgiving of mistakes. The pace for a 100 hour wargame is much more relaxed. As a beginner (I'm currently playing my second campaign) I've made plenty of mistakes...but you can overcome minor oversights and errors in judgement or strategy just as the they did in the real war (Dieppe in '42, Market-Garden in '44). When the game is compressed into 24 turns you need to be on pace with everything...schnell! schnell! schnell! WiF enthusiasts, like any other hobby that requires brains and concentration to even be interested, does attract some intense, opininionated and headstrong people...but in the age of Paris Hilton I welcome their company. In no other group I associate with (I'm also a big sports fan) can I talk to people about history that have the same base of knowledge. It's very refreshing. Last month in our game my opponent made a reference to "Peanut" when moving his Chiang Kai-Shek counter into place. I had read Barbara Tuchman's fine book "Stillwell and the American Experience in China" last summer where I learned of Stillwell's nickname for Chiang. I was floored. "These are the people I need to spend more time with," I thought. Yes, we can get on each others nerves after 12 straight hours on a saturday in one small room, but I wouldn't trade the experience for another Packer Super Bowl victory. [X(]

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.15625