Whooooooboy, forget World In Flames, I want this (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

Hexed Gamer -> Whooooooboy, forget World In Flames, I want this (11/19/2004 10:35:27 PM)

Fore those that missed the front page, here it is....

Matrix Games, Magnetar Games and Bruce Harper Team Up For A New WWII Grand Strategy Game
Posted by David Heath on Friday, November 19, 2004 @ Eastern Daylight Time
Matrix Games is pleased to announce that it has secured the rights to publish Magnetar Games’ (www.magnetargames.com) licensed computer adaptation of Bruce Harper’s acclaimed board game, A World At War (www.aworldatwar.com). Design and development is underway with no set release date.

Matrix Games is pleased to announce that it has secured the rights to publish Magnetar Games’ (www.magnetargames.com) licensed computer adaptation of Bruce Harper’s acclaimed board game, A World At War (www.aworldatwar.com). Design and development is underway with no set release date.

Bruce Harper’s A World At War is a grand strategy game which simulates the military, economic, political, diplomatic, research and production aspects of the Second World War. Covering all theaters of the war, it is an ideological heir to the epic Third Reich and Rising Sun games that were released under the Avalon Hill Game Company name in previous years. Since its release as a board game from GMT Games (www.gmtgames.com), A World At War has been a big hit among grand strategy gamers.

David Heath, Director of Operations at Matrix Games, said “We Matrix Games are huge grand strategy fans. We cut our wargaming teeth on many of the classic designs that culminated in Bruce Harper’s A World At War. We are excited to play a key role in bringing this outstanding game to computer wargamers around the world.”


The computer adaptation of Bruce Harper’s A World At War will focus on online collaborative play using a series of new technologies developed by Magnetar Games for this purpose, including FederationX and ExForce. A second phase will include full computer AI support for solo play.

Duncan Suttles, President of Magnetar Games, commented “We feel that with the selection of Matrix Games as our publisher, we have the last piece in place to make this project a great success. Our design strength in online collaborative play is a great fit with Matrix’s active community of war and strategy game players, many of whom are familiar with Bruce Harper’s work.”

For more information, please visit the A World At War website at www.aworldatwar.com, the Magnetar Games site at www.magnetargames.com and the Matrix Games website at www.matrixgames.com for future press releases and forum discussions.

For those that don't draw the connection,. this is defacto Computer Third Reich maxed out.
A World at War (not Gary's game, this one wore the lable long before Gary's did), is the evolved game that began as humble Third Reich, and advanced to A3R spawned Rising Sun and then became unified as A World at War (it was briefly known as Global War 2000).

Unless I am totally mistaken of course. And this game enjoys software called Warplanner (something Computer World in Flames doesn't have to my knowledge).

Life is great.



ancient doctor -> RE: Whooooooboy, forget World Inb Flames, I want this (11/19/2004 11:26:05 PM)

No since my hands are trembling during the writting of these words please accept the mistakes you might see and explain me this.The old mighty best ever WW2 corps level board game adaptation of WW2-A3R AND its Pacific expansion Rising Sun are going to be improved and computerised?
To all the gods of these planet form the all mighty Zeus to the newer ones:THANK YOU for putting the idea to the minds of those humble individuals and help me to be still alive when it hit stores.

No kidding.Rising Sun added to A3R everything a classic wargamer of that level whould like to see.If thios concept upgardes with more ideas and gets in the computer it has a great potential to be the BEST or(i hope not)a huge disaster.



pzgndr -> RE: Whooooooboy, forget World Inb Flames, I want this (11/20/2004 12:22:02 AM)

Very good news indeed. You'd think that after 10 years somebody would take on the Computer Third Reich effort and bring it into the 21st century. Finally Matrix and Magnetar are stepping up to the plate. Thank you all. [&o]



Warfare1 -> RE: Whooooooboy, forget World Inb Flames, I want this (11/20/2004 12:44:13 AM)

Have to say that this is wonderful news.

All these great games - hmmmm looks like my new computer will be purchased sooner rather than later. . .

[&o]



Hexed Gamer -> RE: Whooooooboy, forget World Inb Flames, I want this (11/20/2004 1:12:36 AM)

What is cool, is they already have Warplanner. The game is already playable board game vs boad game online.

Now I just hope they keep it intelligent ie there is only so much to be gained from making this game a defacto clone of the board game.

But then again, we have already been given Third Reich PC, and while it wasn't the pinnacle of computer wargaming in a few areas, I am sure they can at least use some of the lessons.

I just want a hex using grand strategy game that is fully global looks like the original but not to anal levels.
Forgive me guys (you hoping for CWiF), but after the first flurry of postings, it became clear the game (CWiF) was not likely going to have any real easy chance of success.
I got bored of following that game's forum when it seemed it was incapable of deciding what it wanted to be.

I don't need a fancy AI, make one if you can.
I just want the game.

I don't mind if some of it has to be abstracted to make it realistically doable.
I just want the game.

The board game sells for 175 bucks US, so anything below that is ok with me :)



Warfare1 -> RE: Whooooooboy, forget World Inb Flames, I want this (11/20/2004 2:08:14 AM)

Since most AI actions are coded, then it would help if the AI was programmed according to the strategies of some of the best board game players for each of the countries.

Plus, there should be a way of coding in certain actions if country X does A, B, or C. . .

In addition the game needs to be moddable, so that players can alter things to provide for more challenging gameplay.

With all that said, all I can say is thank goodness the grand strategy game is back :)



jnier -> RE: Whooooooboy, forget World Inb Flames, I want this (11/20/2004 5:48:39 AM)

Wow!!! This is fantastic news! I've been a fan since the 2nd ed of 3R. Who-Hoo![:)]



pasternakski -> RE: Whooooooboy, forget World Inb Flames, I want this (11/20/2004 6:35:04 AM)

I'm not real excited yet. First, this game will be built on an engine that did not contemplate being used to support a rendition of the A3W/ERS approach to global warfare. It puts me in mind of the recent statements by 2by3 that they now have a game system (the GGWaW thing) that they can plug multiple historical situations into and come up - voila! - with a complete, happy, satisfactory simulation.

I dunno. What ever happened to the idea that you identified a situation you wanted to simulate for gaming purposes, then designed a game engine that would allow you to do it? SSG had some limited success with their Decisive Battles series, but that was penny candy simulation.

Five years from now, when we have screenshots and some indication that there is a design in place that makes the history into a game, I'll be appropriately enthusiastic. For now, I'm just an unwilling litigant in Jarndyce v. Jarndyce.



Hexed Gamer -> RE: Whooooooboy, forget World Inb Flames, I want this (11/20/2004 6:40:16 AM)

This is for me the key phrase..

"The computer adaptation of Bruce Harper’s A World At War will focus on online collaborative play using a series of new technologies developed by Magnetar Games for this purpose, including FederationX and ExForce. A second phase will include full computer AI support for solo play."

And David's comment...

"Let me say this now loud and clear that this game is WAY down the road and we be only posting things when we feel we have something to say. On when will be be release..........When its done and don't expect it any time soon."

Is understandable.

But after taking just the briefest glance about Magnetar's site, it is failry apparent (to my limited perspective) that these guys seem to be way ahead of the process where bringing a board game to computer is concerned.

To date, my only experience with Computer World in Flames, has been it has a troublesome interface, and a design that is not entirely suited to what they are trying to force it to do.
Sure if they just dropped the need for an AI and maybe tried to accomplish what Warplanner did a long time ago, they might have been already serving the needs of WiF fans for some time already.
They haven't been doing that though.

"Online collaborative play" interesting term. I hope we hear a bit more explanation on that one soon.

"A second phase will include full computer AI support for solo play" clearly these people want people playing people as a priority. And it looks like they have been working towards that end for some time already.

Until I get reason to believe otherwise, I think we will be playing aWaW sooner than CWiF unless they intentionally make us wait.



ASHBERY76 -> RE: Whooooooboy, forget World Inb Flames, I want this (11/20/2004 1:49:38 PM)

Well sounded good untill "A second phase will include full computer AI support for solo play".

Most gamers play singleplayer only, me included.



Charles2222 -> RE: Whooooooboy, forget World Inb Flames, I want this (11/20/2004 3:50:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76

Well sounded good untill "A second phase will include full computer AI support for solo play".

Most gamers play singleplayer only, me included.


You got that right, but then the boards aren't so replete with people willing to state that. Yes, the sales will suffer until there's an AI for it.

Actually, as much as this sounds like the AI may be getting the short end of the deal, and as much as it will put AI players in somewhat unfamiliar territory, it could be something of a boon if it's done 'for a soild reason'. As painful as it might be to wait another 6 months after it's out despite it being useless to so many of us without an AI, in the long haul it may be the right thing to do. What do I mean by that? Well, how do games usually cycle? They're made with an AI and then many of them make the AI worse by accomodating the PBEM vocal few. The thing is, if they make the AI "after" the PBEM'ers have voiced all their complaints about the AI-less model, you just might have an AI which is superior in it's 'final' version simply because a lot of the AI spoiling PBEM concerns (like bringing in new options which AI's usually aren't reprogrammed to use) will alredy be taken care of. I don't know if any game makers are that diligent to have a product out to the general public that long and REALLY wait to make an AI when the time is right, but there certainly is some substance to doing it that way as I view it.

For this guy anyway, I don't care how much anyone may promise there will be an AI, until the game gets it, I won't be buying it.



pzgndr -> RE: Whooooooboy, forget World In Flames, I want this (11/20/2004 4:45:51 PM)

quote:

As painful as it might be to wait another 6 months after it's out despite it being useless to so many of us without an AI, in the long haul it may be the right thing to do.


I'll be blunt and say I expect an AI and won't buy a PC game without it. Period. If I want PBEM software, there's ADC and others out there already. Don't insult me and others by not providing a decent AI with a PC game.

As for waiting 6 months, I could see waiting 6 months for a game patch that improves and enhances the AI and other game features. I'm not naive enough to expect a perfect AI immediately upon release, but I would expect at least a challenging and competent computer opponent. Then continue to work on it and make it as good as it can possibly get. The game mechanics of AWAW are pretty stable at this point, so getting them to work in a PC version should be fairly straightforward. Fancy sounds and graphics aren't required, so game development effort should include AI development at the same time.

quote:

this game will be built on an engine that did not contemplate being used to support a rendition of the A3W/ERS approach to global warfare


Probably true. But editing an existing engine and adapting it to what you're working on is a whole lot easier than designing and building a new engine from scatch. I'll assume these guys are aware of the challenges and are confident they have what they need to make things work. It will be interesting to follow this game's development and see what compromises may have to be made. There's a long discussion on the WiF forum about the very same issue, converting the boardgame to PC and how to manage all those player interactions during a game turn. AWAW has some of the same issues, so we'll have to see.

Whatever happens, it will be nice to finally have this great game on the PC. I watched some of the games being played at WBC last August and was amazed at how the game system has grown since the "old" 3R/A3R days. I just don't have the time or space to set up the $175 boardgame and play it. But set up a pre-order page for Computer AWAW and I'll sign up in a heartbeat. Bring it on! [&o] [:D]



Hexed Gamer -> RE: Whooooooboy, forget World Inb Flames, I want this (11/20/2004 5:07:24 PM)

Considering I play most of my games against the AI too (whether I like to admit it or not), the fact is, I would have bought the following games without an AI.

Steel Panthers (as there is nothing wrong with being both sides)
Campaign series (see above).
Panzer Campaigns series (see above).
TOAW series (see above).
Strategic Command (see above).
Panzer General series (see above).
TAO2 (see above) which is essentially saying I would play Korsun Pocket or BiN this way.
Uncommon Valour (see above) which means I would play WitP this way.

I have watched and or participated on so many discussions, where the object of the discussion was to slag the moronic included AI, that to say those games could never have been marketed without the moronic AI doesn't wash.

We are accustomed to an AI, that's really what it's about.
We are also accustomed to buying a game (that has an AI) playing it for a short span of time, claiming the AI is worthless, and thus so too is the game, and then stopping playing it.

I can really only state, that the AI in a Mega Campaign (for Steel Panthers), or the AI in a game of Strategic Command (when the player is still a novice) has given me something of what appeared to be a challenge.
Otherwise, I have not seen many games where the AI was truely trying to bust my butt.
HTTR is about the only game where it looks like the AI was used efficiently.

Every single RTS game I have ever played, only had one device open to making it "hard".
It wasn't that the AI was "smart", it is just that the AI, being an electronic calculator, enjoys a certain mechanical edge over the organic calculator between my ears.
It's not "thinking" faster, merely processing faster.
It explains why the average RTS game can perform swarm tactics so admirably.

Another fond tactic of games to make them seem "challenging" is to merely barrage the player with too much detail to process. Another reason why most RTS games fail to amuse me.
If a game like HoI was played in structured turns, all that ad naseum micromanagement really wouldn't offer much of a barrier. But it matters when I am playing against a calculator.
I also don't ever expect to do math faster than a hand held calculator as well.

I have a room full of some of the finest board games our hobby has ever known.
That I am not routinely playing them, solo, alone, without an opponent, has nothing to do with the fact I have no opponent. It's because physically, they eat up a lot of table. And set up over time, they collect a layer of common household dust, which is hardly receptive to being "dusted".

If I could play those games conveniently on the computer, exactly as they play on the table, unaltered in any fashion, using only a computer's power to graphically represent the game, I would likely stop buying ANY computer wargame, which was designed only to be played against a moron AI.

I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I have played a few wargames in my time against people so ill suited to wargames, that I normally don't ask them to play the game a second time.
My time is valuable to me at least. The last thing I am going to indulge, is a person that plays a game so poorly, the experience is ultimately entirely unrewarding.

It's also why even though I can download free games off the net (as we all know you can do eh), I don't. It's because the games offered, 99% of them, I have seen the places eh, offer games that fit my description.... crappy games, for people willing to buy crappy games.
Not worth the bandwidth to get a free copy.

Maybe the day of the board gamer, willing to play board games solo appears over to some. My response, is maybe you really never were quite the board gamer some of us are.

I would not mind a game that can combine a solo option, with an ability to be played online against other people (efficiently) with a possible later add on AI for those requiring one.
But today, right now, as of this second, I CAN play A World at War the board game, as the board game, against other people, through my computer.
I only require the board game (I have the board game) and Warplanner software (it's not in development, it has been around a good while actually).
I would not mind not needing the board game actually set up here of course.
And that is my own hope, that I can get the entire game placed on the computer, effectively.

I don't think anyone making a game like computerised Third Reich would have ever really been intending to sell it to the same people that will play a shooter game, or an online MUD, or the average RTS design.
Totally different sort of person involved.



wodin -> RE: Whooooooboy, forget World Inb Flames, I want this (11/20/2004 6:58:46 PM)

As I mentioned in a long running thread in the BiN forum.

Computers have given me the chance to play wargames. Something I only dreamed about when I was a young en. No one I knew was interested board wargames. I bought a few and read the rules then just imagined that one day I would be able to play a game. It never happened. Same thing with roleplay games. Then the computer emerged and at last I could happly play games on myown with no need for anyone else.So to me the AI gave me finally the chance to play these games.

IF someone wanted to make a game but couldnt afford an AI then fair enough make it without. At least it can be played by PBEM. Though its unfortumate for anyone who cant afford the internet. However I dont believe that someone wants to make a game but doesnt due to lack of money to fund the AI.

If everygame came out with an abysmal AI that was no challenge nor fun to play against then fair enough its a waste of time. BUT this isnt the case. SO there is no excuse.



ancient doctor -> RE: Whooooooboy, forget World Inb Flames, I want this (11/20/2004 8:02:50 PM)

If you ask me the most challenging part of he job will be to put an AI up to atleast some good standards.This is the most difficult for a game based on A3R/RS probably because of the complexity of rules it had for a board game of its kind.I still remember several dozens pages of rules plus more errata and other stuff.
Anyways IF they manage to do a reasonable AI i wont buy 1 copy.I will buy many more of it BUT only as far as it has Solo play capacity.I am a lone wolf in gaming and dont really appreciate using PBEM or any of that sort.



New York Jets -> RE: Whooooooboy, forget World Inb Flames, I want this (11/20/2004 8:33:16 PM)

This may be putting the cart before the horse, but what is the estimated turn around time when we can expect this title to be available for purchase?



Hexed Gamer -> RE: Whooooooboy, forget World Inb Flames, I want this (11/20/2004 9:21:26 PM)

Maybe I am a rare bird hehe :)

But I never experienced trouble finding face to face wargamers. Might be where I live perhaps (Ontario Canada).

I do think there is a bit to much credit given to the "ease" of finding online gaming opponents though.
If it was really that easy, if it was really that superior, I doubt we would have as much interest in lame excuse AIs.

My ideal game experience, is some guys gathering to fight out a game, not entirely in the same old way perhaps though.
Rather than everyone sitting around a mammoth size table with a board game that likely took hours to set up just so everyone could begin, everyone would be sitting in the livingroom watching whatever was the predominant interest, while the active player input his current game's commands at the computer.

Clean easy convenient efficient. Wasn't that what a computer was meant to do in the first place?

I have a perfectly good collection of board game wargames, and their designs only have one weakness that even gives me an interest in computer version gaming, and that's the space issue.

My best person to person computer wargames, have been hotseat games.

I only require a properly designed game with a computer capacity. I already have opponents handy right here in town.

I will agree with some of the comments in favour of AI though in one area.
If they are going to ever give it an AI, they might just as well just release it with it.
I see no point or gain doing it "later".
It won't matter to me if the AI sucks. I won't really be in a hurry to be dependent on it.
But, there are sufficient that won't be like me.
I can't see a justification to delay inclusion of the AI if it is to be done at all.
It will only detract from sales to those that require it.



Hexed Gamer -> RE: Whooooooboy, forget World Inb Flames, I want this (11/20/2004 9:24:27 PM)

"This may be putting the cart before the horse, but what is the estimated turn around time when we can expect this title to be available for purchase?"

Chris, David Heath made specific comment to that question in the official announcement thread (which I didn't see when I started mine).

He made it apparent the game was NOT being expected soon.
So I would take that to mean this will be discussed a loooooong time in all likelihood.
Oh well.
In 2 years time I am hoping to have moved, set up shop in a new place and with luck will have a better location for my board game table :)



Fred98 -> RE: Whooooooboy, forget World Inb Flames, I want this (11/22/2004 2:31:04 AM)

I was a great fan of Rise and Decline of the Third Reich – 4th edition rules.

I played the board game and later on played the PC version. I never played the Advanced version.

I keenly look forward to this game being released.

But it is important to me that we take advantage of computers to make it BETTER.

Examples:

To Les: None of the examples use the word “graphics”. You can now relax.

To have a Combat Advisor, just like Korsun Pocket, for ground combat. I don’t want to manually calculate all the attack and defence values. If I need to, you lose me immediately.

To zoom the map. You can visually scan the table top version in an instant and get a good idea of the current strategic situation. But the PC version only shows 20 hexes by 20 hexes and the player is lost. I need to smoothly zoom out. See “Highway To the Reich” as an example.

The Combat Results Table (“CRT”) and all the other charts. They ought to be in drop down menus. Unfortunately, on the PC version, they were hard to locate.

During set up, I wish to place units, then oops! Move them slightly to better positions.

Strategic Warefare; We could include a quick calculator like a spread sheet. “if I spend this much and my opponent spends that much in Strategic Warefare, it will have such and such effect during SW resolution.” If I need to calculate the possibilities manually, you lose me. Create a mini-spread sheet with the calculation ( I input the variables).

PBEM. The holy grail. The 1940 scenario was only 12 turns long. By the time you add interception and counter-interception, we have a 36 turn game max. Easily doable by PBEM. If a Global Campaign game took 100 turns it too can easily be done by PBEM

To save a game in the middle of a PBEM turn and get back to it later.

Whence we have an up and running forum, I will spend more BRPs with more ideas.

We must take advantage of computers to make the game BETTER.
-



pasternakski -> RE: Whooooooboy, forget World Inb Flames, I want this (11/22/2004 3:44:44 AM)

Joe, I only have one problem with what you say. I want the computer version to enhance play, not "make the game better." A lot of time and effort went into the 3R/ERS series over its thirty-year history. Johnny-come-lately computer game designers ought to think long and hard before they try to improve on game mechanics that are imbedded in a thoroughly developed system.



Hexed Gamer -> RE: Whooooooboy, forget World Inb Flames, I want this (11/22/2004 5:23:04 AM)

I think all of Joe's ideas sounded more like simple interface issues to eliminate what was essentially tedium normally accomplished the way everything else is done with a board game actually, with one's brain.

But I agree with him, why waste a lot of time with tedium, as the point of the computer is to allow me to "enjoy" the game.

To ENJOY it is the whole reason behind any GAME in the end.

His Strategic Warfare comment for instance, darned right, I want all the math made easy. It's just simple math, and this machine is supposed to be a powerful calculator eh.

A World at War will of course be global, want me to sit here waiting anxiously the most, make sure you can deliver a game that can be compartmentalised ie play just the European war or just the Pacific war while acknowledging the rest in abstraction.

If you ask me, Advanced Third Reich was the pinnacle of the design. Rising Sun was a good try, but A3R was best.
In my opinion, AWaW was basically a compromise to allow both pieces to fit together.

I don't want to be told I can only play the whole war or not at all.

Chances are, if they don't make the game "easy" to enjoy, most of us will just end up playing Strategic Command 2 with user made scenarios to fill any gaps the vanilla install left out.
I like detail you bet, but I play games to have fun, I tend to play the game that delivers the fun the best. And whether another design is "more detailed" is not always a good enough argument.



Fred98 -> RE: Whooooooboy, forget World Inb Flames, I want this (11/22/2004 6:01:20 AM)

I reckon the words “better” and “enhance” are both misleading.

“ More user friendly interface” and “less manual calculations” would be a better way to put it.



Fred98 -> RE: Whooooooboy, forget World Inb Flames, I want this (11/22/2004 6:12:05 AM)

Alas I fear the dream will not come true.

I was reading about Warplanner over at the W@W site. It seems the players move the counters in the usual manner. And the Warplanner software is designed, for example, in such a way that you cannot make an illegal move by error. Which sounds excellent.

Their current goal seems to be to make the game an exact duplicate of the original, but with a PBEM feature and a “collaborative play” feature – by which I gather means, players can all play online in one game. A bit like virtually standing around the table.

I would love to play a PBEM game against Les, but it used to take 2 hours to play one turn. It is necessary to be able to save an incomplete turn or such a game would be impossible to play.



ravinhood -> RE: Whooooooboy, forget World Inb Flames, I want this (11/22/2004 7:51:49 AM)

quote:

"Let me say this now loud and clear that this game is WAY down the road and we be only posting things when we feel we have something to say. On when will be be release..........When its done and don't expect it any time soon."


Last time I saw that statement it was THREE years later when the game was released, and it was ROME TOTAL WAR. And it was the biggest letdown this side of REALMS III and MOO III.

Let us hope it doesn't take 3 more years for this one and it lives up to the "hype". In fact, let's not even have any hype. ;)



Hexed Gamer -> RE: Whooooooboy, forget World Inb Flames, I want this (11/22/2004 9:54:58 AM)

In 3 years time a lot can happen.

I hope in 3 years time I have found a new place, one with a decent dry basement where I can do some occasional woodworking, but mostly just someplace to set up my 4'x8' table where I can play real Advanced Third Reich uninterrupted :)

Chances are reasonable I can find that place (with some work).

In 3 years time, god only knows what will have happened with computer technology.

In 1995, my then computer was a 486, I thought it was great. Win 95 was released, I was skeptical though, took me a year to get it.

I watched as every 3 years, the entire world of computers was entirely re written.

Win 98 made 95 look clumsy, then XP seemed to be the answer to lame 98.

My current machine, heck it sucks if we are talking power gamer rig.
But against my 486, hell this machine was not even the stuff of dreams yet.

I hope they get around to making the computer version of A World at War. I hope they bother to make it look like the board game.

But in 3 years time, I expect the computer world to have completely changed.... again.

Maybe in 3 years, they will have to add on a voice activated command input routine eh.

Computer send the Panzer Lehr to attack the US forces outside of St Lo.
Execute attack with attack option C.

There is little point getting to in a fuss over a game that might be, in 3-5 years.

In most cases, it is likely best to have already made the game 3-5 years ago hehe.

I bought Advanced Third Reich back when it was first released.
Amazingly, it doesn't really matter how old it is though.

If they want to make a board game work on a computer, they should just make it function on a computer, and stop pretending it will be in a position to be the equal of computer wargame advances 3-5 years from now.

There is really nothing so infinitely clever about A World at War when you get right down to it.
It's a game design that depicted the war at the army group level primarily and used seasonal turns. It has a decent political aspect and a good economic design.
But it isn't so incredibly radical, that it will sweep away all competition.

I think that's the reason no one is playing Computer World in Flames.
Too many people can't get it through their heads, it's just a board game, admittedly a famous one, but as a computer grand strategy design, it likely won't be singularly special.

It will probably be easier to design a good global grand strategy hex using turn based game from the ground up and no previous board game baggage.

I am sure TOAW or SC or WitP was easier to design, than the conversion of a board game intact is going to be (assuming everyone gets all of their wishes ie gotta have an AI etc etc etc).



JTGEN -> RE: Whooooooboy, forget World Inb Flames, I want this (11/29/2004 7:35:35 PM)

I'am waiting for this too. Have played the board game a couple of times but the main problem is to get all those people at the place all at the same time. Ant then to have place to store the game while game is on, without somebody 'cleaning' the mess away as it is the way. A friends wife once allmost 'cleaned' the mess out. Now that would have been a nice catastrophy.

But I think they allready have some form of it, since a friend of mine has been trying out some version of it for a long time. But it did not have any AI on it yet. But have not checked from him for a long time on the status of things on this front.



Fred98 -> RE: Whooooooboy, forget World Inb Flames, I want this (11/30/2004 5:45:40 AM)

I made some enquiries and received this answer;


Joe,

Warplanner is a PC version of A World At War which can be played entirely on the computer, and sent via E-Mail to a player anywhere in the world.

There are also admin Tracking charts which can be used to do the bookkeeping of a Face-to-Face board game, or with Warplanner.

You can save the game at any point, and change, undo, redo, and replay past turns if you wish. The Program saves all moves from the beginning to the end in a replay.

Warplanner allows you to use the computer to save and display your moves, and does many automatic functions, but does not restrict you overly like previous -non-user-friendly version had done, hampering your game experience, such as Third Reich PC.

Warplanner will not stop you from making an illegal move, just like the board game will not stop you from making an illegal move. But, I bet the other player will notice, and let you know. You can correct your error easily, since a replay of your moves is saved.

The AWAW websitehas a player registry which you can use to find players that live in your area, for a real face-to-face game; http://www.aworldatwar.com

You can visit the Warplanner Website at the following link and view snapshots of the game, and download the program full install here also; http://www.warplanner.com

I hope that answers your questions,



IronDuke_slith -> RE: Whooooooboy, forget World Inb Flames, I want this (12/1/2004 4:50:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

quote:

"Let me say this now loud and clear that this game is WAY down the road and we be only posting things when we feel we have something to say. On when will be be release..........When its done and don't expect it any time soon."


Last time I saw that statement it was THREE years later when the game was released, and it was ROME TOTAL WAR. And it was the biggest letdown this side of REALMS III and MOO III.

Let us hope it doesn't take 3 more years for this one and it lives up to the "hype". In fact, let's not even have any hype. ;)


I wouldn't quite go this far, I think it's a better game when modded.

However, I'd agree it falls short of expectations. I suspect that last summer (03) the plaudits they were receiving for the title at the game shows led to a postponement (remember everyone was guessing Sept 03 or March 04). I'm guessing they used the time to dumb it down a little for the RTS crowd. (Or rather, slicked the interface and streamline the features set!) I think that was why it was released with unit speed and kill rates set as they were. It plays like an RTS until you mod it. A click fest with quick battles. To keep the existing fan base on side, everything was done on text files allowing easy modding, but you can only mod so much and the game whilst fun, is not what I would have wanted.

The dynamic map wasn't quite as clever as I'd hoped, and the two turns a year and problems that caused them was a further issue. And although they tried to get away from provinces, replacing them by making Cities the key only changed the name not intent of the original design.

Battlefield command hasn't really moved forward during the three titles, and the novelty of the graphics is difficult to appreciate when you're trying to control 4000 men. You don't really get time to zoom into a unit of Legionaries going at it with some chosen swordsmen. I dare so they made more money this time, but overall, it disappointed.

Regards,
IronDuke



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.375