I Go U Go (Full Version)

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



Message

Nordic Twilight -> I Go U Go (1/10/2005 5:18:49 PM)

How on earth are the team going to get round the IGO UGO aspect of air interception within the game??

This is the one aspect ( apart from the AI ) I would think would give the Matrix Development Team [&o][&o] a real headache. I've thought about the problem many times but being a mere footslogger when it comes to programming, I can't see a solution with my limited brain power[8|]

Anyone got any thoughts on this intresting little conundrum??



Cheesehead -> RE: I Go U Go (1/10/2005 8:06:05 PM)

This issue was discussed thoroughly in another thread (WiF on the computer) from October through December of last year. You might want to go back and read some of those comments. We are all concerned about this issue. Some of us are very skeptical that cWiF can be made for PBEM unless you make some major changes in the interactive features of the game. My own feelings are to simplify WiF for the computer by streamlining some of these activities. I recognize that when you make a major change in a game of this size and quality, there will be a dominoe effect of unforseen consequences. I would like to see Matrix start from scratch, make a hex based WWII turn-based game, follow some of the ideas of WiF (sea zones, 2 month turns with impulses, production, HQs to name a few) but don't handcuff yourself to the original game eliminating any possibility of PBEM. You could still call it WiF, but make it clear that the computer version is "based on the boardgame," not an exact replica.



coregames -> RE: I Go U Go (1/10/2005 8:30:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead
...You could still call it WiF, but make it clear that the computer version is "based on the boardgame," not an exact replica.

Simplification is great if it helps sell the game, but I still question the necessity of only offering one mode of play. Why would WiF over-the-board be more sophisticated and nuanced in its play than the computer version? Is it common for computer versions of board games to be simpler than the over-the-board forms? I am certain some agree that the possibility (not the requirement) of playing a faithful adaptation increases the usefulness of the game dramatically, as a training tool as well as for a computer alternative to over-the-board play. Others doubt the synergy factor, but I believe MWiF could help create a boom for all forms of this game, just as internet chess increases interest in over-the-board play. Isn't it possible too much divergence could harm sales of the board game? If a simpler mode must be available for PBEM, then obviously that should be the case. Even so, I believe a "faithful adaptation" mode would make the game much more appealing, even if that mode did not have A.I.



Cheesehead -> RE: I Go U Go (1/10/2005 9:23:34 PM)

I wouldn't argue with making multiple versions of WiF (WiF for PBEM, WiF for purists, WiF for solitaire play). But that is the ideal in a perfect world scenario. When you consider that putting WiF on the computer has been 10 years or more and we're still a looooooooooong ways from a finished product, I'm trying to send a message to Robert that I will settle for less than the ideal. And considering the difficulties in producing a decent AI, the difficulty in finding local opponents, I think PBEM is the method of play that will attract the most people and produce the greatest replayability. Think of it, even if the AI is above our expectations, how many times will you play it before you're beating it regularly? And then it sits on your "shelf" untouched like those old Avalon Hill games in your attic. With games like Civilization, at least a random world was recreated making for a reason to play again and again. Games like Strategic Command are only being played PBEM. I assume GGWaW will also be a strictly PBEM game after you've played all the countries against the AI once or twice.



Nordic Twilight -> RE: I Go U Go (1/10/2005 9:32:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead

I'm trying to send a message to Robert that I will settle for less than the ideal. And considering the difficulties in producing a decent AI, the difficulty in finding local opponents, I think PBEM is the method of play that will attract the most people and produce the greatest replayability. Think of it, even if the AI is above our expectations, how many times will you play it before you're beating it regularly? And then it sits on your "shelf" untouched like those old Avalon Hill games in your attic. With games like Civilization, at least a random world was recreated making for a reason to play again and again. Games like Strategic Command are only being played PBEM. I assume GGWaW will also be a strictly PBEM game after you've played all the countries against the AI once or twice.


I must say I'm in total agreement Cheesehead. Unless you have large amounts of free time, a middle sized room taken over by maps and charts, and regular reliable opponents who are as mad about the game as myself, PBEM must be a prime requisite for the game.

A decent AI is great for learning/ trying out new tactics, or when you are just plain bored, but the game sets itself alight when human opponents are involved, and a game of this magnitude and complexity really needs PBEM IMHO[:)]



coregames -> RE: I Go U Go (1/10/2005 10:42:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nordic Twilight
... a game of this magnitude and complexity really needs PBEM IMHO[:)]

That's the problem... a game with the complexity of WiF as played over the board is so complex that PBEM is problematic. I'm not arguing against PBEM, I'm just lobbying for a faithful adaptation mode. I am unlikely to spring nearly as much for MWiF if I can't use it to help prepare for my over-the-board games. Perhaps I am unique in this regard. I suspect many WiFers will share my opinion however.



Cheesehead -> RE: I Go U Go (1/10/2005 11:02:33 PM)

quote:

Perhaps I am unique in this regard. I suspect many WiFers will share my opinion however.


You're not unique in this regard. It seems like the WiFers who have played for 10+ years all want what you want, a faithful recreation of the board game. I've even read many comments about keeping the same map scale as the board game. I respect your opinion because the board game is a work of art...I just want to play more and there aren't too many WiFers in my area.



fahdiz -> RE: I Go U Go (1/11/2005 5:24:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: coregames

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nordic Twilight
... a game of this magnitude and complexity really needs PBEM IMHO[:)]

That's the problem... a game with the complexity of WiF as played over the board is so complex that PBEM is problematic. I'm not arguing against PBEM, I'm just lobbying for a faithful adaptation mode. I am unlikely to spring nearly as much for MWiF if I can't use it to help prepare for my over-the-board games. Perhaps I am unique in this regard. I suspect many WiFers will share my opinion however.


Agreed 100%.



stretch -> RE: I Go U Go (1/11/2005 6:01:59 AM)

Of course, IP based play would fix all the issues with I GO YOU GO, eh?

Even if its limited to 2 players.. wow.



coregames -> RE: I Go U Go (1/11/2005 7:51:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stretch

Of course, IP based play would fix all the issues with I GO YOU GO, eh?

Even if its limited to 2 players.. wow.


If one person hosts, you should still be able to play multiplayer using TCP/IP, and obviously this is the format that would allow a faithful adaptation of the game to be played, as long as everyone is online together at the same time. I agree with the sentiment that a streamlined mode is probably the only way to achieve PBEM, a much-needed feature. I hope very much Matrix can find a way to achieve both, with appeal to hard-core WiFers and newbies alike. If more people on this forum speak out in favor of a multiple-mode solution, maybe that is the approach Matrix will opt for.



Griffitz62 -> RE: I Go U Go (1/12/2005 1:01:49 AM)

I am one of those people who would like to see multiple options, but I would most like to see a faithful adaptation of the boardgame.
I am in complete agreeance with coregames here.
Just my two pennies worth. [:)]



meyerg -> RE: I Go U Go (1/15/2005 7:41:38 AM)

As I have stated my preference for allowing computer WiF to become the best computer strategic level WW2 game and not become shackled to a boardgame paradigm, I now realize I am in the minority. Do we want to roll dice and type our rolls into the computer, or can we allow the computer to do the die rolls?

Just want to point out that there are things we can allow the computer to do. Maybe we should let the computer do more things and CHANGE/SHORTEN the sequence of play to allow for PBEM. I do not want to play networked and wait for the German player to decide if he wants to abort his front fighter or bomber. When will 5 Wif players be at the computer at the same time?

Finally, the AI required for this game gets harder as the interactions increase.

Greg



coregames -> RE: I Go U Go (1/15/2005 10:36:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meyerg
...I have stated my preference for allowing computer WiF to become the best computer strategic level WW2 game and not become shackled to a boardgame paradigm...


I like the idea of a game that is the best computer strategic level WWII game, but would this necessarily be WiF? A game that takes unique advantage of the computer's features could be more realistic, and even more complex yet, than World in Flames, and be a fun challenge. But to attach the name WiF means it is a computer version of the board game.

I expressed my desire a few months ago in these forums that the name World in Flames not just be used as a marketing gimmick. This to me requires that MWiF stay as true to the board game as possible. If the name is not a major selling point for MWiF, and they wish to depart substantially from ADG's design, then why use the name? They could design a computer game that fulfills your wishes and call it something else.

I feel, however, that the award-winning aspect of WiF will be a selling point for MWiF, and I hope the game offers at least the option of as faithful an adaptation as possible, even if it means that mode does not have AI. Perhaps offering a streamlined mode for better PBEM suitability could also include AI, and the general feeling of WiF, while acting as a primer for the more sophisticated (and less PBEM/AI suitable) complete version that is best suited to TCP/IP. I realize this dual-mode approach is a tough row to hoe; maybe I'm just dreaming, but I hope not.



pasternakski -> RE: I Go U Go (1/15/2005 7:50:49 PM)

They could call it "Hearts in Flames."

I agree with what you say except for one thing: you try selling this without an AI and you'll go broke. That goes for computer wargames in general. As much as we all try to ignore it, and as much as we say "PBEM is the best way to play the game," the vast majority of wargames of all types are played solitaire. Marketing research over the years demonstrates this quite forcibly.

Remember that computer wargaming became mildly popular in the first place because it appealed to those who could not find opponents for their cardboard-and-paper games (or didn't want to).



coregames -> RE: I Go U Go (1/16/2005 7:29:29 AM)

quote:

I agree with what you say except for one thing: you try selling this without an AI and you'll go broke.


Of course people will want AI... For a dual-mode approach, I was suggesting that Matrix might have AI and PBEM for the streamlined mode, but I would also appreciate AI in a faithful mode that could play at least passably well. However, if AI is the stumbling block for faithfulness, I would rather have that option even if AI was not available for the more advanced mode.



macgregor -> RE: I Go U Go (1/16/2005 8:41:59 PM)

The problems faced with UgoIgo do not outweigh the benefits (all I gotta do is look at the traffic on the roads outside). Certainly, a high-speed connection would minimize these problems. I can commmunicate as fast over the net as I can verbally (just about).Meanwhile,you're saving time with setup,calculations,and moving units.Ever play against someone with a shaky hand? It's not a pretty sight watching them demolish a front. I've looked at some of the pics from these after action reports -most wiffers keep entirely too sloppy of a board for my liking. I don't know how the rest of you retain all those rules,but I can say that a large part of each night I've spent playing the boardgame has been devoted to rules clarification. There's also the ability of one to cheat -and not always intentionally.'Oh,-I thought I could do that.' I suppose it'll be Matrix's job to find the best way to portray the data as to speed up the decision-making process. I predict that while the game should move along much faster, it's still going to take several months to finish. Bottom line- UgoIgo is a go.



c92nichj -> RE: I Go U Go (1/17/2005 5:35:48 PM)

I have spent a great deal of my time playing PBEM of the Beta version during the last two years. To get it at all playable we are doing it impulse by impulse. ie I am doing all the decisions for the allies during my impulse when playing the axis, where shall he intercept with how much shall he abort an airfight use HQ support etc.

Even with this option I find an impulse taking longer than in the real game mostly because of the strict order of play, when playing using the board game we usually play it front by front ie do all groundstrikes land moves etc for west europe then do east front etc.

I've been waiting for this game for years now and I look forward to the release but I don't think it would be possible to play without some decent AI to handle intercept ground strikes or a new order of play.



coregames -> RE: I Go U Go (1/18/2005 3:54:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: c92nichj
I've been waiting for this game for years now and I look forward to the release but I don't think it would be possible to play without some decent AI to handle intercept ground strikes or a new order of play.


I think to preserve as much of the game flow as possible, Matrix's team will have to use both AI and scripting, as has been discussed elsewhere. Even if used, scripting contingencies for air and sea units will not completely solve the UGoIGo issue for PBEM, so some AI with options set by the non-phasing player could help handle some of the issues.

For example, a good compromise could be to reserve aircraft for various types of interception and defensive ground support, with a priority system to help the computer choose from among targets, then let the AI handle the actual air combat once the units are declared, based on settings chosen by the player. A similar approach could be applied to naval search, interception and combat options for the non-phasing side.

A strong push is underway to alter the turn sequence dramatically, to make it much more PBEM suitable. This would make the game simpler, no doubt, and make it easier for an impulse to be resolved without feedback from the non-phasing side, speeding it up a lot. This vision of the game is ideal UGoIGo stuff, impulse-by-impulse, based on WiF, but with much less fine control for the players tactically. I have mixed feelings about this; I want MWiF to be a success, and PBEM is essential to this. Meanwhile, I also want to be able to recognize the game I love in what is finally released, and to apply what I learn to games I play over the board.



macgregor -> RE: I Go U Go (1/19/2005 12:26:08 AM)

Full control of air units -or a programmable AI. I sympathize those wanting to move the game along faster. What's wrong with a wif-based instant messenger capable of updating the gamefile? Provided all players are running the game simultaneously , could protect the flow. Some people feel that they lose an advantage when they let someone take all the time they want to email an impulse and therefore are opposed to Igougo. Perhaps the turns could be timed by the game(as set by the players). Igougo should still be available for when a player(s) is unavailable. Another option would be to have the updated gamefile on a website and have players login to move. With all wiffers now connected by the net, large games featuring teams of players thus allowing selected substitutes could be possible.



c92nichj -> RE: I Go U Go (1/19/2005 7:04:39 PM)

The website option is interesting, then you could time the intercept resonse etc and if you didn't get an answer from a player in time the ai/script would take over.

Believe me this game takes long to play PBEM we started our latest game in August and by mid december we had only reached July 43, now we are having a bit of a break. And that is we still only exchange one email/ impulse and maybe a few around the turn end. I'm abit anxious at the moment as I commited a big fleet to bay of bengal successfully putting the Japaneese in india out of supply, but the IJN have a huge uncommited CV fleet that just waits for a decisive battle (China is conquered).

In Europe I've been more succesful and have a shot at paris from the north after a successful landing near to Lille. I'm anxious to start the game again.



SeaMonkey -> RE: I Go U Go (1/19/2005 8:10:22 PM)

I'm going to suggest a different approach to this dilemma. Instead of IgoUgo, how about a simultaneous combat phase execution with pro-active decisions by the players as flagged by their options. For example, let's say that player A has checked the proactive intercept option which has a popup feature for a decision of how much air of the qualifying air units to be used. Player A makes the decision, results applied(hidden to both players) and the phase continues with the continual actions taken by the AI accounting, directed by the players through popups. This system would work for either TCP/IP or PBEM and since each player would alternate initiative according to the priority(point) allocation option(limited number of points for use by players), no one would have the advantage. Not until both players have fulfilled their obligations would the turn be terminated and the results be acknowledged to both by the AI. After a set number of combat phases have been executed, the number for each medium(air,naval,ground) determined by mutual player agreement(or AI determination from player prompts or initiative award from the previous turn success/supply/diplomacy/etc.) at the beginning of the turn, then we proceed to the Supply, Production, Diplomacy, etc. phases. I'm actually thinking about this as I type and more ideas are being developed how this system could be improved. So in essence there are but two parts to each turn, the combat phases and the rest, with the rest having implications for the next turn's combat phases.



macgregor -> RE: I Go U Go (1/20/2005 2:37:19 AM)

It sounds something like what I said about a wif-based instant messenger capable of updating the gamefile. I don't want to see a game with alot of horses(for the course i.e.-tricks that punish the uninitiated and reward the geek while having little to do with reality.) Wif was never like that. Wif is a strategy game-not an arcade game. You could play it in realtime but then an impulse would take a week. Some players move faster and think they should be rewarded for that. I'm not opposed to this. Perhaps the player with the initiative could be automatically timed which would affect (perhaps directly) the amount of time the reaction player would have to move.



Fred98 -> RE: I Go U Go (1/20/2005 3:30:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor
You could play it in realtime but then an impulse would take a week.



I never played the board game. If I were to play this computer version, PBEM is the only way to play for me.

If people communicate by email, how many emails would it require to play one typical “impulse”

How many impulses in one typical turn?

How many turns are there in a typical ( short ) scenario?

-



Mziln -> RE: I Go U Go (1/20/2005 6:03:36 AM)

I never played the board game. If I were to play this computer version, PBEM is the only way to play for me.

If people communicate by email, how many emails would it require to play one typical “impulse”

(Q1) How many impulses in one typical turn?

(Q2)How many turns are there in a typical ( short ) scenario?
[/quote]

(Q1)

3.1 Sequence of play
The sequence of play in a turn is:
A. REINFORCEMENT STAGE
B. LENDING RESOURCES STAGE
C. INITIATIVE STAGE
D. ACTION STAGE
Repeat D1 through D3 until the action stage ends.
D1 Determine weather
D2 First side’s impulse
Every major power on the fi rst side performs these steps:
D2.1 Declare war
D2.2 Choose action
Choose either a pass, a naval, an air, a land or a combined action.

D2.3 Perform actions
The major powers that didn’t pass perform these steps in this order (their action choice will limit what they can do ~ see action limits table):

(a) Port attacks
(b) Naval air missions
(c) Naval movement
(d) Your naval combat
(e) Opponent’s naval combat
(f) Strategic bombardment
(g) Carpet bombing (option 32)
(h) Ground strike missions
(i) Rail movement
(j) Land movement
(k) Air transport
(l) Debark land units at sea
(m) Invasions
(n) Paradrops
(o) Land combat
(p) Air rebases
(q) Reorganisation

D2.4 End of action
Roll to end the action stage. If it doesn’t end, advance the impulse marker the number of spaces shown on the weather chart for the current weather roll. If it ends, move on to stage E—the end of turn.

D3 Second side’s impulse
If the action stage didn’t end, repeat the steps in D2 for the second side. If the action stage doesn’t end after the second side’s impulse, go back to D1.

E. END OF TURN STAGE
Both sides perform these steps in this order:

E1 Partisans
E2 US entry
E3 Return to base
E4 Final reorganisation
E5 Production
E6 Intelligence (option 63)
E7 Peace
E7.1 Conquest
E7.2 Allied minor support
E7.3 Mutual peace
E7.4 Vichy declaration
E7.5 Liberation
E7.6 Surrender
E8 Victory check (& option 30: factory destruction)

(Q2) Each game turn represents two actual months. So the scenario is as long was the actual campaign divided by 2.



Fred98 -> RE: I Go U Go (1/20/2005 7:03:15 AM)

So, 1 turn, of 2 months duration, could take 30 - 60 emails to complete.

At, in a typical PBEM game, 1 email per day, a 6 year game could take 3 - 6 years to complete.

W.I.T.P is a great game. But I don't play the AI and the game is too large for PBEM, so unfortunately I don't play it.
-



meyerg -> RE: I Go U Go (1/20/2005 7:07:12 AM)

Here is some words from someone (c92nichj) who has experienced what I have warned about
quote:

... I find an impulse taking longer than in the real game mostly because of the strict order of play

Heed this valuable insight:
quote:

I've been waiting for this game for years now and I look forward to the release but I don't think it would be possible to play without some decent AI to handle intercept ground strikes or a new order of play.

Purists be warned, don't mess around while Rome is burning. If this project takes too long it will be overcome by a better game. If you want to play solitaire, you can have your pure Wif. For PBEM and AIA (and a chance at a decent commercial success), WIf must adapt to the computer.
meyerg



SamuraiProgrmmr -> RE: I Go U Go (1/20/2005 8:13:19 AM)

I would like to make some observations.

It has been suggested that the computer game of World In Flames will be slower than playing the real game. I do not believe that will be so. The point made about adherence to the strict sequence of play being a stumbling block is valid, but after players become experienced, that slowdown should go away. When I have played the game, we tried to keep to the strict sequence of play and at first it slowed things down. Later they sped back up. It was just another learning curve.

A useful feature to help with this would be the ability to 'mark' counters as needing attention at a certain point in the play. This will allow you to leave a 'reminder' for yourself to do something in a certain phase, step, or even a particular turn.

Several remarks have been made considering what would happen if the players swapped e-mails once a day. I sincerely believe that this game would be unrealistic to play via e-mail if you could only turn around one email a day. I also sincerely believe that it should not be a factor.

I have played some empire building games via e-mail. We would start them on a Saturday afternoon or a Friday night when the players would try to get several turns played in the first few hours of the game. The idea was that there was not much happening when your empire was small and we could all play quickly. We might play for 3 or 4 hours on the first two sessions which were agreed to be at the same time. After that, we fell into the 1 email per day pattern. It was ok, because the turns were beginning to take longer to play.

WIF can be like that also.... There will be some stretches where many e-mails could be exchanged in a short time and other stretches where it may be tomorrow (or later) before the turn cycles. I don't find this to be a problem.

Some posters have refused to accept that players would gather online at the same time to play. Again, I don't think that is a real problem. Those who play Wif now, generally have to gather at a certain place to play. I have read reports of people who regularly travel hundreds of miles (round trip) in order to play WiF. At first, this sounds silly, but how many of you will travel two or three hours to see a ballgame or visit a museum? I travel that far 10 to 12 times a year to attend weekend bridge tournaments. Won't it be easier to gather online? No travel time. No setup time? Grab a sandwich when your opponent is doing his movement phase.

I used to play WiF with a fellow who brought a book. When I was moving pieces, he was reading fiction. What is different when playing a computer game?

In all honesty, I once played World In Flames (tabletop) over the phone! Each of us had the game set up and we told each other what was being moved. It was more convenient than travelling and we were able to play for 30 minutes to an hour a session. We then had the freedom to 'break off' whenever either of us wanted to contemplate the next move. It worked fine. The only downside was a sore neck from cradling the phone between your shoulder and your ear.

The problem is that people want instant gratification and no 'down time' OR complete freedom to pick and choose when they spend their time on this game. Sorry folks, playing with real people just doesn't work that way. How many face to face games are interrupted by a phone call or a crying child or a bathroom break? Are we sure our expectations are realistic?

I do not feel that WiF will be viable as PBEM IF (PLEASE note I said IF) it is forced into a situation where the players cannot 'virtually gather' to exchange many small e-mails in a short period of time.

I feel that IF (AGAIN I used IF) players are going to 'virtually gather' to exchange many small e-mails in a short period of time, then some sort of TCP/IP connection that does not involve e-mails would be useful. This could be direct connection or a client/server arrangement.

I also feel that IF (the last time tonight, I promise) the Matrix version of WiF is changed to avoid the necessity of occasional bursts of small messages, that it will no longer be WiF, but rather a shadow of Wif. Will that 'shadow' be a better game than World In Flames? Maybe. Maybe Not. I am sure that there will be some people that will appreciate it and others who will loathe it. Who knows, I might even like it. But..it..will..NOT..be..WiF!

IF (okay, I lied when I said I wouldn't use it again) there is a scripting engine that gives the players enough control over some situations to feel comfortable, then it may become unimportant. However, I have never yet seen a scripting engine that gave me the control that I wanted to accomplish my goals without it being as complicated as a programming language which (while I would love it) may make it unusable by some players.

We have a mental image when we think about PBEM. In order for this to be successful, I believe that the mental image of Play By Email will HAVE to be altered to fit this game rather than trying to fit this game to the traditional image of PBEM.

Thanks for reading this.

Dean



SamuraiProgrmmr -> RE: I Go U Go (1/20/2005 8:37:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meyerg

Purists be warned, don't mess around while Rome is burning. If this project takes too long it will be overcome by a better game. If you want to play solitaire, you can have your pure Wif. For PBEM and AIA (and a chance at a decent commercial success), WIf must adapt to the computer.
meyerg


I am a little put off by your remarks. Rome is not Burning. The development team hasn't even begun to work on this in earnest as they are completing another game, I believe it is a little early to start blaming outsiders for killing it. Surely the deadline is not already looming over their heads. [&:] There is no way that this discussion is keeping the game from being completed.

As I will explain in a moment, once the design decisions are made, this discussion will be over. Until then, I am thankful that Matrix has given us a place to air our opinions.

I have earned my living as a computer programmer for over 20 years. I can imagine many ways this can evolve. None of us know how many resources are going to be allocated to complete this game. None of us even know what the price will be. My understanding of many of these posts (and certainly my own opinion) is that some would like to see TCP/IP connection as part of the game. This should not be the end of the world to the developers. There are some very (VERY) good tools available to exchange information between programs. If a Quake Server can send a game update 20 times a second to 20 or more players, surely this game can be played over the net.

The real key will be making sure that the internal exchange of information between the game engine and the user interface is set up in such a way that it will complement internet play rather than hinder it. I could go into a technical discussion of what that means but it is late and it will probably bore those who are not technically oriented. If you want to hear it, just ask & I will be glad to illustrate the point. If the decision is made to do things a certain way, it will facilitate online play. I expect that the online play component may be added on later as an expansion pack. BUT, if things are not built with it in mind, it may be unfeasable to ever add that feature later.

In ths past, I have perceived some hostility on this forum for some of my opinions about PBEM and how it can be accomplished. I stopped posting here for a while to see if I was the only one with this opinon. I am glad to see that there are others who feel the same way.

Us PURISTS are not demanding that ours is the only way. We see the problems as realistic. We just aren't convinced that the world is coming to the end. We are asking that our way be considered and offering discussion about why we feel it is important.

I don't want to inflame the situation any further, but 'Rome' is not burning. Not tonight. Not tomorrow. Maybe next month. Maybe next year. But not tonight.

Good night and happy gaming.



c92nichj -> RE: I Go U Go (1/20/2005 11:02:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer

I would like to make some observations.

It has been suggested that the computer game of World In Flames will be slower than playing the real game. I do not believe that will be so. The point made about adherence to the strict sequence of play being a stumbling block is valid, but after players become experienced, that slowdown should go away. When I have played the game, we tried to keep to the strict sequence of play and at first it slowed things down. Later they sped back up. It was just another learning curve.


I've played the game over email for almost two years and maybe because of my playstyle it does take long time to complete an impulse. It do happens that I forget that I needed to fly an airmission with my japaneese NAV to get my army in supply and I don't discover that until I landmoved all germans and italians, in a face to face game that's easy as we always allow such mistakes being corrected later and I would probably not have made the mistake in the first place as I ocus on the japaneese fron only. In CWIF I have to reload the save file and redo all my previous moves, from the naval air phase.

As I said S/O 39-J/A 43 have taken us 4,5 months and we have exchanged maybe 5-10 emails per week and we do all the opponents moves in our impulse without exchanging emails (a lot of times we actually have called each other to ask for an important decision, most big naval battles have been fought over the phone for example).

Below you can see the status of the game.

[image]local://upfiles/15172/Us539045697.gif[/image]



Froonp -> RE: I Go U Go (1/20/2005 1:04:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer
It has been suggested that the computer game of World In Flames will be slower than playing the real game. I do not believe that will be so. The point made about adherence to the strict sequence of play being a stumbling block is valid, but after players become experienced, that slowdown should go away. When I have played the game, we tried to keep to the strict sequence of play and at first it slowed things down. Later they sped back up. It was just another learning curve.

Having played 1 complete game of CWiF completely alone, playing all major powers, from S/O 39 to late 46, I can say that it was considerable faster than playing WiF FE face to face with fellows.

Cycling through units available for current action, as well as the marvelous "Units" dialog used to quickly find all unused TRS, all undisrupted FTRS, for example, was very usefull to quicken play.

quote:


A useful feature to help with this would be the ability to 'mark' counters as needing attention at a certain point in the play. This will allow you to leave a 'reminder' for yourself to do something in a certain phase, step, or even a particular turn.

This existed in Chris' CWiF by right clicking on a unit.

Best Regards

Patrice



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.316406