Can you throw a bone to those of us WWI Fatal Alliances fans ? (Full Version)

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



Message

Ballista -> Can you throw a bone to those of us WWI Fatal Alliances fans ? (10/6/2005 12:15:32 AM)

I know it may be putting the cart before the horse, considering how much there is to do to get MWIF done, but a little foresight now can pay divedends further down the road.

I hope that when all is said and done for MWif we can have it modifiable to handle the WW I variant with as few hassles as possible (I've found myself playing the CWJs WW I variant more than Wif because of space and time restraints). A version
with the scale on the MWIF scale would be truly awesome. I guess what I'd like to know is that the design can be modified to handle the neccesary changes in a modular way- that way crazy folks like me can go about creating the ULTIMATE WW I computer mod so the 10 folks in the world who want such a thing could play such a thing.....

That being said, you folks seem to have taken the bull by the horns and are doing a spectacular job so far. Keep up the great work !




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Can you throw a bone to those of us WWI Fatal Alliances fans ? (10/6/2005 4:47:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ballista
I know it may be putting the cart before the horse, considering how much there is to do to get MWIF done, but a little foresight now can pay divedends further down the road.

I hope that when all is said and done for MWif we can have it modifiable to handle the WW I variant with as few hassles as possible (I've found myself playing the CWJs WW I variant more than Wif because of space and time restraints). A version
with the scale on the MWIF scale would be truly awesome. I guess what I'd like to know is that the design can be modified to handle the neccesary changes in a modular way- that way crazy folks like me can go about creating the ULTIMATE WW I computer mod so the 10 folks in the world who want such a thing could play such a thing.....

That being said, you folks seem to have taken the bull by the horns and are doing a spectacular job so far. Keep up the great work !


The analogy I have been using is that of trying to move a reluctant and poorly trained elephant down a road.

I rarely throw things at people I have never met. It leads to complications.

As to eventually modifying MWIF to accommodate WWI, I do not hold out much hope. Of course if there is a thunderstorm of demand, the possibility increases proportionly to potential sales. The difficulty, just in case it isn't obvious, is that I expect there to be 450 or so unique action types that MWIF needs to support (I am still counting). For each action type there is code to make it happen and also code to make sure it only happens when permitted by the rules. We also have code to undo the action and code for the interface so the player can decide if/when to perform the action and code for the screen display to show that the action has taken/is taking place. And then there is the replay capability. One must always be careful that action type 243 doesn't interact with action type 79 with inadvertent side effects too.

I have never seen a copy of WWI Fatal Alliances so I am only seeing one part of the difficulty adapting MWIF to accommodate it. Nevertheless ...



Froonp -> RE: Can you throw a bone to those of us WWI Fatal Alliances fans ? (10/6/2005 10:33:03 AM)

quote:

I hope that when all is said and done for MWif we can have it modifiable to handle the WW I variant with as few hassles as possible (I've found myself playing the CWJs WW I variant more than Wif because of space and time restraints). A version
with the scale on the MWIF scale would be truly awesome. I guess what I'd like to know is that the design can be modified to handle the neccesary changes in a modular way- that way crazy folks like me can go about creating the ULTIMATE WW I computer mod so the 10 folks in the world who want such a thing could play such a thing.....

Hello,

I've never played Fatal Alliances or Fatal Alliances II, but having browsed through the rules and contents, I doubt MWiF would be easily modifiable to create FA, because there are new rules (country morale for instance IIRC) and different rules for the map (half hexes IIRC). The counters are different but this would not be a problem, the map is somehow changed but this would not be a problem neither I think. The more problematic would be the half hexes advances & retreats IMO.

On the other hand, I strongly believe that a AiF and a PatiF version of MWiF would be very easy to create once MWiF is out, because there's only a few rules to add (atom bomb research, airmobile corps, Heavy units). The maps are slightly modified for PatiF but this is easy to do in MWiF (or will be easy to do I think). The extra heavy counters would be easy to add too because Steve talked about being able to import new units into the game as CSV files.

Well, better work on MWiF now, you can contribute & help us too, don't hesitate !!!

Best Regards



Ballista -> RE: Can you throw a bone to those of us WWI Fatal Alliances fans ? (10/7/2005 12:28:22 AM)

Thanks guys for the replies. I guess what I'm really wondering is after it has been released will it be available open source for people like me who may be crazy/stupid/insane enough to want to try making a WW I mod ? Not neccesarily A Fatal Alliances, but something that would do the job.

As an example of a mechanic that would require modeling, something like surface ships cannot stay at sea in a sea area that they do not have access to a friendly port in this or an adjacent sea area due to coaling restictions.


As an aside also- maybe this can be a stepping stone to being able to model a "Days of Decision" type of game as well. Just thinking big (too big probably) here.....

Btw if you need playtesters my roommate and I are available to test (Ive got several networked computers) and we've both played Wif since version 6 (and at least a few DoD and many Fatal Alliances)) Just email me.....




Froonp -> RE: Can you throw a bone to those of us WWI Fatal Alliances fans ? (10/7/2005 12:48:50 AM)

I would love that indeed [:D]
This is not a thunderstorm of demands, only a beginning [:)]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Can you throw a bone to those of us WWI Fatal Alliances fans ? (10/7/2005 1:55:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ballista
Thanks guys for the replies. I guess what I'm really wondering is after it has been released will it be available open source for people like me who may be crazy/stupid/insane enough to want to try making a WW I mod ? Not neccesarily A Fatal Alliances, but something that would do the job.

As an example of a mechanic that would require modeling, something like surface ships cannot stay at sea in a sea area that they do not have access to a friendly port in this or an adjacent sea area due to coaling restictions.


As an aside also- maybe this can be a stepping stone to being able to model a "Days of Decision" type of game as well. Just thinking big (too big probably) here.....

Btw if you need playtesters my roommate and I are available to test (Ive got several networked computers) and we've both played Wif since version 6 (and at least a few DoD and many Fatal Alliances)) Just email me.....


I inherited 100,000 lines of code from Chris and I have been adding to that number. I doubt that anyone who has any legal rights to the source code is interested in giving it away. Certainly not me. I feel very strongly about intellectual property rights since it is how I have made a living for almost 35 years. As for people voluntarily paying for software, I know what happened to Stella'a sister at the end of "Streetcar Named Desire"; her final line was "I always depend upon the kindness of strangers" and then they carted her off to the nut house.

DoD III is penciled in as part of a future MWIF product, as are the other missing Add-ons. Their viability depends on the sales of MWIF product 1. I lock all thoughts about them out of my mind whenever possible. Though an argument might be made to design for all the future stuff now, there are too many features already that have to be taken into consideration. It's difficult enough juggling 76 optional rules without throwing more flaming blowtorches and samari swords into the airborne mixture too.



macgregor -> RE: Can you throw a bone to those of us WWI Fatal Alliances fans ? (10/8/2005 7:56:09 PM)

Though this thread may be premature -after all seeing this game released will be a huge accomplishment, perhaps still years away, I would like to mention that the games I find most attractive are the ones open to some degree of modification by the players, as this enlists the support of a vast pool of knowledgeable, dedicated fans. Often with remarkable results. Of course I wouldn't want you to compromise the code for that. Assuming the release will be a resounding success, perhaps after the initial sales surge has died down an editing feature could be developed and released. I find this game engine to be comprehensive, somewhat accurate, and most importantly concise. There's no conflict that couldn't be represented with this system.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Can you throw a bone to those of us WWI Fatal Alliances fans ? (10/8/2005 9:34:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor
Though this thread may be premature -after all seeing this game released will be a huge accomplishment, perhaps still years away, I would like to mention that the games I find most attractive are the ones open to some degree of modification by the players, as this enlists the support of a vast pool of knowledgeable, dedicated fans. Often with remarkable results. Of course I wouldn't want you to compromise the code for that. Assuming the release will be a resounding success, perhaps after the initial sales surge has died down an editing feature could be developed and released. I find this game engine to be comprehensive, somewhat accurate, and most importantly concise. There's no conflict that couldn't be represented with this system.



Ah, Greg, I disagree.

With "comprehensive" and "somewhat accurate" I do agree, but your choice of "concise" as an adjective makes me think you are referring to some other game.

I am starting to put in the code for Cruisers in Flames and Convoys in Flames, which are a rather natural extensions to the WIF system. The amount of code required is very large and requires a detailed understanding of all the other code in the program: new unit types, new units, new setup and scrapping, new capabilities, the list goes on.

If there were a clone of myself, who possessed all the knowledge that I had before I started this project, he would be unable to make modifications to the basic program without destroying it - unless he goes through pretty much the same process that I have been going through of reading 10s of thousands of lines of code and only gently tweaking little things when he has a full understanding of all the implications. Changing software is not like editing a book, misspell one word in software and the entire program can become completely worthless (the blue screen of death).

I will make the unit lists available for editing, and the starting setups too if I can figure out a way that can be automated. If you look at WIF FE set up instructions in 24.1 and 30 of the rules, you will see that there are a lot of notes, conditional statements (e.g., if you are playing with SiF, ...), and just plain text that describe the procedure. These have got to be the most complicated set up instructions for any game ever created. Designing an automated procedure such that the players could edit the data of what goes where would be a lot of work. The program has one now but it is not something that the average person would understand - and again, a missing blank in the data stream renders the setup data unintelligble to the program.

As to the MWIF game engine being usable for other games, I think not. The other genres of war games that I like to play are Napoleonics and conflicts during the American Civil War. The WiF system is a terrible system for either of those time periods. The WIF engine only has applicability to pretty much what it was designed for: WW II, 2 month turns, variable impulses within a turn, corps based units with divisional supplements, 3 main branches of the armed forces (air, land, naval), light geopolitical system, and a comparable map scale.

It's not that I don't want to provide players with all the items on their wish list, it is just that their wish lists have to be more realistic and less fantastic (a triple pun!).



macgregor -> RE: Can you throw a bone to those of us WWI Fatal Alliances fans ? (10/9/2005 5:55:15 PM)

quote:

I will make the unit lists available for editing, and the starting setups too if I can figure out a way that can be automated.


That's all I'm really asking, and for that I add, thanks, for trying anyway. I suppose it's hard to refer to a game this size as, "concise". Perhaps a better word would be "efficient", but only in the context of this game's comprehensive scope. There are other games that may be more detailed, but can only cover a battle or theater, some with what I might call 'superflous' detail.What was that game you mentioned where the Italians needed to be supplied with more water than the Germans? (Presumeably to boil their pasta.) I didn't know you were adding 'Cruisers and 'Convoys in Flames'. I've never played these. With this level of detail the word 'concise' certainly becomes less applicable.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Can you throw a bone to those of us WWI Fatal Alliances fans ? (10/9/2005 7:49:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor
quote:

I will make the unit lists available for editing, and the starting setups too if I can figure out a way that can be automated.


That's all I'm really asking, and for that I add, thanks, for trying anyway. I suppose it's hard to refer to a game this size as, "concise". Perhaps a better word would be "efficient", but only in the context of this game's comprehensive scope. There are other games that may be more detailed, but can only cover a battle or theater, some with what I might call 'superflous' detail.What was that game you mentioned where the Italians needed to be supplied with more water than the Germans? (Presumeably to boil their pasta.) I didn't know you were adding 'Cruisers and 'Convoys in Flames'. I've never played these. With this level of detail the word 'concise' certainly becomes less applicable.


The old SPI (Simulations Publications Inc.) game North Africa has the logistical detail of Italians in North Africa needing more water to cook their pasta. That game focuses on just North Africa with a level of energy that WiF uses for the entirety of WW II. It has a lot of rules, a lot of units, and a very big map. It's just that the map is a long narrow strip composed of half desert and half Meriterranean Sea.

Cruisers in Flames adds more detail at the low end of the Naval units but not many rules. Convoys in flames adds a whole new ASW system and diversifies the subs and their support system. It's described in section 22.4.19 of RAW as optional rule 76.

I am almost done writing all the entry types for the game record log - two more pages of rules to go. I expect to finish that sucker today (I have been working on it about 1/4 of the time for a month) and post excerpts from it somewhere in this forum. I also expect to finish entering all the unit data for the missing 8 scenarios today (which units set up where).



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.9707031