RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 3/21/2006 11:55:16 PM

pak19652002

Posts: 280
Joined: 1/2/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

A little suspense to keep your pulse rate high - especially if it is the AIO shuffling all those units around (what the **** is it doing now?).

I love the sound of this!

I agree wholeheartedly. WiF's perfect birdseye view of the entire globe never made much sense to me. I recall back in 1986, we resorted to placing upside down paper cups over units a certain distance from the front lines in order to combat this omniscience issue. Although a good effort, it sucked a lot of fun out of the game (not to mention looking ludicrous) to have twenty or thirty cups all over the maps. We abondoned the experiment right about the time I stopped playing.

It's great that MWiF will finally allow this important feature to be realized.

Peter

(in reply to wfzimmerman)

Post #: 31

RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 3/22/2006 1:32:32 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Matt242
Shannon, can you please give us a few hints at what the playtesters say?

About Fog of War? That is still in the design stage - only a concept at this point. CWIF had a version of FOW, but it had many problems and shouldn't intrude the new design. So, your ideas on FOW are at least the equal of the beta testers.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Matt242)

Post #: 32

RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 3/22/2006 2:08:53 PM

tigercub

Posts: 2004
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: brisbane oz
Status: offline

when i played WIF house rule was largest land combat unit was on top rest of stack was FOW{fog of war} and only were able to see land combat units when they attacked or not stacked , it worked for us.I like the idea of paying for intell, maybe pay to cover in FOW as well.just my 2 cents

_____________________________

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 33

RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 3/23/2006 5:47:03 AM

amwild

Posts: 105
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

The basic idea of FOW as envisioned (double entendre) for MWIF is that you will see all the units on the map and know their basic unit type. You won't know their numbers though. For the air units, that means you won't know for certain which hexes each air unit can reach (bomber attacks, fighter cover), beyond the obvious nearby hexes. For the land units, that means the units in the rear areas will be hidden. For example, if the USSR retreats units that had not been engaged in combat the previous turn (say during the winter months), the German player will have to first move units adjacent to the retreated units to determine their strength. The mechanism I am thinking of using here is to have all the unit specifics be removed from enemy units (they all become blank) and then redraw them based on whether they are hidden or known. Reinforcements that pop up in rear areas will have their details hidden.

The FOW will be minor for heavily engaged forces:

1 - all adjacent units will be known

2 - all units that fought in the previous turn (not impulse) will be known

3 - all units within the extended 'seeing range' of air units will be known

If a front is static (e.g., China, North Africa, Great Britain), then knowledge concerning the enemy will be less. Which seems right.

Anyway, we are just kicking this around and I am open to everyone's thoughts, ideas, comments, and suggestions about FOW.

There is nothing in WIF FE even close, so we are not restricted by history (double entendre) in what we decide for MWIF. It should add to the enjoyment of playing the game - that's the overriding criterion for how to define it. Oh, and it will be optional of course.

Then there is Fred's idea of using Intelligence Points for revealing hidden units.

A friend of mine said that he implemented Fog of War in one of his house rules by not allowing opponents to examine the contents of a stack of units until an attack was declared. Players could see the height of an enemy stack, and could see the top unit, but were not allowed to examine the contents of a stack unless they decided to attack it. Merely moving next to a stack of enemy units wouldn't tell the player what was in the stack. Thus, being able to place a particular unit at the top of the stack was important - the player may wish to emphasise strength by placing a strong unit at the top, or may wish to seem weaker by displaying a weak unit.

The only problem came when tall stacks of units fell over... Not a problem that a computer would have.

I suppose that intelligence points could be used to take a peek at some hidden characteristic of a stack, such as showing the strongest or weakest non-visible unit, or revealing the stack's total attack or defense rating, or if intelligence points are rare enough, spending a point is required to allow the entire contents of a stack to be examined.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 34

RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 3/29/2006 11:44:21 AM

Matt242

Posts: 16
Joined: 3/15/2006
Status: offline

@Steve
When will the hidden units (ground, frontline) be revealed?
At most tables i played everyone was allowed to take back land moves (after counting for odds ratios but) before declaring land attacks. Sometimes people change their mind when an initial plan does "not survive first contact".
It is question on how "hard" a table plays. We use to allow it so people won't get too fierce at each other. After all we want to have fun.
How will MWiF handle a possible "take back"?

(in reply to amwild)

Post #: 35

RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 4/22/2006 9:30:51 AM

Zorachus99

Posts: 1066
Joined: 9/15/2000
From: Palo Alto, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Matt242

@Steve
When will the hidden units (ground, frontline) be revealed?
At most tables i played everyone was allowed to take back land moves (after counting for odds ratios but) before declaring land attacks. Sometimes people change their mind when an initial plan does "not survive first contact".
It is question on how "hard" a table plays. We use to allow it so people won't get too fierce at each other. After all we want to have fun.
How will MWiF handle a possible "take back"?

Great question.

Also, I cannot count how many times I forgot to fly planes in some theater during naval or ground strike phase because I was so focused on the front line. Many times people need a 'go back' to do things in a phase that they forgot.

All in all, this wont kill a game, but if you were able to take snapshots phase per phase throughout the impulse, you could rewind to the glaring mistake staring you in the face. Frankly not every opponent will be lenient on this matter unless the item is not going to cause more chaos. Just imagine how many people will press the next impulse button and then remember OMG i forgot to fly my key groundstrike on <insert big plan here> in some other theatre.

Has this been hashed out?

_____________________________

Most men can survive adversity, the true test of a man's character is power. -Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to Matt242)

Post #: 36

RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 4/22/2006 11:35:52 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

quote:

ORIGINAL: Matt242

@Steve
When will the hidden units (ground, frontline) be revealed?
At most tables i played everyone was allowed to take back land moves (after counting for odds ratios but) before declaring land attacks. Sometimes people change their mind when an initial plan does "not survive first contact".
It is question on how "hard" a table plays. We use to allow it so people won't get too fierce at each other. After all we want to have fun.
How will MWiF handle a possible "take back"?

Great question.

Also, I cannot count how many times I forgot to fly planes in some theater during naval or ground strike phase because I was so focused on the front line. Many times people need a 'go back' to do things in a phase that they forgot.

All in all, this wont kill a game, but if you were able to take snapshots phase per phase throughout the impulse, you could rewind to the glaring mistake staring you in the face. Frankly not every opponent will be lenient on this matter unless the item is not going to cause more chaos. Just imagine how many people will press the next impulse button and then remember OMG i forgot to fly my key groundstrike on <insert big plan here> in some other theatre.

Has this been hashed out?

I feel this is up to the players to decide rather than for the program enforce. Given the ability to save the game at any point, and to enable automatic saves at the end of each phase, the capability of returning to a earlier point in the game will actually be easier (and more accurate) that it is over the board. Negotiating with the other side for permission will be the primary challenge.

Assuming you are not playing with fog of war, it is possible to undo all land moves at any point prior to clicking on the "end of phase" button. That is not true of naval moves because of the non-phasing player having the option of choosing to intercept or not.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Zorachus99)

Post #: 37

RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 5/28/2006 11:56:56 PM

trees

Posts: 175
Joined: 5/28/2006
Status: offline

The Intelligence rule in WiF is a fun one. But some players consider it broken when the U.S. can end up with dozens and dozens of Intell points. In my current game we are experimenting with some House Rules that only allow a country to buy an Intelligence Operation if they did not buy one the turn before. And a few other changes to limit the amount of points in general.

I like how it can be used to simluate the micro-scale "Weather War" in Greenland and other points far north.

There is a lot of potential to use the Intell rules with Fog of War in the naval system. Germany had good naval intelligence. The UK and US with Ultra had excellent Intel. And the US broke the Japanese naval code. (The Avalon Hill game Victory in the Pacific nicely summarized this: the Japanese move first each turn and the U.S. second). But what if code-breaking had happened differently......

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 38

RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 7/4/2006 2:09:20 PM

Neilster

Posts: 2890
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

quote:

1 - all adjacent units will be known

But should they always? What about units that are adjacent across frontiers, say, pre-Barbarossa for example? Also, sometimes armies were very good at masking their strength. I'm thinking of the Ruskies in 43-45 and the Jerries before the Ardennes Offensive.

Cheers, Neilster

Using your Ardennes Offensive example, historically the hidden units were very, very close to the front line.

But that's exactly my point. If large, powerful forces were on numerous occasions well disguised when adjacent to the enemy, why should adjacent units in MWiF always be known? It's not historical and perhaps this unrealistic information could affect the game in some way. If we're having FOW I think it should be used as much as is appropriate.

quote:

In game terms, you merely need to keep them a couple of hexes back - and then move them into the front line to attack. For instance, you can have a few armor + mechanized units in the rear but the opponent doesn't know if they are strong or weak. When you want to go on the offensive, you shuffle the units in the front line and create space for the armor attack. This happens all the time in WIF anyway. The FOW just adds a bit more uncertainty.

Newly arrived reinforcements, or fresh arrivals by rail from another theater of operations could be some 4-3s coming to replace 6-4s that are heading elsewhere. Or they could be 9-4s coming to bust your chops. A little suspense to keep your pulse rate high - especially if it is the AIO shuffling all those units around (what the **** is it doing now?).

I agree but there would be even more uncertainty and suspense if there was an historically realistic FOW that shrouded even the frontier/front-line units in mystery when appropriate.

What about during the setup phase too? Could having adjacent units known effect how a player who sets up later performs this action? Couldn't such a player glean unrealistic amounts of information by setting a unit up on a frontier next to a previously FOWed enemy unit and then deciding to move it somewhere else, and so on? Surely this punishes the player who sets up first and who happens to place units adjacent to a frontier (which is often inevitable)?

Setting up later is meant to give you an advantage but I think the dynamics have changed with FOW.

Cheers, Neilster

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 39

RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 7/4/2006 9:12:37 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

At this point my vision of fog of war for MWIF is kind of foggy. We have kicked around a few ideas and more suggestions for other alternatives as to how OFW should work are always welcome.

Some day I will make the definition of FOW a priority and thrash it all out in detail in less than a week. Not today though.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Neilster)

Post #: 40

RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 7/5/2006 10:40:28 AM

Neilster

Posts: 2890
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline

No worries. The fact that FOW was mentioned recently twigged my memory.

I thought of another potential hiccup. A player could move a weak unit so that it was adjacent to an enemy and then use the info that that reveals to decide what to do with more powerful ones. Either that or they do the same with any unit and then undo the move. Doing the former might be somewhat realistic in a smaller scale game but seems highly unlikely with hexes of MWiF dimensions, especially across major rivers and/or frontiers.

Perhaps factors that would affect FOW could include weather, geography and the quality of the units in question.

Cheers, Neilster

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 41

RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 7/5/2006 10:20:25 PM

Anendrue

Posts: 817
Joined: 7/8/2005
Status: offline

FOW sounds like an obfuscated issue to me.

_____________________________

Integrity is what you do when nobody is watching.

(in reply to Neilster)

Post #: 42

RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 7/6/2006 8:49:39 AM

composer99

Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline

I've never been particularly fond of the notion of Fog of War in WiF-style monster games. They're already long enough and difficult enough, and there's almost an overload of information to manage to begin with. Adding in the Fog of War, no matter how historically realistic it is, tips the game over into no-fun territory - at least, that's my opinion.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Anendrue)

Post #: 43

RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 7/6/2006 12:12:57 PM

Neilster

Posts: 2890
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

I've never been particularly fond of the notion of Fog of War in WiF-style monster games. They're already long enough and difficult enough, and there's almost an overload of information to manage to begin with. Adding in the Fog of War, no matter how historically realistic it is, tips the game over into no-fun territory - at least, that's my opinion.

I tried FoW with CWiF in a Barbarossa scenario and was amazed at how interesting it became. I didn't notice anything extra I had to analyse but rather was impressed by how much it enforces real-world style command, where you have to do the best with the limited information you have when deciding where to move and attack. It eliminates gamey combat factor counting and it's associated CRT manipulation.

As it's an option, it's not being forced on anyone anyway. As I've said before, I think it's an appropriate thing to introduce to a computer version, adds realism and enhances replayability. wfzimmerman's suggestion of perhaps meshing FoW with intelligence points seems to have real merit and might provide a way of resolving some of the issues I raised above. If that option is not being played, some generic intelligence ability of the major powers might exist, modified by local factors.

Cheers, Neilster

(in reply to composer99)

Post #: 44

RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 7/8/2006 5:41:41 AM

trees trees

Posts: 125
Joined: 6/6/2006
From: Manistee, MI
Status: offline

there is a lot of potential to improve the game with a Fog of War optional rule. but I think that potential should be explored in MWiF 2.0

(in reply to Neilster)

Post #: 45

RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 7/30/2006 1:08:54 PM

Jimm

Posts: 607
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: York, UK
Status: offline

Interesting discussion.

Another take is considering how important the idea of mis-intelligence was - characterised by Maskelyne's fake dispositions of tanks & planes, for instance to mislead Axis intelligence and hide preparations for invasion. Not sure how possible that would be to implement...

Intelligence to represent Ultra & Magic is all very well, but if you believe Neal Stephenson's take in "Cryptonomicon" the allies probably could not take advantage of much of the info they learned for fear that they would give away the fact that Enigma (& Jap equivalent) had been broken and so prompt the Axis to change their code systems. Spending 80 intel points in a turn might just give the Germans a clue!

Talking of FOW hiding the strength of units: The fact that all indiviudual units have set factors is surely a legacy of the boardgame limited to bits of printed cardboard. Is it necessary to have factors visible at all?
For that matter, (and slightly straying from subject) do they need to stay static throughout the game? One weakness of Wif I always thought was the inability to simulate unit exhaustion (of both men & equipment) of being in operation for long periods of time without relief and also contrast veteran status and "green" units. Its too fiddly to do anything like that with WiF but there seems no reason why you couldnt do it with a computer game.

Jimm

(in reply to trees trees)

Post #: 46

RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 7/30/2006 10:18:39 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimm
Interesting discussion.

Another take is considering how important the idea of mis-intelligence was - characterised by Maskelyne's fake dispositions of tanks & planes, for instance to mislead Axis intelligence and hide preparations for invasion. Not sure how possible that would be to implement...

Intelligence to represent Ultra & Magic is all very well, but if you believe Neal Stephenson's take in "Cryptonomicon" the allies probably could not take advantage of much of the info they learned for fear that they would give away the fact that Enigma (& Jap equivalent) had been broken and so prompt the Axis to change their code systems. Spending 80 intel points in a turn might just give the Germans a clue!

Talking of FOW hiding the strength of units: The fact that all indiviudual units have set factors is surely a legacy of the boardgame limited to bits of printed cardboard. Is it necessary to have factors visible at all?
For that matter, (and slightly straying from subject) do they need to stay static throughout the game? One weakness of Wif I always thought was the inability to simulate unit exhaustion (of both men & equipment) of being in operation for long periods of time without relief and also contrast veteran status and "green" units. Its too fiddly to do anything like that with WiF but there seems no reason why you couldnt do it with a computer game.

Jimm

My mandate/contract is to implement WIF FE on the computer, (i.e., MWIF). That's a ton of work and I am fairly adamant/vicious in refusing to expand on my task list. However, I inherited a Fog of War optional rule from CWIF. So, there is an opening here for me to do something along those lines without a great deal of effort. The key phrase here is "without a great deal of effort". WIF is a solid game and doesn't really require more options to be a viable product.

I am still undecided about FOW and I reserve the right to eliminate it entirely as an option for MWIF product 1 (i.e., it is not part of my contract with Matrix). For now, I'll let it gestate.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Jimm)

Post #: 47

RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 7/31/2006 7:27:28 PM

trees trees

Posts: 125
Joined: 6/6/2006
From: Manistee, MI
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimm

One weakness of Wif I always thought was the inability to simulate unit exhaustion (of both men & equipment) of being in operation for long periods of time without relief and also contrast veteran status and "green" units.

I've always thought WiF handled this well with the system of flipping units and HQ re-organizing (flipping units face-up again by turning over an HQ unit). Green/Veteran units are reflected by blindly drawing from the force pools. If you want more of a veteran but smaller army, scrap the lower factor units. For a bigger army of green units, don't ever scrap anything. The attritional nature of warfare is not represented, as Jimm mentions due to the original cardboard pieces, but that's just a playability trade-off that I'll take...eliminate one whole counter rather than try to remember that all your pieces steadily get weaker with time at the front. Even with computer aid I don't want to do Staff work, I want to be the commanding general.

I do hope the regular Intell Optional is in the game, that was my understanding. It would add a lot of work though so I wouldn't mind if it is not in at first either.

(in reply to Jimm)

Post #: 48

RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 8/1/2006 1:51:49 PM

Neilster

Posts: 2890
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

I've always thought WiF handled this well with the system of flipping units and HQ re-organizing (flipping units face-up again by turning over an HQ unit). Green/Veteran units are reflected by blindly drawing from the force pools. If you want more of a veteran but smaller army, scrap the lower factor units. For a bigger army of green units, don't ever scrap anything. The attritional nature of warfare is not represented, as Jimm mentions due to the original cardboard pieces, but that's just a playability trade-off that I'll take...eliminate one whole counter rather than try to remember that all your pieces steadily get weaker with time at the front.

Yes, and even if a corps is continuously in the line, regiments or even whole divisions would be pulled out for recuperation. There were many historical examples of corps being almost continually in the line for years on the Eastern Front. As a trade off, long periods of little activity don't improve a corps' combat factors, even though they would be receiving reinforcements and training.

It might be my imagination, but I thought when playing CWiF my undestroyed land units gradually increased their combat factors over time. I seem to remember a panzer corps getting stronger. I'm most probably wrong but it would make sense given that the Czech tanks and Panzer 2s would be replaced by long barrelled Panzer 3s etc.

Cheers, Neilster

(in reply to trees trees)

Post #: 49

RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 8/1/2006 3:23:54 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

It might be my imagination, but I thought when playing CWiF my undestroyed land units gradually increased their combat factors over time. I seem to remember a panzer corps getting stronger. I'm most probably wrong but it would make sense given that the Czech tanks and Panzer 2s would be replaced by long barrelled Panzer 3s etc.

Your imagination Neilster

However, I would love for such a system of green / normal / crack units to exist, both for land units, and also for air units.
Not for Naval units though.
A unit would be green until its first fight, and become crack after X fights (about 5-6).
A green unit would be black print and 1 combat factor below the normal (printed) value on the counter. A crack unit would be white print and 1 combat factor above the normal (printed) value on the counter. The normal value would be the value that the counter would have without the rule.

(in reply to Neilster)

Post #: 50

RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 8/1/2006 3:33:16 PM

Neilster

Posts: 2890
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline

Ah! My faulty brain at work again.

I know what's going to happen now. Steve will post saying "I've a mandate to implement WiFFE...."

Cheers, Neilster

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 51

RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 8/1/2006 3:36:10 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster
Ah! My faulty brain at work again.
I know what's going to happen now. Steve will post saying "I've a mandate to implement WiFFE...."
Cheers, Neilster

And we both know he will be right. This is the only way to see MWiF hit our computers this decade

(in reply to Neilster)

Post #: 52

RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 8/1/2006 8:17:47 PM

Jimm

Posts: 607
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: York, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

quote:

Yes, and even if a corps is continuously in the line, regiments or even whole divisions would be pulled out for recuperation. There were many historical examples of corps being almost continually in the line for years on the Eastern Front. As a trade off, long periods of little activity don't improve a corps' combat factors, even though they would be receiving reinforcements and training.

Take the point and thats pretty much how I rationalised it myself (otherwise when do these poor chaps ever get home on leave?)
Flipping units to represent attrition is fine as far as it goes within the limits of the bits of cardboard legacy but it is a bit, well- binary! I just recall a cracking old computer game from the 1980s- "Eastern Front 1941" where you saw your initially rampant wehrmacht divisions running out of steam (and working tanks) as the winter wore on and invariably ended up collapsing to inglorious demise to the russian hordes. Mind you that's that game and this is Wif, and as far as "mandates" go I'm happy to see the WIFFE transferred over lock stock & barrel and leave the silly distractions to email forums...
Jimm

(in reply to Neilster)

Post #: 53

RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 8/1/2006 8:24:29 PM

wfzimmerman

Posts: 660
Joined: 10/22/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimm

...
Flipping units to represent attrition is fine as far as it goes within the limits of the bits of cardboard legacy but it is a bit, well- binary! ...
Jimm

I don't think it's just an issue of the cardboard legacy. One of the good things about being "binary" is clarity -- which is a key goal in either a game or a model.

For infinite shades of gray, read a book ;-) ....

_____________________________

Contribute to the Steve H. thank you book! http://www.nimblebooks.com/wordpress/2009/04/contribute-to-the-wargamers-wwii-quiz-book/

(in reply to Jimm)

Post #: 54

RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 8/2/2006 7:21:25 AM

trees trees

Posts: 125
Joined: 6/6/2006
From: Manistee, MI
Status: offline

Eastern Front 1941 was my first and last computer wargame. I'm very much looking forward to my next one.

But speaking of Green, Veteran, and Crack units, I'd sure like to see a computer version of GDW's old civil war game A House Divided. That is a fun game.

(in reply to wfzimmerman)

Post #: 55

RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 8/2/2006 8:14:25 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: trees trees

Eastern Front 1941 was my first and last computer wargame. I'm very much looking forward to my next one.

But speaking of Green, Veteran, and Crack units, I'd sure like to see a computer version of GDW's old civil war game A House Divided. That is a fun game.

The two previous computer war games I did were under contract to GDW.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to trees trees)

Post #: 56

RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 8/5/2006 8:07:54 PM

composer99

Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

It might be my imagination, but I thought when playing CWiF my undestroyed land units gradually increased their combat factors over time. I seem to remember a panzer corps getting stronger. I'm most probably wrong but it would make sense given that the Czech tanks and Panzer 2s would be replaced by long barrelled Panzer 3s etc.

Cheers, Neilster

That was not a feature of CWiF, but WiF, when you include Patton in Flames and America in Flames, includes heavy unit upgrades that you can use to increase the combat factors of your units. PatiF and AiF are not going to be implemented in MWiF, since they're not strictly speaking part of WiF:FE, but I rather imagine (and hope) that they will be in future editions of the game.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Neilster)

Post #: 57

RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 8/5/2006 8:21:11 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

It might be my imagination, but I thought when playing CWiF my undestroyed land units gradually increased their combat factors over time. I seem to remember a panzer corps getting stronger. I'm most probably wrong but it would make sense given that the Czech tanks and Panzer 2s would be replaced by long barrelled Panzer 3s etc.

Cheers, Neilster

That was not a feature of CWiF, but WiF, when you include Patton in Flames and America in Flames, includes heavy unit upgrades that you can use to increase the combat factors of your units. PatiF and AiF are not going to be implemented in MWiF, since they're not strictly speaking part of WiF:FE, but I rather imagine (and hope) that they will be in future editions of the game.

Yes. The units are already included in the counter mix. I also have done the graphic depictions for them (modified from what CWIF had done for them). However, there are no rules for adding them to the scenarios or using them in combat, etc..

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to composer99)

Post #: 58

RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 8/8/2006 12:22:57 AM

lordzyplon

Posts: 40
Joined: 7/6/2006
Status: offline

I believe that FoW should be an option, like much else.

Personally, i am firmly against it, as I feel it would change the gameplay as a whole. However, I know that, throughout all of history, there have been conflicts were people wouldn't step back and take a look at the whole picture-usually this happens:

. I am sure that there are people who will want FoW, so it should be included.

_____________________________

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 59

RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 8/8/2006 12:32:33 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: lordzyplon
I believe that FoW should be an option, like much else.

Personally, i am firmly against it, as I feel it would change the gameplay as a whole. However, I know that, throughout all of history, there have been conflicts were people wouldn't step back and take a look at the whole picture-usually this happens: . I am sure that there are people who will want FoW, so it should be included.

Providing Fog of War as an option had been my intention. However, early discussions on the topic raised a whole lot of detailed issues about how to implement it. In turn, that caused me to be concerned about how much play testing it would need. So I am now at the point of seeing it as a poorly defined optional rule, that requires a lot of coding and play testing. I seem to have 4 choices: (1) keep it the way CWIF did, (2) remove it entirely, (3) do something quick and dirty, or (4) devote a bunch of time and energy to it. My mother always referred to option #3 as "a lick and a promise" - a reference to keeping my hair from sticking up in the back when I was a kid.

I continue to brood on this without reaching a definitive conclusion.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to lordzyplon)

Post #: 60