RE: People not wanting the manuals

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: People not wanting the manuals

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: People not wanting the manuals

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: People not wanting the manuals - 11/18/2013 2:57:06 PM

brian brian

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
No. The game IS awesome Not potentially lol. However it does have the potential to get even better over time

Just curious, this game has been out for more than twenty years, do you think there's really much room for further improvement, or did you have in mind that the release of the computer version could give a boost to player numbers and general community interest?

I would say ... all of the above.

the game has been in a state of continual improvement ever since it came out actually, and is presently as well. a newer-than-MWiF rules system is being tested right now, albeit at a careful pace. new, related games of both drastically more and less simplicity are on the horizon as well. a new sheet of counters was released just this year. No, such things aren't in MWiF right now. But they will be some day.

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 61

RE: People not wanting the manuals - 11/18/2013 3:26:44 PM

Posts: 4176
Joined: 5/1/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
No. The game IS awesome Not potentially lol. However it does have the potential to get even better over time

Just curious, this game has been out for more than twenty years, do you think there's really much room for further improvement, or did you have in mind that the release of the computer version could give a boost to player numbers and general community interest?

This will not happen because of all the vanilla people around [WIFer's]

and I understand their feelings.

I would love to see a FOW [Fog of War] button added to the computer game

It would only make sense while playing net play or the AI.

Sit back relax keep your eyes wide open and imagine this, in the board game the US moves a 10 ship armada into the Coral sea, at the top of the stack is a cruiser, but the Japanese player examines the stack, and after examing the stack he makes decisions on what he sees in that stack.

Now while your sitting back, close those sleepy tired eyes and dream with me.

This is MWIF not WIF and we have a computer that can do amazing things like god forbid create a FOW button.

The US player agains enters the Coral sea with his 10 ships, the Japanese player sees the top ship is a cruiser but because the FOW button is on he cannot see what the rest of the fleet consists of. So now he has to make a critical decision, does he assume that the US is trying to capture Guadalcanal which means the fleets makeup is probably 2 transports with Marines on them, 4 cruisers, 3 battleships and 1 carrier.

He would probably decide to answer this supposed invasion with all of his 5 carriers in that area and this would surely bring disaster to the US invasion force.

Aha the US player is not invading Guadalcanal he is there to destroy Japanese carriers if possible. His fleet make up is 6 carriers and 4 cruisers

Wow that could be one nasty naval battle. Ok sit up open your eyes it's just Bo with a pipe dream. Oh well!

Bo

< Message edited by bo -- 11/18/2013 4:46:03 PM >

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 62

RE: People not wanting the manuals - 11/18/2013 4:49:36 PM

Posts: 4176
Joined: 5/1/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo
I am not saying don't post, just keep it civil please.

Thanks Bo. Some of the language on this thread is drifting toward something I'd expect to see on a World of Tanks forum, not one for the more genteel and discerning folk that Matrix games attract . Some people are happy to pay shipping and possible extra tax charges to get a physical copy of the game and manuals, and some would prefer to just get a digital copy of the game. Who's right? No one of course, it is just a matter of personal taste and preference. I don't think there is a need to insult each other over personal tastes and preference since we all seem to agree that the game is potentially awesome.

Actually the posts are pretty moderate in temperment here, you should read the posts about the AI several years ago. Phew!

Bo

(in reply to Solaristics)

Post #: 63

RE: People not wanting the manuals - 11/18/2013 4:58:27 PM

Dr. Foo

Posts: 666
Joined: 8/31/2004
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

This is MWIF not WIF and we have a computer that can do amazing things like god forbid create a FOW button.

This is on my wish list...along with auto-convoys.

FOW would be great. Especially in the case like you mentioned. While, I play mostly solitaire even for me playing every side a FOW option would surprise me from time to time as I can sometimes forget what is where on the map.

_____________________________

*Warning: Dr. Foo is not an actual doctor.
Do not accept or follow any medical advice*

(in reply to bo)

Post #: 64

RE: People not wanting the manuals - 11/18/2013 5:00:49 PM

Toby42

Posts: 1626
Joined: 8/10/2003
From: Central Florida
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo
I am not saying don't post, just keep it civil please.

Thanks Bo. Some of the language on this thread is drifting toward something I'd expect to see on a World of Tanks forum, not one for the more genteel and discerning folk that Matrix games attract . Some people are happy to pay shipping and possible extra tax charges to get a physical copy of the game and manuals, and some would prefer to just get a digital copy of the game. Who's right? No one of course, it is just a matter of personal taste and preference. I don't think there is a need to insult each other over personal tastes and preference since we all seem to agree that the game is potentially awesome.

Actually the posts are pretty moderate in temperment here, you should read the posts about the AI several years ago. Phew!

Bo

The War in the East Forum is pretty brutal!!

_____________________________

Tony

(in reply to bo)

Post #: 65

RE: People not wanting the manuals - 11/18/2013 5:10:47 PM

Arnir

Posts: 482
Joined: 10/12/2002
From: Alberta. In Texas.
Status: offline

I would imagine that if FoW was added, some sort of intelligence system would need to be added to the game. Before ULTRA, etc., was declassified, it was amazing how lucky the Allies were in being at the right place at the right time. After declassification, things made more sense. How do we give the player the "hints" that intel provided in real life?

_____________________________

(in reply to Toby42)

Post #: 66

RE: People not wanting the manuals - 11/18/2013 5:17:46 PM

Posts: 4176
Joined: 5/1/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arnir

I would imagine that if FoW was added, some sort of intelligence system would need to be added to the game. Before ULTRA, etc., was declassified, it was amazing how lucky the Allies were in being at the right place at the right time. After declassification, things made more sense. How do we give the player the "hints" that intel provided in real life?

Agreed, what might be possible is have a special scout plane added to the game that could spot the fleet from a distance game wise, [or a new gearing called coast watchers,] and report the number of ships but not the make up right away and then if the plane could hang around without getting shot down it could get closer game wise [not sure how that could be done but Steve can do anything] and maybe spot the carriers, anyways just a thought.

Please feel sorry for me when I catch hell from the WIF board game people who will gladly wish me to be bannished to some isle called, I think Elba.

Bo

< Message edited by bo -- 11/18/2013 6:20:38 PM >

(in reply to Arnir)

Post #: 67

RE: People not wanting the manuals - 11/18/2013 7:49:17 PM

76mm

Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo
Please feel sorry for me when I catch hell from the WIF board game people who will gladly wish me to be bannished to some isle called, I think Elba.

well I hope it doesn't come to that...one of my concerns is that the boardgamer faction will insist on dogmatic compliance with the boardgame rules without taking advantage of some of the very real advantages of playing on a computer. This isn't (just) a boardgame anymore!

(in reply to bo)

Post #: 68

RE: People not wanting the manuals - 11/19/2013 5:53:49 PM

Centuur

Posts: 8802
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo
Please feel sorry for me when I catch hell from the WIF board game people who will gladly wish me to be bannished to some isle called, I think Elba.

well I hope it doesn't come to that...one of my concerns is that the boardgamer faction will insist on dogmatic compliance with the boardgame rules without taking advantage of some of the very real advantages of playing on a computer. This isn't (just) a boardgame anymore!

What was the job that Matrix games had to do with WiF? To put it unto the computer. Nothing more and nothing less. Of course we might be able to expand on this for the future, however I think first this game has to evolve a little bit towards the point where all things are working like they are done in the boardgame (multiplayer, netplay, optional rules, all scenario's available etc. etc.). Maybe later there are some very nice additions to the game which I want to see (such as the political Days of Decision starting in 1936 and others want America in Flames and Patton in Flames to be added to the game, if at all possible).
Now, I've got some very nice things I would like to see which are possible because of the computer. But there is still so much work to do in this game. And I didn't even mentioned the AI in the list...

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 69

RE: People not wanting the manuals - 11/19/2013 6:00:00 PM

Posts: 4176
Joined: 5/1/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo
Please feel sorry for me when I catch hell from the WIF board game people who will gladly wish me to be bannished to some isle called, I think Elba.

well I hope it doesn't come to that...one of my concerns is that the boardgamer faction will insist on dogmatic compliance with the boardgame rules without taking advantage of some of the very real advantages of playing on a computer. This isn't (just) a boardgame anymore!

What was the job that Matrix games had to do with WiF? To put it unto the computer. Nothing more and nothing less. Of course we might be able to expand on this for the future, however I think first this game has to evolve a little bit towards the point where all things are working like they are done in the boardgame (multiplayer, netplay, optional rules, all scenario's available etc. etc.). Maybe later there are some very nice additions to the game which I want to see (such as the political Days of Decision starting in 1936 and others want America in Flames and Patton in Flames to be added to the game, if at all possible).
Now, I've got some very nice things I would like to see which are possible because of the computer. But there is still so much work to do in this game. And I didn't even mentioned the AI in the list...

Just an old man [me] with his dreams Peter

(in reply to Centuur)

Post #: 70

RE: People not wanting the manuals - 11/28/2013 7:48:07 PM

celebrindal

Posts: 314
Joined: 2/26/2005
Status: offline

Well the only point I can add to the manual comments is that being a person who has most of the 'board' games, since very little was changed having an option to simply get the rules as coded and not the other two books would have been nice. I ripped out my WiF rule books and they cover the same thing ;-) Though I couldn't figure out why my naval combat charts weren't the same until i realized I was looking at the '96 ones vs 2000 ;-)

As for sitting and reading them, yes I agree much nicer than ipad etc.. and i live on my ipad trust me.. having the books with some kinda spiral or ringed spine so you could lay em flat or flip front to back would have been prefered over a hard spine.

(in reply to bo)

Post #: 71

RE: People not wanting the manuals - 11/28/2013 11:25:43 PM

wodin

Posts: 10762
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline

I always feel a boardgame conversion should make use of the PC..the only reason boardgames work as they do is due to the restraints of being a boardgame..where a PC takes those restraints away and makes it easy to do certain things. I'm sure the original boardgame developers\designers would love to have been able to do things but couldn't without adding complexity or just to cumbersome to do. FOW is one such thing. A PC version should always use the fact it's a PC and it's processing power to the benefit of the game. IF a conversion doesn't do that and sticks to the boardgame to the letter I think it's a missed opportunity. I wouldn't want anything to radical that effects the gameplay in a massive way though but anything to make the game better is good by me.

_____________________________

My website

https://www.awargamersneedfulthings.co.uk/

(in reply to celebrindal)

Post #: 72

RE: People not wanting the manuals - 11/28/2013 11:53:46 PM

scout1

Posts: 2899
Joined: 8/24/2004
From: South Bend, In
Status: offline

FOW option only makes sense ........

Like any other option, players can CHOOSE to use it or not use it ..... Many "optional rules" didn't release with the game but were added later. I'm sure some were popular as hell and others resulted in endless debate .......

Re-creating a classic is fine, but don't hand cuff your choices .....

(in reply to wodin)

Post #: 73

RE: People not wanting the manuals - 11/29/2013 12:20:41 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: scout1

FOW option only makes sense ........

Like any other option, players can CHOOSE to use it or not use it ..... Many "optional rules" didn't release with the game but were added later. I'm sure some were popular as hell and others resulted in endless debate .......

Re-creating a classic is fine, but don't hand cuff your choices .....

I looked into FOW pretty seriously (way back when) and decided it wasn't compatible with the game design for WIF. Given the time and hex scales for WIF (~2 week impulses and 90 km per hex), the ability of the enemy to 'see' the other side is difficult to simulate. Most of the historical FOW is simulated by the fact that the units can move a long way before attacking. That is true for invasions and paradrops as well as normal land combat.

We (the forum members at the time) discussed being able to only 'see' one or two hexes deep into a front line. But then what about "air reconnaissance" farther into the enemy position? There was also the issue of how long information on opposing forces persisted. Did units that moved to the rear still appear on the screen? Perhaps with their location unknown? What about information gleaned from naval units about units on the shore?

The list goes on and on. Clearly doing something along these lines would require a complete reworking of the rules.

Take for instance that the Russians in the months before their counter-offensive at Stalingrad seasoned their new corps/army units by positioning them in the frontlines near Voronezh. Then they were pulled from that front and sent south for the build up prior to cutting off the Germans at Stalingrad. WIF simulates that pretty well by letting the USSR move units quickly from one place in the line to another. Adding FOW wouldn't gain very much in the way of simulating the real world.

Anyway, in the end my decision was that adding FOW wouldn't improve the game very much and might damage it a lot. At the very least, an enormous amount of work would be needed to formulate all the necessary rules for FOW, to say nothing of the task of writing and debugging all the code. And then the FOW rules would need to be tweaked in a series of improvements until some near-optimum (or quasi-happy) set was defined.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to scout1)

Post #: 74

RE: People not wanting the manuals - 11/29/2013 12:44:07 AM

scout1

Posts: 2899
Joined: 8/24/2004
From: South Bend, In
Status: offline

Fair enough Steve ..... Things always look "easy/easier" on the surface ..... In fairness, I'm just beginning to learn this game and all the interfaces .....

Was there ever any discussion as to limiting FOW to select aspects of the game, such as naval units ?

Scott

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 75

RE: People not wanting the manuals - 11/29/2013 1:05:40 AM

brian brian

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

some day Fog of War really should be designed into a great game system, using computer technology to implement it.

an obvious place to start would be hiding the production of units from the opposing player(s). Dang, I did not know they trained up a corps of marines, looks like we're being invaded...where are all these paratroopers coming from?...nobody told us they tripled the AA over this target ... where did all these night fighters come from? WWII was fought by commanders with only some of the information the players have.

MWiF 3.0, I hope. The game system has never stood still and shouldn't start doing that now.

(in reply to scout1)

Post #: 76

RE: People not wanting the manuals - 11/29/2013 1:05:57 AM

Dabrion

Posts: 733
Joined: 11/5/2013
From: Northpole
Status: offline

There is an optional part to SiF option 21: "Hidden Task Forces"(*). For land forces FoW is not realistic the level of corps, even divisions for a WW2 simulation.

(*) Since naval counters where beyond stackable in the sea boxes after SiF/CliF, the task force display was introduced. Basically sheet of cardboard with named boxes printed on it what goes next to the maps. You would then place your naval counters in the named boxes and only move a counter with the task force name on the map. The further option would not give away the identity of task forces to the other side until the task force was involved in naval combat.

(in reply to scout1)

Post #: 77

RE: People not wanting the manuals - 11/29/2013 1:06:14 AM

wodin

Posts: 10762
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline

Shannon but then you have things like Operation Uranus, where though they knew there was a build up they didn't know there was that much. So even at two weeks I think FOW could come into play..maybe make it an issue if it's during bad weather, how far it is from friendly units, whether it's moved or not and also whether the nearest friendly units are in combat the last turn (this would show they are too busy fighting than looking at Intel reports of sightings of units miles and miles away)then you could go from not spotted to a just a counter..then size...then combat strength (which I think could also not be fully correct).

FOW I think in the Eats front is more important than other theatre..how many times did Germany think Russia was near the end of her strength. Think about the '41 Moscow counter attack..took them fully by surpise,

< Message edited by wodin -- 11/29/2013 2:08:08 AM >

_____________________________

My website

https://www.awargamersneedfulthings.co.uk/

(in reply to scout1)

Post #: 78

RE: People not wanting the manuals - 11/29/2013 4:17:55 AM

Numdydar

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

Well there is still a limited FoW the way the game is now. You actually have to look at stacked units to get a complete picture of what is there. I know I am not going to look at stacked units that are not near me every pulse. With divisions in play, this is even easier as just make sure the division is on top

Even with everything visable, does not mean you know everything. With so much going on in the game, I have a hard time remembering where all of my stuff is much less trying to remember where every opposing unit is every pulse

.

Can you find out easily where everything is, yes. Are you really going to look at every opposing unit stack each and every impulse or take notes, etc? If you are then you are definately taking the time and attention to detail I do not have. So I am fine with the limited FoW we currently have and do not care if the units are actually hidden or not. I am perfectly willing to be surprised by not looking at stacks all the time. For me it helps keep a FoW implementation that is simple and already built into the game

< Message edited by Numdydar -- 11/29/2013 5:18:49 AM >

(in reply to wodin)

Post #: 79

RE: People not wanting the manuals - 11/29/2013 11:41:24 AM

henri51

Posts: 1151
Joined: 1/16/2009
Status: offline

There WAS FOW in WW2, for example in Stalingrad, the Germans were not aware of a whole Soviet Tank ARMY until they appeared on the flank. Having said this, I am not convinced that this particular game needs FOW.

(in reply to Numdydar)

Post #: 80

RE: People not wanting the manuals - 11/29/2013 12:23:56 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

Following the FOW comments above I would add my 2 cents as follows:

1. I fully buy into the argument that the computer can be used to improve on areas that a board game cannot achieve and at some point in the distant future, maybe a FOW option could be introduced.

2. However, I do not think this is particularly necessary for two reasons:
a) The game aims to be a faithful reproduction of World in Flames the board game. There is no FOW in the board game and the board game is brilliant - so it�s not necessary here. Far more important would be ironing out bugs, getting netplay stable, producing an AI and writing the optional rules that it is intended to introduce. That is more than enough to be getting on with.

b) Secondly, at the strategic level, I am not sure FOW is really that important. What, at the strategic level was really unknown in WWII? Just two examples:

i) Stalin new full well about the German build-up in the East prior to Barbarossa. You cannot hide 3,000,000 men, their tanks, vehicles, aircraft etc.
ii) D-Day � there was no FOW in play here at the MWIF level. The Germans new an invasion would come � it was where the blow would fall that was the issue. With the North Sea sea box that does not alter; there will be a huge build-up of troops and aircraft in the UK. Where they land is something else.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to henri51)

Post #: 81

RE: People not wanting the manuals - 11/30/2013 1:07:15 AM

Otto von Blotto

Posts: 273
Joined: 7/18/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Following the FOW comments above I would add my 2 cents as follows:

1. I fully buy into the argument that the computer can be used to improve on areas that a board game cannot achieve and at some point in the distant future, maybe a FOW option could be introduced.

2. However, I do not think this is particularly necessary for two reasons:
a) The game aims to be a faithful reproduction of World in Flames the board game. There is no FOW in the board game and the board game is brilliant - so it�s not necessary here. Far more important would be ironing out bugs, getting netplay stable, producing an AI and writing the optional rules that it is intended to introduce. That is more than enough to be getting on with.

b) Secondly, at the strategic level, I am not sure FOW is really that important. What, at the strategic level was really unknown in WWII? Just two examples:

i) Stalin new full well about the German build-up in the East prior to Barbarossa. You cannot hide 3,000,000 men, their tanks, vehicles, aircraft etc.
ii) D-Day � there was no FOW in play here at the MWIF level. The Germans new an invasion would come � it was where the blow would fall that was the issue. With the North Sea sea box that does not alter; there will be a huge build-up of troops and aircraft in the UK. Where they land is something else.

Peal Harbour, Ardennes twice. ? ok maybe more operational rather than strategic.

< Message edited by Otto von Blotto -- 11/30/2013 2:22:27 AM >

_____________________________

"Personal isn't the same as important"

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 82

RE: People not wanting the manuals - 11/30/2013 4:20:42 AM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Otto von Blotto

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Following the FOW comments above I would add my 2 cents as follows:

1. I fully buy into the argument that the computer can be used to improve on areas that a board game cannot achieve and at some point in the distant future, maybe a FOW option could be introduced.

2. However, I do not think this is particularly necessary for two reasons:
a) The game aims to be a faithful reproduction of World in Flames the board game. There is no FOW in the board game and the board game is brilliant - so it�s not necessary here. Far more important would be ironing out bugs, getting netplay stable, producing an AI and writing the optional rules that it is intended to introduce. That is more than enough to be getting on with.

b) Secondly, at the strategic level, I am not sure FOW is really that important. What, at the strategic level was really unknown in WWII? Just two examples:

i) Stalin new full well about the German build-up in the East prior to Barbarossa. You cannot hide 3,000,000 men, their tanks, vehicles, aircraft etc.
ii) D-Day � there was no FOW in play here at the MWIF level. The Germans new an invasion would come � it was where the blow would fall that was the issue. With the North Sea sea box that does not alter; there will be a huge build-up of troops and aircraft in the UK. Where they land is something else.

Peal Harbour, Ardennes twice. ? ok maybe more operational rather than strategic.

warspite1

Yes exactly - its separating the operational and the strategic. E.g Pearl Harbor. The Americans knew full well of the existence of the Kido Butai. Conspiracy theorists aside, they did not know where and when the Japanese would strike.

In MWIF, the American player knows full well the existence of the Kido Butai - he can see it right there on the map. But he doesn't know when/if the Japanese will declare war, he doesn't know what the initial targets will be if the Japanese do decide to attack the US first.

With the Ardennes, again the scale and turn length are the key factors here. The Germans can quite easily line up their forces in the west without specifically telegraphing where the main thrust will fall, be it through Belgium, over the Maginot Line or through southern Belgium between Reims and Metz.

Edit: Spelling

and additional example re Ardennes.

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 11/30/2013 9:41:34 AM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to Otto von Blotto)

Post #: 83

RE: People not wanting the manuals - 11/30/2013 6:58:21 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

Actually, the Germans made a great show of going to attack France through Switzerland in the spring of 1940.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 84

RE: People not wanting the manuals - 12/2/2013 12:58:53 PM

Joseignacio

Posts: 2449
Joined: 5/8/2009
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arnir

I would imagine that if FoW was added, some sort of intelligence system would need to be added to the game. Before ULTRA, etc., was declassified, it was amazing how lucky the Allies were in being at the right place at the right time. After declassification, things made more sense. How do we give the player the "hints" that intel provided in real life?

Please feel sorry for me when I catch hell from the WIF board game people who will gladly wish me to be bannished to some isle called, I think Elba.

Bo

XDDDD Remember I accused you of Trolling? Didn't know you yet, and that's exactly what it looked like. Quite different from the real Bo, AFAIK.

(in reply to bo)

Post #: 85

RE: People not wanting the manuals - 12/2/2013 3:22:25 PM

Arnir

Posts: 482
Joined: 10/12/2002
From: Alberta. In Texas.
Status: offline

Not a serious suggestion, but this thread is reminding me of the old SSI games like invasion America where the counters had their values hidden until combat (or some other criteria that I don't remember - it's been decades). It was always nerve wracking to see that counter flipped over to find out if it was a tiger or a kitten.

Personally I think MWiF is billed as a port of the board game and that is probably what it should stay. Could the engine be morphed into something else with a different name? I have no clue about that.

_____________________________

(in reply to Joseignacio)

Post #: 86

RE: People not wanting the manuals - 12/2/2013 3:28:57 PM

Posts: 4176
Joined: 5/1/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arnir

I would imagine that if FoW was added, some sort of intelligence system would need to be added to the game. Before ULTRA, etc., was declassified, it was amazing how lucky the Allies were in being at the right place at the right time. After declassification, things made more sense. How do we give the player the "hints" that intel provided in real life?

Please feel sorry for me when I catch hell from the WIF board game people who will gladly wish me to be bannished to some isle called, I think Elba.

Bo

XDDDD Remember I accused you of Trolling? Didn't know you yet, and that's exactly what it looked like. Quite different from the real Bo, AFAIK.

So it was you Jose who was going to banish me to the isle of Elba

And without my 70 virgins

(in reply to Joseignacio)

Post #: 87

RE: People not wanting the manuals - 12/2/2013 3:33:17 PM

Posts: 4176
Joined: 5/1/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arnir

Not a serious suggestion, but this thread is reminding me of the old SSI games like invasion America where the counters had their values hidden until combat (or some other criteria that I don't remember - it's been decades). It was always nerve wracking to see that counter flipped over to find out if it was a tiger or a kitten.

Personally I think MWiF is billed as a port of the board game and that is probably what it should stay. Could the engine be morphed into something else with a different name? I have no clue about that.

I also think it should remain a vanilla version of the board game. I always liked games where a unit grew or weakened in strength depending on how that unit fared in combat. The possibilities are there though of a very fine fog of war being implemented.

Bo

(in reply to Arnir)

Post #: 88