RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game

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: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game

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: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game

Page: << < prev 13 14 [15] 16 17 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 2/11/2008 11:42:02 PM

sw30

Posts: 410
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: San Francisco, CA
Status: offline

make it a Mac only game. :)

_____________________________

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 421

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 2/12/2008 11:22:03 PM

marcuswatney

Posts: 279
Joined: 2/28/2006
Status: offline

Setting-up from scratch (i.e. entirely free deployment) can be very tedious and time-consuming. One thing which would be incredibly useful would be the facility to start with a vanilla opening (say 'historical') with the option to tweak it by dragging units elsewhere. This would help people who want to try changes in one part of the map but not another. And, given the rather unforgiving nature of some aspects of WiF, it would be a boon to the complete newbie who would be able to get stuck into a game immediately, confident that his opening position didn't include some massively fatal flaw.

(in reply to sw30)

Post #: 422

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 2/15/2008 10:00:03 PM

ezzler

Posts: 863
Joined: 7/4/2004
Status: offline

Agree, a standars setup 'historical' is an excellent idea.

(in reply to marcuswatney)

Post #: 423

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 2/15/2008 11:51:20 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

Setting-up from scratch (i.e. entirely free deployment) can be very tedious and time-consuming.� One thing which would be incredibly useful would be the�facility to start with a vanilla opening (say 'historical') with the option to tweak it by dragging units elsewhere.� This would help people who want to try changes in one part of the map but not another.� And, given the rather unforgiving nature of some aspects of WiF, it would be a boon to�the complete newbie who would be able to get stuck into a game immediately, confident that his opening position didn't include some massively fatal flaw.

WIF has one important design element that works against what you propose. That is, all air units and most land units are drawn randomly from an available pool. If we were to set up historically, setting aside the fact that it would require a lot of historical research, we would be ignoring this fundamental game design element.

I have taken 3 steps to address the problem you raise:

1 - Starting setup positions for non-random units can be saved. This includes just about the entire navies, with the exceptions of transports, AMPHs, and submarines. It also includes named units, like HQs, and generic units, like fortifications and saved oil points. By having the beta testers create saved setup poisitions for all the major powers for all the scenarios, we achieve what you suggested for roughly 40% of the units.

2 - The final product will included saved games, where the save was made after all the units have been set up. Of course these positions will use roughly 60% of randomly drawn units. They will not be 'historically' accurate. If the beta testers, who will created these saved games, know what they are about, there should not be 'fatal' flaws.

3 - One section of the players manual will be written for the express purpose of apprising new players of the importance of critical decisions they have to make. Clearly, where to place units during setup is one such decision. I do not want that section to drone on and on about what to do and what not to do, but still, it should give new players a heads up for avoiding poor starting placements for their units.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to marcuswatney)

Post #: 424

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 2/16/2008 11:37:42 AM

ezzler

Posts: 863
Joined: 7/4/2004
Status: offline

I don't believe he actually wanted a completely acurate 'Historical ' set up with the ACTUAL historical units in place... Rather a 'Quick set up' much as you describe in 2]

I am sure someone will Mod the Historical setup at some point.. but for me the ability to have a quicker, or partial set up would be useful.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 425

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 2/16/2008 3:32:06 PM

marcuswatney

Posts: 279
Joined: 2/28/2006
Status: offline

That's right. I wasn't proposing an absolutely historical set-up, but rather a 'sensible' set-up in line with the historical situation, and in particular one where there are no glaring errors, so that newbies can get stuck in straight away without falling flat on their faces. For example, the sort of questions a new player is likely to puzzle over are what sort of German garrison is required facing the Maginot Line, where should aircraft be based so that they are effective without being vulnerable, does the major port with its precious fleet need a fighter unit there too, etc. etc.?

Probably the most time-consuming thing for a newbie, unfamiliar with the location of all factories and resources, will be setting up efficient convoy routes. So a routine that sets up an accepted 'standard' web of convoys, which can then be tweaked to suit the player's preference, would be very welcome.

This suggestion of mine probably stems from the memory of a traumatic first-ever game of Third Reich in 1974 where, as Germany, I managed to get myself defeated by the Poles in one turn!

(in reply to ezzler)

Post #: 426

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 2/17/2008 8:07:13 PM

Norman42

Posts: 244
Joined: 2/9/2008
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

a 'sensible' set-up in line with the historical situation, and in particular one where there are no glaring errors, so that newbies can get stuck in straight away without falling flat on their faces

This is an excellent idea.

The neophyte player would probably be quite savaged by the AI repeatedly as he learns proper initial setups so as not to lose in the first turn. I don't imagine that would be fun or productive.

(in reply to marcuswatney)

Post #: 427

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 2/22/2008 2:37:59 AM

marcuswatney

Posts: 279
Joined: 2/28/2006
Status: offline

I'd also like to have the option not to micro-manage, not even issuing standing orders, particularly when it comes to naval air combat. In such a mode, the player would just order his task-force to attack a particular place and then leave it to the admiral on the bridge (the AI) to choose sensible attack formations, etc.

I think you could play four games in this mode in the time it would take to play one game micro-managing, which I would value.

(in reply to Norman42)

Post #: 428

RE: Uncertainty - 2/22/2008 9:33:02 AM

Charles2222

Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline

My main wish is for more turns. I thought somebody told me before that it was every 6 weeks (10 turns a year, but somebody else on this very thread said every 2 months). Which is it? In any case I would rather have 26 or 52 turns a year. Every 2 months just won't get me buying this. Even 10 turns a year will have hesitating to buy it. I suppose that would involve a total re-scaling of the maps into smaller pieces and/or units which are slower. I just can't imagine playing a game where you pretty much get 2 turns for attacking every year (3 at most) in the case of GGWAW (seasonal turns).

I think the game will come with an AI, but if the turns are too sparse that won't matter to me, but yes, definitely a good AI.

(in reply to Greyshaft)

Post #: 429

RE: Uncertainty - 2/22/2008 9:43:32 AM

warspite1

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

You cannot change the number of turns - that completely changes the game! Rest assured one turn every two months is not as restrictive as it sounds. There are numerous (variable) number of impulses each turn so its not as though you can only move/attack with a unit once a turn. Try it - its a brilliant game!!

(in reply to Charles2222)

Post #: 430

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 2/22/2008 9:48:48 AM

warspite1

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

I'd also like to have the option not to micro-manage, not even issuing standing orders, particularly when it comes to naval air combat.� In such a mode, the player would just order his task-force to attack a particular place and then�leave it to the admiral on�the bridge (the AI) to choose sensible attack formations, etc.

I think you could play four games in this mode in the time it would take to play one game micro-managing, which I would value.

I would like to ask that this be an option only and that the ability to micro manage is the default mode in the game. Given that the quality of the AI is an unknown - I would not like to have the usage of precious assets decided by the AI - its my job to waste my forces in stupid attacks - not the computer!!

(in reply to marcuswatney)

Post #: 431

RE: Uncertainty - 2/22/2008 10:47:44 AM

Charles2222

Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

You cannot change the number of turns - that completely changes the game!� Rest assured�one turn every two months is not as restrictive as it sounds.� There are numerous (variable) number of impulses each turn so its not as though you can only move/attack with�a unit once a turn.� Try it - its a brilliant game!!��

Yes, I hadn't read much of the thread before I made that comment, but I do hope I have enough time in any case where I feel like I have put a good sized effort into say an Eastern Front summer before having to bog down.

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 432

RE: Uncertainty - 2/22/2008 10:57:01 AM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

My main wish is for more turns. I thought somebody told me before that it was every 6 weeks (10 turns a year, but somebody else on this very thread said every 2 months). Which is it? In any case I would rather have 26 or 52 turns a year. Every 2 months just won't get me buying this. Even 10 turns a year will have hesitating to buy it. I suppose that would involve a total re-scaling of the maps into smaller pieces and/or units which are slower. I just can't imagine playing a game where you pretty much get 2 turns for attacking every year (3 at most) in the case of GGWAW (seasonal turns).

I think the game will come with an AI, but if the turns are too sparse that won't matter to me, but yes, definitely a good AI.

There are 36 turns, but a turn is broken down into a variable impulse number, and the actual moments where you move your units are the impulses. So you actualy move your units a variable number per turn.
As an average, there are 125 impulses per global war game per side, that means that each side will move his units 125 times.

This is the same as if there was 125 turns, but only 36 "strategic turns" where you build units, and bring in reinforcements.

(in reply to Charles2222)

Post #: 433

RE: Uncertainty - 2/22/2008 11:04:25 AM

Charles2222

Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline

Maybe the most sensible method of getting the game strictly historical, for whatever amount any scenario designer may wish, no matter how you decide on the method of delivering that, would be to find some method, maybe ingame, in which the user is told what each nation you play had historically built on each turn/phase. This way you can go with the history if you choose, but the wide open nature of the game is still available.

(in reply to Charles2222)

Post #: 434

RE: Uncertainty - 2/22/2008 11:07:04 AM

Charles2222

Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline

Thanks, that certainly makes that clearer.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 435

RE: Uncertainty - 2/26/2008 3:44:23 AM

pmath

Posts: 102
Joined: 2/19/2004
Status: offline

A lot of really good points have been made in this forum. This is a mammoth undertaking, and I would like to suggest that the final product be delivered in stamges. If we had a good shell to launch the product w/ Corps level detail the core countries and some but not all of the scenarios, future releases could address Division level detail etc. I wouldn't even mind allowing the developers to get a game out with a reasonable price tag for this leevel undertaking and creating expansion modules that would have to be purchased on top of the base game so that those who want the additional details help fund their development. As much as we want in this game it would be a shame if it became such a monster and that it was so complex, that it become almost unplayable. I think scaling down a little of the comlexity and eliminating some options is probably logical for the computer version.

(in reply to Greyshaft)

Post #: 436

RE: Uncertainty - 2/26/2008 5:04:36 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: pmath

A lot of really good points have been made in this forum. This is a mammoth undertaking, and I would like to suggest that the final product be delivered in stamges. If we had a good shell to launch the product w/ Corps level detail the core countries and some but not all of the scenarios, future releases could address Division level detail etc. I wouldn't even mind allowing the developers to get a game out with a reasonable price tag for this leevel undertaking and creating expansion modules that would have to be purchased on top of the base game so that those who want the additional details help fund their development. As much as we want in this game it would be a shame if it became such a monster and that it was so complex, that it become almost unplayable. I think scaling down a little of the comlexity and eliminating some options is probably logical for the computer version.

Well, this was the primary topic when I negotiated my contract with Matrix in July 2005. I won a few of those discussions, in that Days of Decision III, Patton in Flames, and America in Flames are not part of MWIF product 1. I was also able to eliminate trying to produce a WIF Design Kit where the players would be able to modify everything under the sun. The last item is something that ADG was trying to do when they had the game under development.

But I couldn't persuade Matrix to drop Cruisers in Flames and Carriers in Flames, so they are part of MWIF product 1.

CWIF only had 3 scenarios and adding the missing 8 has requiredsubstantially more work than I originally thought it would, which included many fundamental changes to the code structure.

I have cut a few optional rules that were present in CWIF (e.g., Fog of War), but they have been replaced by others where an original optional rule fragmented into pieces. Net result, we ended up with 81 optional rules, which is pretty close to where we started.

I have held the line quite firmly on feature creep, only caving in when an addition was both important to my vision of MWIF and not too hard to implement.

I don't see things changing in regard to any of these items prior to the release of MWIF product 1.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to pmath)

Post #: 437

RE: Uncertainty - 2/29/2008 6:12:24 AM

panzers

Posts: 635
Joined: 5/19/2006
From: Detroit Mi, USA
Status: offline

I haven't read all the posts, but does that mean DOD is not going to be part of the equasion? If So, that would be tragic, because that is a huge part of this game. I highly suggest you put that option in there even if it means delaying it that much further. It would be well worth the time. Guys: please back me up in this.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 438

RE: Uncertainty - 2/29/2008 6:52:49 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: panzers

I haven't read all the posts, but does that mean DOD is not going to be part of the equasion? If So, that would be tragic, because that is a huge part of this game. I highly suggest you put that option in there even if it means delaying it that much further. It would be well worth the time. Guys: please back me up in this.

First things first. MWIF product 1 is for WIF FE. If that succeeds, then I'll be working on 2 & 3, though precisely what goes into those hasn't been worked out yet.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to panzers)

Post #: 439

RE: Uncertainty - 2/29/2008 6:23:10 PM

Mitchellvitch

Posts: 21
Joined: 2/29/2008
Status: offline

As a long-term lurker leaving at long last the shadows, it seems to be traditional to offer at this point my congratulations on the absolute glory that is MWIF, and all of the tremendous work that has gone in to it: as a WIFer-in-exile I can only pant in anticipation of release. You will put, to quote a player from my old group, the gay back in gaming. Hats off to Steve and everyone else who has helped out.

I just had to jump in to comment on the DOD issue: who needs it? That sounds a bit brutal, but I've never seen the thrill of '37, as it were. Give me '42 any day.

Every WIFer, has, I suppose, different expansion preferences, but this game, when it comes, is going to be the greatest way to avoid work and study ever.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 440

RE: Uncertainty - 2/29/2008 6:39:05 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mitchellvitch

As a long-term lurker leaving at long last the shadows, it seems to be traditional to offer at this point my congratulations on the absolute glory that is MWIF, and all of the tremendous work that has gone in to it: as a WIFer-in-exile I can only pant in anticipation of release. You will put, to quote a player from my old group, the gay back in gaming. Hats off to Steve and everyone else who has helped out.

I just had to jump in to comment on the DOD issue: who needs it? That sounds a bit brutal, but I've never seen the thrill of '37, as it were. Give me '42 any day.

Every WIFer, has, I suppose, different expansion preferences, but this game, when it comes, is going to be the greatest way to avoid work and study ever.

Welcome.

When everybody puts in their 2 cents, a great value can build up.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Mitchellvitch)

Post #: 441

RE: Uncertainty - 2/29/2008 8:27:03 PM

Norman42

Posts: 244
Joined: 2/9/2008
From: Canada
Status: offline

I do love Days of Decision and have played 13 or 14 DOD/WIF games since the first edition of DOD. I'm a huge fan of alternate history stories and 'What If...' scenarios.

That being said, I can say with some solid experience in DOD/WiF that the game is often 'won' or 'lost' well before the general war even starts. It is *so* hard to balance from a playability point of view. Germany getting full control of Spain in 1937, or the Commonwealth being able to keep Czechoslovakia alive in 1938, or France crushing Italy in a 1937 war, or Japan destroying all the USSRs far eastern holdings, or the US looking at a 1944 entry date, are all too common in DOD and usually has the game ending with one side very dominant well before 'World War Two" even starts. I'd estimate that 75% of my DoD games have ended within the first year of General War since one side is just in such a good position that the game is already won.

I love DOD, but it doesnt make for a very good war.

Steve, If you ever do tackle that balance nightmare of 1 trillion possible option combinations, I wish you the best of luck...and lots of aspirins.

PS: My all time favorite outcome of DOD was a Soviet/Italian Sea Lion that saw the hammer and sickle flying over the United Kingdom while Rommel led Czechoslovakian armor was invading Nationalist China...from the west. 'What If...' indeed.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 442

RE: Uncertainty - 2/29/2008 9:19:01 PM

jcprom

Posts: 36
Joined: 5/1/2007
Status: offline

True enough. I never switched to DOD2/3. My first attempt was the last. DOD1 is not as elegant but it's more stable and it feels like WWII.

(in reply to Norman42)

Post #: 443

RE: Uncertainty - 3/1/2008 12:07:12 AM

warspite1

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

I must say I never played DOD and Norman42`s comments are probably sufficient to ensure I never will. My personal opinion is that MWIF 2 (and I know this is way in the future) should be geared towards fine honing the "war years" and including things that can be achieved on computer that were simply not possible in a cardboard and paper game.

Obvious example being Armies in Flames (more historical accuracy in the land units), a more complex production system, a version of Politics in Flames (which presumably would give a more controlled set of "what ifs" than DOD) and I seem to recall ADG stating they wanted the populations of each country taken into account. As a result if you could mirror situations as existed in the British Army in 1944 whereby the Army was simply running out of men and had to dissolve existing units to keep others up to strength. Of course if the British Army does not suffer a Dunkirk, Singapore etc, that would improve the size of the army they were able to field.

(in reply to jcprom)

Post #: 444

RE: Uncertainty - 3/1/2008 1:40:27 AM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcprom

True enough. I never switched to DOD2/3. My first attempt was the last. DOD1 is not as elegant but it's more stable and it feels like WWII.

Maybe Politic in Flames would be an addition that would be more suited to alternate WWII, without being too much extremes ? I never played it, but people use to say it is a quick & dirty DoD that does the job finely.

Also, there is Factories in Flames for a definitive addtion to MWiF, for MWiF product 2.

And obviously there is America in Flames and Patton in Flames, which would be very easy to include in MWiF as they would nearly only be additionnal units to the game, with a some rule changing. Nearly only new scenarios.

(in reply to jcprom)

Post #: 445

RE: Uncertainty - 3/1/2008 3:29:01 AM

Neilster

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mitchellvitch
...
You will put, to quote a player from my old group, the gay back in gaming.
...

As my old Air Force instructors used to say, "It's no longer illegal but it's still not compulsory"

My Mum's not happy about the word "gay" being appropriated.

Cheers, Neilster

(in reply to Mitchellvitch)

Post #: 446

RE: Uncertainty - 3/1/2008 3:35:01 AM

Neilster

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcprom

True enough. I never switched to DOD2/3. My first attempt was the last. DOD1 is not as elegant but it's more stable and it feels like WWII.

Maybe Politic in Flames would be an addition that would be more suited to alternate WWII, without being too much extremes ? I never played it, but people use to say it is a quick & dirty DoD that does the job finely.

Also, there is Factories in Flames for a definitive addtion to MWiF, for MWiF product 2.

And obviously there is America in Flames and Patton in Flames, which would be very easy to include in MWiF as they would nearly only be additionnal units to the game, with a some rule changing. Nearly only new scenarios.

And the spheroid-with-hex-faces global map! I'm not giving up on that.

Cheers, Neilster

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 447

RE: Uncertainty - 3/1/2008 4:37:06 AM

panzers

Posts: 635
Joined: 5/19/2006
From: Detroit Mi, USA
Status: offline

I realize there can be many different outcomes from it, but I played with really good and intelligent players, high IQ and all and more often than not, the changes from the actual events were merely subtle. For instance: the purge always happened, the Rhineland, always happened, and only in some very rare cases, Like, for instance France getting the chit and actually succeding in their remote political roll and getting an early industry increase, the game is almost always as planned. I think the strangest thing I ever saw was that Germany actually got czeckoslovakia to be their ally with the full army.
Occasionally you might see Germany getting Spain after the Nationalists won, or even a very highly unlikely chance of Turkey or Sweden, but at what cost? Romania? I don't think so.
So the fact that things like France invading Italy in 1937 sounds like people were deliberately trying to alter the historical value of the game.
The guys I used to play with valued the traditional values of the game(if that makes any sense for the poor English skills I have) and we tried to alter things, but in a way that would not ruin it for themselves. There are way too many lost variables by swaying in too many different directions. That is why I feel so strongly about the DOD. ADG did a wonderful job with all the checks and balances involved with this separate part of the game.
One time the allies got the extended Maginot line. But you can pretty much predict what happens after that:The Netherlands became pro and Belgium of course in the axis camp. and, of course that affects greatly on Turkey and even to some extent Poland as well as Czechslovakia. So, again I ask you? is it really worth trying to alter history that much?
Incidentally, in case you were wondering: it was DOD II that we played.

< Message edited by panzers -- 3/1/2008 4:45:20 AM >

(in reply to Neilster)

Post #: 448

RE: Uncertainty - 3/1/2008 7:59:12 AM

Norman42

Posts: 244
Joined: 2/9/2008
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: panzers
So, again I ask you? is it really worth trying to alter history that much?
Incidentally, in case you were wondering: it was DOD II that we played.

Short answer: yes.

The first few games of DOD1(in my opinion the best version and least unbalanced) and DOD2 that my gamers played were often very much like you describe, playing historical options at historical times, leading to a fairly historical war - ie Germany declares war on Poland with a CW cassus belli in sept 1939 "because thats the way it is supposed to be".

After those test runs the players all learned the details of the DOD system and were able to really push the system and make fairly un-historical and un-realistic things happen. By the 5th or 6th game the "craziness" was standard play. Every player gunned for the big score countries (Spain/Turkey/Sweden/Czech/Poland) and knew the system well enough to pretty much guarantee a strategy that would get them the countries they needed for their plans. This led to very polarized games where nearly *every* country is in the active camp of a Major Power. If Germany wants Spain, they *will* get Spain, and in DOD games where Plan Z is common for the German Navy, the CW is in deep deep trouble with France and Gibraltar toasted in 1939. Likewise the eastern strategy with Germans in Turkey crushing the USSR in 1940. Or the CW/France level 3 alliance and combined war aims in 1939 where France *never* falls and has 12 CW corps and the entire RAF in France by late 1940.

By DOD 3 the crazy games started right off the bat and were usually decided by mid 1938 depending on who got lucky playing their big score options.

These scenarios are great fun, no doubt about it, and some of the best times I've had in WIF have been in those wild DOD/WIF games...but, they were SO unbalanced as to be fairly unplayable once the real war broke out and they were not a whole lot of fun for the "whipping boy" side of the game once things started to go against them.

After our wildest game with Russians conquesting London and Rommel in Urumchi we packed up DOD and went back to good old WIF.

It just makes for a better game for everyone when there is some stability and balance.

(in reply to panzers)

Post #: 449

RE: Uncertainty - 3/1/2008 9:07:01 AM

panzers

Posts: 635
Joined: 5/19/2006
From: Detroit Mi, USA
Status: offline

I find that to be very peculiar becuse once both side understand how to manipulate the game engine, they end up cancelling each other and it goes as planned anyway. Now I never played DODIII and doesn't sound like I want to, but I just found DODII just balanced enough that you can manipulate a couple things nothing more. I guess it all depends on who you play with. I played with the same guys everytime so we pretty much cancelled each other out unless something really screwy happens and France and the US never get a chit, much less their political roll, which I found never happened. Maybe we were just lucky.

(in reply to Norman42)

Post #: 450