What doesn't need to be in CWIF -or- the Golden Years of WIF

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

What doesn't need to be in CWIF -or- the Golden Years of WIF

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 >> What doesn't need to be in CWIF -or- the Golden Years of WIF

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

What doesn't need to be in CWIF -or- the Golden Years o... - 8/13/2004 12:19:11 AM

meyerg

Posts: 135
Joined: 11/14/2003
Status: offline

I remember when Days of Decision first came out and we could start in '36 and play till the end of WW2. Unfortunately DOD was so volatile, often one side started general war with a huge advantage.

So, in my dreams, here is what is NOT in CWIF because, the added complication of these rules is NOT worth the small amount of gameplay gained.

1) Any Days of Decision. If you want to work on this after a good game starting in Sept -39 is done, fine.

2) Motorized and mechanized infantry. So one gets to B stacked with an armor and one can start his own B if there are no armored around. We don't need 'em

3) Moving my convoys out to sea. I like the old way. You strung your convoys and mostly forgot about them (except maybe when Japan was ready to toast the Pacific).

4) Pilots and carrier planes. I know it is more realistic to get a pilot back when he dies over friendly territory, but the bother of tracking pilots is not worth it. Now, the hassle of loading carriers with specific planes and worrying every year how to get better planes on your carriers is definitely not worth it. I liked when a CV factor was its air to air and naval strength and twice its air to ground strength.

5) PiF. I know you love to have the variety of cool planes, but the generic FTR, TAC, NAV, STR worked fine. Forget about the lend lease garbage like the ATR that can be US, British, Russian, French or Chinese.

6) Expansions that pretend it is realisic to fight in North/South America and all the way down to the Horn of Africa.

7) Oil rules and fancy supply units. Who needs these? I can buy some simple oil rules, like you can only produce so many oil-using units based on your oil income, but the optional oil rules in WiF were too much.

8) HQs that were corps too. Bring back the 1-X-X HQs that stack like a division.

9) Ships in flames. Bring back the HS, LS, CV, TR and SUB. So what if all subs and TRS were the same.

10) The current variable production system. The old system was fine before there was some multiplying factor for year and country and enemy units in your country.

Post #: 1

RE: What doesn't need to be in CWIF -or- the Golden Yea... - 8/13/2004 12:33:02 AM

Greyshaft

Posts: 2252
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

Here come the Religious Wars!!!

I loooove PIF and SIF although I can take or leave tracking pilots. Are you suggesting that 1 German LS facing 2 British LS has the same game excitement as putting the Graf Spee up against the Achilles, Ajax and Exeter? Or how about sending your 3 German STR on a bombing raid when you could be launching He111, Do17 and Ju88 against British Spitfires? I think abandoning PiF and SiF would be a big step backwards in game excitement. I'm not so crazy about the color coded carrier planes. That always seemed more trouble than it was worth.

_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to meyerg)

Post #: 2

RE: What doesn't need to be in CWIF -or- the Golden Yea... - 8/13/2004 12:56:04 AM

meyerg

Posts: 135
Joined: 11/14/2003
Status: offline

Greyshaft:
Just put ships with stats equal to each countries' ships in their mix. Remember the "Germans start with LS of at least 4 or higher at start"; that gave them pocket battleships. Or Americans start with four movement HS; that gave them the good HS to build later. Let all the rest be in the counter mix. Put names on them if you wish, but don't bog down the game too much by adding all these different types of ships. I think you can get enough historic reality with the four numbers on HS,LS and CV without too much trouble.
And, by the way, I hated making sure the allies extended range NAV wouldn't fly into a hex with one ground support from Gibraltar to Italy and change a 3-1 to a 2-1. And don't get me started on "night missions" and night fighters. How do you slip one of two Tac squadrons past one fighter squadron? Have one declare a night mission (these were not one day impulses) and the fighter squadron can only fly day or night, but not both.
As for a religous war, I am happy we have the passion for this game that is close to religous zeal. And, by the way, Pif added 2 to 3 times the planes in the game, but the land and combined impulse never upped the mission and rebase limits, a big mistake.
In Wif 4 we always knew the nine factor battleship was the Bismarck and 7 factor TAC was Rudell, even if they weren't labeled. We pretty much named the German HQs correctly before ADG did (though some of us argued that Guderian instead of Manstein should be the 1-5-3).
Anyway, put fancy names on the counters, maybe add range to the counters, but don't go overboard like SiF and PiF. Most importantly, bring back the cool colored paper maps, not the gray plastic feeling ones. Note to developers: look at old map color schemes.

(in reply to Greyshaft)

Post #: 3

RE: What doesn't need to be in CWIF -or- the Golden Yea... - 8/13/2004 1:28:02 AM

Greyshaft

Posts: 2252
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

Maybe the air rebase limits should be increased. I don't see a big problem there. That's just a number.

It seems inevitable that Matix will cut certain features which cannot be easily programmed into the game but IMHO SiF and PiF added a lot more fun into the game at a very low complexity cost. Just my 2 cents...

One interesting point is whether MWiF will have "counters" as such. If you look at WiTP you will see that some of their tactical displays used ship icons instead of square counters. That seemed to be a big step forward in game display. Obviously that doesn't work where units are stacked but in that case I'd point to "Hearts of Iron"which provided a display box on the right side of the screen with the units in that hex. Moving the WiF system into a computer environment creates a whole lot of interesting user interface opportunities.

PS I don't mind religious wars as long as they don't descend into "Forums in Flames"

_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to meyerg)

Post #: 4

Good complexity vs bad complexity - 8/13/2004 2:04:49 AM

meyerg

Posts: 135
Joined: 11/14/2003
Status: offline

How about this philisophical discussion.

Good complexity = complexity that the computer can handle "under the hood". Or a rule that adds much more playability than the overhead required to implement it.

Bad complexity = complexity the user must handle and is not made up in increased gameplay

I am a minimalist in that I require every addition to a good game be scrutinized to ensure it is good complexity. I though Wif 5 was a highpoint of gameplay. Adding air transport missions (pick up MTN with ATR and move to controlled hex) to WiF was good complexity. I believe adding frogmen and minisubs is an example of bad complexity. Three counters that need paragraphs of rules to describe them???

How about adding amphibs. Is the overhead worth the gameplay? I think not.

How about the British marine armor division and paradropping German armor division? Sure they are cool, but why the extra complication for these two counters.

I am sure we will get a good game with Matrix. Hopefully they have the right to veto each layer of complexity ADG added. I know GGWAW will be the simpler version of WW2, but lets not make CWIF more unwieldy than it needs to be.

Finally, I think Greyshaft is right, a range number on each plane "counter" is probably good complexity. I also agree the Hearts of Iron and WITP view of units is a good way to go (with a "counter on" feature for us retro guys).

Greg

(in reply to Greyshaft)

Post #: 5

RE: What doesn't need to be in CWIF -or- the Golden Yea... - 8/13/2004 4:28:27 AM

meyerg

Posts: 135
Joined: 11/14/2003
Status: offline

These are all opinions to foster discussion. I believe CWIF is heading toward the "faithful adaption of the boardgame" philosophy with possible compromises to get PBEM.

(in reply to meyerg)

Post #: 6

RE: What doesn't need to be in CWIF -or- the Golden Yea... - 8/13/2004 4:45:49 AM

Luke

Posts: 8
Joined: 4/22/2004
Status: offline

I think that many of you have missed the point, in that the computerised version COULD mean that you play it simple or you play it complex. In many instances it is a choice of options at the start of the game as with the last of the Betas.

I think many of the options you are talking about were in the last beta version, not all, but many.

Certainly the board game varient allows for choice. You don't have to play Pif or SiF if you don't want to. Which is good for a novice, but usually boring for a seasoned campaigner or history buff.

Computerised version of Wif should allow the flexibility, just my optinion, but please don't burden everyone with just your preferences.

Luke

(in reply to meyerg)

Post #: 7

RE: What doesn't need to be in CWIF -or- the Golden Yea... - 8/13/2004 9:47:45 AM

Greyshaft

Posts: 2252
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Luke
... but please don't burden everyone with just your preferences.

Luke

Well what other preferences do we know?

I think that everyone should post what their preferences are in order to foster discussion. As long as people don't get fanatical about whether certain features should be in or out, then the more posts the better

_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to Luke)

Post #: 8

RE: What doesn't need to be in CWIF -or- the Golden Yea... - 8/13/2004 12:33:26 PM

amwild

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: meyerg

I remember when Days of Decision first came out and we could start in '36 and play till the end of WW2. Unfortunately DOD was so volatile, often one side started general war with a huge advantage.

So, in my dreams, here is what is NOT in CWIF because, the added complication of these rules is NOT worth the small amount of gameplay gained.

1) Any Days of Decision. If you want to work on this after a good game starting in Sept -39 is done, fine.

2) Motorized and mechanized infantry. So one gets to B stacked with an armor and one can start his own B if there are no armored around. We don't need 'em

3) Moving my convoys out to sea. I like the old way. You strung your convoys and mostly forgot about them (except maybe when Japan was ready to toast the Pacific).

4) Pilots and carrier planes. I know it is more realistic to get a pilot back when he dies over friendly territory, but the bother of tracking pilots is not worth it. Now, the hassle of loading carriers with specific planes and worrying every year how to get better planes on your carriers is definitely not worth it. I liked when a CV factor was its air to air and naval strength and twice its air to ground strength.

5) PiF. I know you love to have the variety of cool planes, but the generic FTR, TAC, NAV, STR worked fine. Forget about the lend lease garbage like the ATR that can be US, British, Russian, French or Chinese.

6) Expansions that pretend it is realisic to fight in North/South America and all the way down to the Horn of Africa.

7) Oil rules and fancy supply units. Who needs these? I can buy some simple oil rules, like you can only produce so many oil-using units based on your oil income, but the optional oil rules in WiF were too much.

8) HQs that were corps too. Bring back the 1-X-X HQs that stack like a division.

9) Ships in flames. Bring back the HS, LS, CV, TR and SUB. So what if all subs and TRS were the same.

10) The current variable production system. The old system was fine before there was some multiplying factor for year and country and enemy units in your country.

Personally, I have no opinion about these additions as yet. However, I would like to be able to choose for myself. Give us the option of turning these rules on or off when starting a game. Isn't that the best of both worlds?

(in reply to meyerg)

Post #: 9

RE: What doesn't need to be in CWIF -or- the Golden Yea... - 8/13/2004 7:20:29 PM

terje439

Posts: 6813
Joined: 3/28/2004
Status: offline

Well guess this question is a matter of personal taste, so as several ppl have said, let it be optional. I want to include Pif, Sif, Aif and what they all are called, as I love WIF due to its complexity and detail

(in reply to meyerg)

Post #: 10

RE: What doesn't need to be in CWIF -or- the Golden Yea... - 8/14/2004 7:36:20 PM

Mziln

Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline

I agree with terje439 GIVE ME ALL THE OPTIONS!!!!!

I'll turn em off or on as I so desire

< Message edited by Mziln -- 8/14/2004 5:38:01 PM >

(in reply to terje439)

Post #: 11

RE: What doesn't need to be in CWIF -or- the Golden Yea... - 8/15/2004 6:08:11 AM

vonpaul

Posts: 178
Joined: 8/5/2004
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

Having a wif classic option would be nice though, old CWif didnt have that option and too much chrome solitare w/o an AI was frustrating

(in reply to Mziln)

Post #: 12

RE: What doesn't need to be in CWIF -or- the Golden Yea... - 8/15/2004 5:13:10 PM

gbed

Posts: 22
Joined: 7/18/2004
Status: offline

Everyone is going to get RAW, Rules As Written. Everything else is optional, of which there are many. Set the game up any way you wish.

(in reply to vonpaul)

Post #: 13

RE: What doesn't need to be in CWIF -or- the Golden Yea... - 8/15/2004 5:18:52 PM

vonpaul

Posts: 178
Joined: 8/5/2004
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

There are rules and then there are extra counters w/o any extra rules, eg. SIF, PIF, MIF . CWIF didnt have an option for adding those extra units they were just included as standard :(

(in reply to gbed)

Post #: 14

RE: What doesn't need to be in CWIF -or- the Golden Yea... - 8/15/2004 5:30:28 PM

meyerg

Posts: 135
Joined: 11/14/2003
Status: offline

I agree we will get mechs and motorized. I just felt they didn't add much (except that Italian mech division sure looked cool, I felt the British should be intimidated just because he resembled an SS unit).

(in reply to vonpaul)

Post #: 15