positive feedback and ideas

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

positive feedback and ideas

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 >> positive feedback and ideas

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

positive feedback and ideas - 5/10/2005 4:24:18 PM

coregames

Posts: 470
Joined: 8/12/2004
Status: offline

The tone in this forum has recently been contentious, and it's time to improve the quality of our discussion. Rather than complaining about how long the game is taking, or about how the direction doesn't meet with someone's approval, let's suggest ideas for how to solve problems without resorting to bitterness or negativity. This is in the interest of encouraging the best final product possible.

Post #: 1

RE: positive feedback and ideas - 5/10/2005 6:58:57 PM

wfzimmerman

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: coregames

The tone in this forum has recently been contentious, and it's time to improve the quality of our discussion. Rather than complaining about how long the game is taking, or about how the direction doesn't meet with someone's approval, let's suggest ideas for how to solve problems without resorting to bitterness or negativity. This is in the interest of encouraging the best final product possible.

I am a patient observer who's not a zealot of any type, and I say this in a friendly, constructive way: it is up to Matrix to generate some good news. So far, they have had the product for eight months and made negative progress.

I'm tuning out from this discussion until I read that Matrix has either

1) re-released an "open" version of pbem CWIF or
2) invited beta testers to begin work on MWIF.

So long!

(in reply to coregames)

Post #: 2

RE: positive feedback and ideas - 5/10/2005 7:44:17 PM

Mziln

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: coregames

The tone in this forum has recently been contentious, and it's time to improve the quality of our discussion. Rather than complaining about how long the game is taking, or about how the direction doesn't meet with someone's approval, let's suggest ideas for how to solve problems without resorting to bitterness or negativity. This is in the interest of encouraging the best final product possible.

Forum is defined by Merriam-Webster online dictionary as:

A public meeting or lecture involving audience discussion. So you have to have pros and cons to have a good discussion. The pros will just have to continue to debate with the cons.

My suggestion on how to reduce the amount of negativity would be:

What is the status of MWiF?

The AI. We have been told is being worked on. So we know the status of the AI.

The Art work. Some screen shots would be nice.

The Game Editor. Will this still be included?

Is "Days of Decision" planned as part of MWiF? If not then the Editor (if it is still to be offered) could be used to allow this.

The Beta version of MWiF could resume without an AI. Everyone who was doing the Beta of CWiF knows there were still bugs to iron out. The CWiF beta did not have an AI. A non-disclosure agreement could allow debugging of MWiF while the AI is being worked on and may resolve problems designing an AI for the game.

PBEmail will have to be tied to the AI. So don't look for a quick resolution on this subject.

List some of the game options (if possable without compromising MWiF).

< Message edited by Mziln -- 5/10/2005 7:45:48 PM >

(in reply to coregames)

Post #: 3

RE: positive feedback and ideas - 5/10/2005 7:47:04 PM

Cheesehead

Posts: 418
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Appleton, Wisconsin
Status: offline

Are you a lawyer by any chance?

_____________________________

You can't fight in here...this is the war room!

(in reply to Mziln)

Post #: 4

RE: positive feedback and ideas - 5/10/2005 7:55:43 PM

Mziln

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

Nope, but I have learned that if you post on a forum CYA (Cover Your Donkey).

wfzimmerman is incorrect Matrix Games has had the game longer than 8 months.

quote:

Matrix Games and Australian Design Group Seal Deal for World In Flames!

Matrix Games to Develop and Publish World Famous Wargame

Woodbridge, NJ, October 21st, 2003 - Matrix Games and Australian Design Group (ADG: www.a-d-g.com.au ) are pleased to announce that the international award-winning wargame World In Flames will be faithfully adapted for computer play. Unlike many other World War II wargames, World In Flames covers every unit in every theater of operations, making it possible to play out all of World War II in a single unified game system.

< Message edited by Mziln -- 5/10/2005 7:56:20 PM >

(in reply to Cheesehead)

Post #: 5

RE: positive feedback and ideas - 5/10/2005 9:37:10 PM

sedecula

Posts: 28
Joined: 5/29/2002
Status: offline

Alright, I have an idea. It is both positive toward getting this done and gives direction. Let's contact Harry Rowland and see whether he feels the way many of us do, that Matrix has neglected both the product and the public for many months (and now has the cheek to tell us to be chirpy), and see if we can't get this into somebody's hands who is willing to devote themselves to it.

(in reply to coregames)

Post #: 6

We all feel the pain - 5/11/2005 12:50:00 AM

Greyshaft

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

Gentlemen,

It might be valuable to take a step back and reconsider a few issues.

Matrix is not an EA or Microsoft that can throw 30 programmers and a media unit at every game they take on board. They are a game PUBLISHING company who deliberately position themselves at the grognard end of the game market to give the "little guy" game designer a chance to get his grognard game published and the grognard game junkie (like me) a chance to see something a little more stimulating than computerized Axis and Allies. That means they are addressing a limited market and their sales of each game will be in the tens of thousands rather than the hundreds of thousands... which means a corresponding lack of resources and an absolute imperative to "get it right" first time - patches notwithstanding.

It also means that they rely on essentially freelance programmers like Robert Crandall who do all of their design and coding work on spec. Robert is also heavily involved in supporting his just-released game of Flashpoint Germany and there is no way that Matrix would consider abandoning their responsibilities to the purchasers of that game.

We are all sitting on the outside wondering when MWiF will be released but every post from Matrix says the same thing... it will be many months (or years) before the job is finished. I don't like that answer either, but kudos to Matrix for playing it straight with us.

As a software developer myself I know that there is a lot of work to do to build the foundations of an application (or game) before there is anything meaningful to show the users. I have played with the CM demo and the front end was certainly almost complete, but as far as I could see there was nothing inside. The sizing of the files was also a clue... I think the whole thing was about 5mb zipped. What sort of game fits into 5MB? I'm not having a go at ChrisM... I'm just pointing out that his game was nowhere near ready for release. Kinda like looking at the facade of a house then going inside and discovering that its just like a studio lot with just the front wall propped up on posts. All the people in the street think its ready to live in but the people looking inside know differently.

Call Harry if you want to... but I can't see what he would do differently.

Nothing in this post should be read as endorsed by Matrix.
Just calling it as I see it.

/Greyshaft

(in reply to sedecula)

Post #: 7

RE: We all feel the pain - 5/11/2005 9:16:37 AM

coregames

Posts: 470
Joined: 8/12/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

Call Harry if you want to... but I can't see what he would do differently.

I have no problems at all with Matrix taking as long as is needed to get it right, since WiF is one of my favorite games. If I thought Harry could light a fire under anyone's butt and get them to hurry, I still would not want him to do it. Matrix may be a small design/development house, but I like what I've seen in GGWaW, and EiA appears to be a very dedicated (if sometimes frustrating) project. I respect their professionalism and their honesty with us.

My idea with this thread was not to encourage impatient people to complain, but rather, to encourage more dialogue about the form the game might take, as well as ideas about how to accomplish such an ambitious project. Hopefully, most of those who are impatient will refrain from this thread in favor of threads more suitable to that issue.

The issue I would like to hear from Harry Rowland on isn't related to MWiF's timetable, but rather, balancing PBEM with faithfulness in the adaptation. If Harry thinks Matrix needs leeway in the interactivity to allow for PBEM (whether as the standard form of play, or as an option), I would be much more inclined to "go with the flow".

(in reply to Greyshaft)

Post #: 8

RE: positive feedback and ideas - 5/11/2005 9:26:08 AM

coregames

Posts: 470
Joined: 8/12/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln

you have to have pros and cons to have a good discussion. The pros will just have to continue to debate with the cons.

It is true that a forum should have pros and cons, but this is only one thread in that forum. An organized forum is easier to digest, and I really want this thread to stay positive (or at the very least, constructively critical), and polite, to keep the focus on how the game can be better. If someone wants to post to the It's a disgrace thread, impatience about the release date would be more appropriate there. Thanks in advance for trying to stay focused on being constructive in this thread.

(in reply to Mziln)

Post #: 9

RE: positive feedback and ideas - 5/11/2005 5:00:44 PM

wfzimmerman

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: coregames

It is true that a forum should have pros and cons, but this is only one thread in that forum. An organized forum is easier to digest, and I really want this thread to stay positive (or at the very least, constructively critical), and polite, to keep the focus on how the game can be better. If someone wants to post to the It's a disgrace thread, impatience about the release date would be more appropriate there. Thanks in advance for trying to stay focused on being constructive in this thread.

quote:

t is true that a forum should have pros and cons, but this is only one thread in that forum. An organized forum is easier to digest, and I really want this thread to stay positive (or at the very least, constructively critical), and polite, to keep the focus on how the game can be better. If someone wants to post to the It's a disgrace thread, impatience about the release date would be more appropriate there. Thanks in advance for trying to stay focused on being constructive in this thread.

To repeat, there is nothing constructive to talk about until Matrix makes some positive news. The ball's in their court.

(in reply to coregames)

Post #: 10

RE: positive feedback and ideas - 5/11/2005 11:52:35 PM

coregames

Posts: 470
Joined: 8/12/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman
To repeat, there is nothing constructive to talk about until Matrix makes some positive news. The ball's in their court.

If that is the case then this forum has no use other than to provide an outlet for complaining about delays. I was under the impression (from posts by the staff) that they were reading these posts hoping for some ideas about how to make the game workable. I for one am not content to sit idly by and hope for the best... too many of us have substantial experience with both the boardgame and the CM beta, and some of us have ideas that might be helpful to the development team. Better to have those ideas under consideration before concrete decisions are made about their approach to this game. Waiting for news about their decisions turns us into mere specatators, and forces us to accept a form of CWiF we might not like.

(in reply to wfzimmerman)

Post #: 11

RE: positive feedback and ideas - 5/12/2005 5:42:58 AM

Mziln

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

Coregames, what would you suggest as:

"Ideas for how to solve problems without resorting to bitterness or negativity. This is in the interest of encouraging the best final product possible".

You started this thread but didn't offer any positive suggestions. I would be willing and interested to read your views.

Wfzimmerman has stated his/her ideas and opinions. In a way I have to agree with Him/Her it would be nice to see somthing other than posts saying wait.

But what would you like to see Matrix do?

(in reply to coregames)

Post #: 12

RE: positive feedback and ideas - 5/12/2005 7:25:14 AM

macgregor

Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline

It'd be one thing if after this last year we had something tangible (like before with the beta release). But I've heard nothing concrete. And when I heard they wanted to put an AI as their top priority I realized I'll be waiting 10 years for what -a game that doesn't even play like WiF.And now we got a bunch of 5-stars saying the thing is all but vaporware. If something's going to be done to motivate these guys to do this right, someone's going to have to scream bloody murder. So if necesary, I'll play the Jack Nicholson character.

< Message edited by macgregor -- 5/12/2005 7:30:15 AM >

(in reply to Mziln)

Post #: 13

food for thought - 5/12/2005 10:12:27 AM

coregames

Posts: 470
Joined: 8/12/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln

Coregames, what would you suggest as:

"Ideas for how to solve problems without resorting to bitterness or negativity. This is in the interest of encouraging the best final product possible".

You started this thread but didn't offer any positive suggestions. I would be willing and interested to read your views.

Wfzimmerman has stated his/her ideas and opinions. In a way I have to agree with Him/Her it would be nice to see somthing other than posts saying wait.

But what would you like to see Matrix do?

The main points I have made or supported in this forum include:

1. I want to retain the option of interactivity that does not substantially diminish that available through the board game, so that the game still remains as faithful to Rowland's and Pinder's design as possible. In this way I guess I am one of the purists, but I am willing to keep an open mind on the subject should Harry Rowland endorse a proposed change to the interactivity level of the game.

2. That being said, I understand the need for both PBEM and AI in the final product, so that MWiF is marketable.

3. PBEM suitability can (at least partially) be addressed through scripting contingencies in advance before you send off your game file. Greyshaft has proposed one version of a consolidated turn sequence in another thread (CWiF Sequence of Play) that would also help.

4. Some have mentioned that the AI could handle interactions for the non-phasing side. I don't agree with this. I believe that, if a streamlined PBEM mode is available, it might be a good idea to design the AI to only work in this mode. This would greatly reduce the decisions the AI had to make, and that would have to make it easier to program.

5. The underlying theme to most of my comments has been the idea of a dual-mode approach, where a TCP/IP mode is available for so-called purists, and a streamlined PBEM mode is available as well. I realize this is a tough feature to get right... the game will need to be balanced properly so that it works well in both modes. I believe the advantages of such an approach make the effort worth it.

6. Concerning testing, I have proposed that Matrix might allow a pre-purchase that conveys access to the beta testing process (including Marinacci's beta), along with the final version. I am confident quite a few WiFers (as well as some other computer wargamers) would be willing to pay the full projected price in advance for the right to be heard (if not necessarily heeded) during the development process. I know I would.

< Message edited by coregames -- 5/12/2005 2:13:39 PM >

(in reply to Mziln)

Post #: 14

RE: food for thought - 5/12/2005 3:23:37 PM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

Just wanted to let you all know that we do read all posts and we are monitoring the discussions in this forum for your suggestions and feedback. We will take heed of those suggestions in planning the future of this project. Thanks again.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to coregames)

Post #: 15

RE: food for thought - 5/12/2005 3:46:24 PM

macgregor

Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline

I appreciate what you've done. I'm relieved to find there's someone else who sees these non-phasing player decisions as somewhat sacrosanct. Hopefully, the other contingent, which I like to refer as Greyshaft & co. have been brought into this dual option consensus -which I have no problem with. I think the key to what they want will be the development of an AI. Which, while I'd rather not wait for it, think it's entirely possible. In fact,I have a brilliant programmer friend with games to his credit who says he's already worked one out.(I can only hope he submits his resumee to Matrix -as he's by far the best WiF player I've encountered) Personally, I'd rather see a game like TOAW brought to this global WW2 scope -which already has it's AI worked out or even WitP. While WiF offers vast amounts of historic possibilities, these other games offer the detail level I like with an asynch/AI game. In WiF, you still lose 250 planes or 20,000 men in one result. While this oddly works for WiF, I don't think I'd like it with an asynch/AI game. But that's just my opinion. Of course you could start adding detail levels to WiF, but why hamstring yourself to this game if that's the case. Why not just start an entirely new game.

< Message edited by macgregor -- 5/13/2005 2:51:18 AM >

(in reply to coregames)

Post #: 16

RE: food for thought - 5/12/2005 5:20:30 PM

SamuraiProgrmmr

Posts: 353
Joined: 10/17/2004
From: Paducah, Kentucky
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: coregames
6. Concerning testing, I have proposed that Matrix might allow a pre-purchase that conveys access to the beta testing process (including Marinacci's beta), along with the final version. I am confident quite a few WiFers (as well as some other computer wargamers) would be willing to pay the full projected price in advance for the right to be heard (if not necessarily heeded) during the development process. I know I would.

*stands in line behind coregames with checkbook and pen at the ready*

I want to see this game done and done well. I am more than happy to 'pony up' my purchase price in advance as well.

_____________________________

Bridge is the best wargame going .. Where else can you find a tournament every weekend?

(in reply to coregames)

Post #: 17

Dual Option sequence of play - 5/13/2005 1:18:34 AM

Greyshaft

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor
Hopefully, the other contingent, which I like to refer as Greyshaft & co. have been brought into this dual option consensus -which I have no problem with.

I don't think the non-purists ever had a problem with a dual option sequence of play... let's not get into picky points about who thought of it first. Just because NP don't see the necessity of slavishly sticking to historical turn sequences just because that's the way it was originally done done doesn't mean they automatically want to deprive others of the ability to do so. Likewise with any other development that comes along for the game. For instance, I would like to see the option to use actual ship and plane graphics rather than square counters but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be the option to use the square counters if others want to do that.

For me it comes down to whether a proposed change will create a better gaming experience.

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 18

RE: Dual Option sequence of play - 5/13/2005 1:41:03 AM

macgregor

Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline

quote:

I would like to see the option to use actual ship and plane graphics rather than square counters but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be the option to use the square counters if others want to do that.

I totally agree with you about that.

quote:

just because that's the way it was originally done

If this is all you comprehend about my opinion. You must be completely ignoring my posts.

(in reply to Greyshaft)

Post #: 19

RE: Dual Option sequence of play - 5/13/2005 2:50:11 AM

Greyshaft

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor
just because that's the way it was originally done

If this is all you comprehend about my opinion. You must be completely ignoring my posts.

I'm just saying that because that's the way it was originally done is not any form of mandatory design imperative. IMHO this applies to sequence of play, map design, counter layout, rules accessibility etc etc ad infinitum. The important part is *the player experience*... did they get the same level of buzz from the computer product that they got from when they played cardboard WiF? Note that I say "same level of buzz" rather than "the same buzz"

How about Fog of War? That wasn't in the original game... you could always see whether a hex was occupied and if you tilted your head and did some maths you could sometimes figure out how many fighters were in the stack. I saw him rail an HQ there last turn plus there's at least one land unit so given that there's four counters and the top one is a bomber he can only have one fighter. I can't imagine anyone demanding that level of information in PC WiF but I think we all accept that moving cardboard fleets ALWAYS involved visually checking what fleets the enemy had in the sea areas we were going to traverse. How do you define the level of information you give the players? Will complete Fog of War cripple the WiF naval system? I don't know and IMHO it would be a brave soul who claimed he had the answer.

Some change is always necessary. Let me give you some examples:
* The map in cardboard WiF is laid out before you while PC WiF only allows you to see one screen width at a time. Therefore the interface is changed to allow mini-maps, zoom in and zoom out etc. Its not the same as the original but its better than just doing a strict translation.
* The counters in cardboard Wif were flipped, rotated and surmounted with other markers to indicate their status, while in PC Wif we have an array of lights at the top of the counter.
OK, those were just interface issues but they are all part of the WiF experience. I repeat, some changes were necessary.

I agree that Sequence of Play is a more complex question but I don't see why that part of the game is automatically sancrosact while other parts are subject to change. The fact that the Game Sequence is a complex animal makes it less likely that it will work for multiple environments.

Consider that Harry and Greg changed the Game Sequence of Play many times during their long trek towards the current version. I'm sure when it was evolving during the early WiF versions there was absolutely no consideration given to whether it would work for a PC version of the game. Did anyone complain so strenuously when the game sequence was modified during the changes between the cardboard versions of WiF? Sure there were occasional mutterings and some problems found and fixed but the WiF community generally accepted the need for the changes. Now it's time to look at the PC Game Sequence question and Matrix has been tasked to answer that question. Doubtless they will do it in close consultation with Harry. Why shouldn't we trust them to do a good job?

I've rambled a bit here but I guess I'd like to see discussion on WHY the existing sequence of play will work for MWiF rather than presumptions that if Matrix change it in any way then the game won't be worth playing.

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 20

RE: food for thought - 5/13/2005 2:54:52 AM

Zap

Posts: 3639
Joined: 12/6/2004
From: LAS VEGAS TAKE A CHANCE
Status: offline

I will begin by stating my complete unfamiliarity with this game. And thank you Coregames for introducing the thread.

To become more familiar with the game and to see how it might work over the internet I have been following(as spectator) a WiF Cyberboardgame in progress. I found out about it in these threads. The coordination of time and dedication is impressive in making their game work.

Just one point. In your discussions is their no need for improvement of the basic rules.? Or are they pretty much complete and functional?

< Message edited by Zap -- 5/13/2005 2:58:09 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to coregames)

Post #: 21

RE: food for thought - 5/13/2005 5:04:25 AM

Greyshaft

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zap
Just one point. In your discussions is their no need for improvement of the basic rules.? Or are they pretty much complete and functional?

Those are two very different questions :)

The rules are very much complete and functional for cardboard WiF - no question there.
The current debate is whether the rules need to be tweaked and the Sequence of Play modified for production of computer WiF.

(in reply to Zap)

Post #: 22

RE: Dual Option sequence of play - 5/13/2005 6:07:53 AM

coregames

Posts: 470
Joined: 8/12/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

I'm just saying that because that's the way it was originally done is not any form of mandatory design imperative. IMHO this applies to sequence of play, map design, counter layout, rules accessibility etc etc ad infinitum. The important part is *the player experience*... did they get the same level of buzz from the computer product that they got from when they played cardboard WiF? Note that I say "same level of buzz" rather than "the same buzz"

I don't believe that the player experience is the only issue, although it clearly is the most important one. Also important should be respect for the game's designers and the product of their years of toil and dedication, as well as the sentiment of WiF fans world-wide. Several people in this forum have said that, if the game needs to be completely redesigned to the needs of the modern computer wargamer (and not specifically WiF players), then it would be best to call it something else and not mislead thousands of fans who are assuredly going to be the bulk of the early market.

Perhaps nothing should be written in stone about this project, but those hundreds of thousands (perhaps even millions) of man/hours spent getting the boardgame to its current excellent state should not be ignored. Great caution should be taken before any departure is made from WiFFE in my opinion. It would not be fun to wait for hundreds of thousands more man/hours for them to hammer out drastic alterations and determine the implications to the game.

Another problem is relevence to the board game; I believe synergy between the two products should be encouraged, creating an integrated family of WiF games. MWiF should not attempt to replace WiF; it would be unethical in my opinion to agree to a faithful adaptation and then proceed to design a computer game that does not go hand-in-hand with the board game. This seems to have the effect of handicapping ADG. The less MWiF resembles ADG's game, the less I am likely to play it, because I am not going to stop playing the tabletop version.

None of this is intended to deter Matrix's development team from making adjustments to the game where they are absolutely needed... I just want them to be very sure such changes are indeed needed, and not just a matter of taste. I am only a purist as far as recommending caution and making only the smallest changes necessary.

Just one WiFer's opinion of course...

< Message edited by coregames -- 5/13/2005 9:11:26 PM >

(in reply to Greyshaft)

Post #: 23

RE: food for thought - 5/13/2005 6:24:46 AM

coregames

Posts: 470
Joined: 8/12/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Just wanted to let you all know that we do read all posts and we are monitoring the discussions in this forum for your suggestions and feedback. We will take heed of those suggestions in planning the future of this project. Thanks again.

Regards,

- Erik

Thanks for the reassurance Erik.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 24

RE: food for thought - 5/13/2005 3:22:19 PM

Mziln

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

Those are two very different questions

(1) The rules are very much complete and functional for cardboard WiF - no question there.

(2) The current debate is whether the rules need to be tweaked and the Sequence of Play modified for production of computer WiF.

(1) The MWiF (Matrix version of computer World in Flames) rules are supposed to be based on Link: World in Flames Rules Aug 2004. This is supposed to be the final eddition of the rules.

(2) This should read "current heated debate"

There are several views ranging from the: "don't change a thing purists" to "game can't work within the board game guidelines"

(NOTE: This my view of this forum and is only my opinion).

< Message edited by Mziln -- 5/13/2005 3:23:49 PM >

(in reply to Greyshaft)

Post #: 25

RE: food for thought - 5/14/2005 10:09:48 AM

coregames

Posts: 470
Joined: 8/12/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln
There are several views ranging from the: "don't change a thing purists" to "game can't work within the board game guidelines"

I hope that this tension will lead to a fantastic and innovative product, one that may surprise gamers on both sides of that issue.

(in reply to Mziln)

Post #: 26

RE: food for thought - 5/19/2005 4:13:11 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

I have to agree with coregames that changes to the rules should be made very cautiously. The rules for the board game evolved over a decade and during that time changes were made to improve authenticity.

My background in board games goes back to the 60's and includes almost a complete collection of the games published by SPI (for those of you old enough). My board game playing experience includes tens of thousands of lost hours against live opponents over a period of 20 years. I have played WiF to completion against single opponents or with teams of 2 or 3 per side over 30 times and own at least 5 versions of the game from its original up to and including the deluxe version.

The balance between map scale, unit scale, and time scale is critical. Just a little tweak and things degenerate quickly. I remember one board game where the best strategy was to build fighters all the time because they were cheap and capable of destrying everything else on the board. The introduction of numerous divisional units (beyond what the board version of WiF permitted) strikes me as potentially dangerous in that it might upset the balance of units per hex. Now, I'm not against having more divisional units per se. I just am very leary of that solution to the problem of "defending Norway with a corps is excessive". Other solutions to that problem might be satisfactory without creating as large a disruption to the counter mix.

I really like the demo version's appearance and user interface. However, this is based on only a couple of hours of messing around with it and until I play a game/scenario all the way through I cannot judge its effectiveness/efficiency for PBEM or AI play.

As I see it the real problems with completing the game are handling the small decisions that the non-phasing player makes. These occur during sea movement, air combat, and land combat (retreats), to name but a few places. They are integral to the design! Discarding them, because they are difficult to implement smoothly for PBEM, is tempting, but could easily destroy the integrity of the combat system. The operative word here is 'smoothly'.

The AI is another large undertaking. Essentially, the programmer has to design an AI that will make all the decisions that a player makes and do so to handle every possible situation that might arise during play. That assumes that there is already code (software) in place the determines the possible moves and shortest path moves. Sequence of moves is a real problem especially since it requires coordinating air, sea, and land units. Which attack should be made first in a blitzkreig? So far I have only touched on the tactical considerations. There are also operational decisions for committing forces to different theaters and production schedules to support different planned operational objectives. The AI also has to deal with strategic concerns (declaring war and creating alliances) but by comparison the strategic decisions are few in number and much less difficult when compared to the tacticcal and operational decisions.

I speak from some experience here, having written and published 2 computer wargames in the 1980's (Atari 800 anyone?). The creation of the computer interface and sequence of play for PBEM is almost a pure design problem. It will require some cleverness and perhaps a stroke of genius but writing the code will be rather straightforward once the design is finalized. On the other hand, writing the AI will demand an intimate knowledge of the game: air, land, and sea tactics, the operational choices, and the strategic choices. How long did you play WiF before you could move the units around without doing somwthing really stupid? Was your first attempt at building units so brilliant that you still use it today? The learning curve for WiF is one of the steepest and longest for any board game I have played. The brilliance of its design and the extreme pleasure that comes from playing it lies in the intricate weave of its tapestry composed of the map, units, and rules. The AI opponent will have to understand the tapestry as well as the players it competes against or it will just be another "stupid AI".

This is my first post here. In case you didn't notice, I tend to be longwinded, and I thank you for your attention.

(in reply to coregames)

Post #: 27

RE: food for thought - 5/19/2005 4:45:25 AM

Greyshaft

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
... On the other hand, writing the AI will demand an intimate knowledge of the game: air, land, and sea tactics, the operational choices, and the strategic choices. How long did you play WiF before you could move the units around without doing somwthing really stupid? Was your first attempt at building units so brilliant that you still use it today? The learning curve for WiF is one of the steepest and longest for any board game I have played. ...

I totally agree.

A post from August 2004 "Coding the move on Suez" explored the opportunity of creating a multi level AI where the computer handled all of the paperwork and strategic decisions but the EXECUTION of those decisions was drawn from a pool of operational plans prepared by the legions of WiF beta-testers. So the German AI might choose to invade England and then randomly selects from the 100+ "Perfect Plans" which were shipped with the product. If you contribute to the project you might end up fighting against an AI who you actually programmed :)

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 28

RE: food for thought - 5/19/2005 5:58:28 AM

macgregor

Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline

The idea of playing World in Flames as a human vs. computer or asynch/pbem is appealing (IMHO) only if one wants to use it to 'brush up' their skills for either the boardgame or the synch TCP game. As an AI game to play alone, for me , it would require more statistical detail. I see WiF as more the grognards answer to bridge.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
The creation of the computer interface and sequence of play for PBEM is almost a pure design problem. It will require some cleverness and perhaps a stroke of genius but writing the code will be rather straightforward once the design is finalized.

I agree and if there is a good game with AI and asynch/pbem that could be augmented to the strategic WW2 level I think that would be far easier and ultimately produce a more enjoyable game than 'FrankenWiF'. Perhaps GGWaW didn't quite get there for wiffers though a global incarnation of 'War in the Pacific' might be the ticket. Even use the WiF map! As hard as the AI would be in that case at least it would be 'straightfoward' as the game sequence already includes it. I suppose I'm just saying the same old $#^*@ in a different way.

< Message edited by macgregor -- 5/19/2005 6:10:56 AM >

(in reply to Greyshaft)

Post #: 29

standardized strategies for AI - 5/19/2005 8:10:58 AM

coregames

Posts: 470
Joined: 8/12/2004
Status: offline

As some of you are suggesting, the AI for WiF could use programmed strategic ideas gleaned from the play of strong WiFers for short stretches of time, but as anyone who has played a Global War scenario knows, no two games are quite alike, and the farther you get from start, the more divergence there is likely to be. My personal hope is that the AI will be able to play Barbarossa and Guadalcanal fairly well, since they are both short enough scenarios to allow a standardized strategy to work. Longer scenarios will most likely create situations the AI will have problems adjusting to, and so I expect much less from the AI in those cases. Of course we all want a powerful AI that will give a good game over the course of 36 turns (or longer), but we should be realistic in our expectations.

Perhaps if they integrate AI options throughout a multi-mode approach, the AI could play fairly well even in synchronous play, provided the scenario was short enough. If the game is being played asynchronously, the reduced options should make programming a decent AI much easier, increasing the likelihood of getting a good game from it over a longer scenario. The question remains: would potential MWiF players be willing to accept an AI that was only a real challenge either for a short scenario or for PBEM? New players might still find it hard to beat a "goofball" AI in a longer (synchronous) scenario, especially if the AI could use standardized strategies to gain an advantage early in the game.

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 30