RE: staying positive

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: staying positive

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: staying positive

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: staying positive - 5/31/2005 6:41:18 AM

coregames

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

I'm not convinced that this quoted list of features that's presently on ADG's website was Harry's original wishes

This may be true... his original wishes probably date back to well before an announcement was ever made about CWiF. The Marinacci beta obviously does not have AI, but it was in the plan for the eventual final product, as discussed in ADG's earlier Q&A on the subject. As you said, this is if I remember correctly. Whatever his wishes were originally, apparently now they include both AI and PBEM (unless ADG is currently somehow keeping him out of the loop, which would be akin to Microsoft keeping Bill Gates out of the loop).

Frankly, I agree with you on almost every point Mac. I don't think PBEM or AI will be more than bells and whistles for my play experience. On the other hand, I read posts from many others with differing viewpoints. Some of these are apparently avid computer wargamers who have heard of WiF, but not played it. Others are self-proclaimed WiF aficionados, such as Greyshaft; these are opinions I take more seriously, due to their shared passion for the game itself. They want to play, but can't arrange their gaming schedule to allow simultaneity with the other players.

Those who seem to desire a version that excludes synchronous play are, in my opinion, not true WiF fans, whether they have played the game or not. The game that has evolved over the last 20 years into the exquisite WWII-based experience we currently enjoy has had an organic and sometimes turbulent history of change and modification, almost always for the better. Harry discusses this at length in the scenario book notes.

Then there are voices who want one mode and understand the importance to many others for the inclusion of the other mode, or perhaps, of AI (not everyone can find opponents, perhaps due to internet access issues). Greyshaft recently stated that he understood that synchronous, faithful play was important to enough people that it should be included, in spite of his preference for a PBEM mode. Perhaps in this way, I am the mirror for his viewpoint, since I prefer the game resemble the boardgame as closely as possible, but understand that asynchronous play will dramatically increase the appeal of MWiF to certain types of players, exposing WiF to a wider audience than ever before.

As I have said in other threads, I doubt a widely-divergent computer version could have the same elegance and consistency without hundreds-of-thousands, if not millions, of hours in playtesting. A fine game might emerge from such a process, but Mac, you have asked the question: would it be WiF? I agree that it likely would not, regardless of what it was called.

The only issue we seem to differ on is patience. I would love the game to be playable to my tastes right now. If they could decide to polish up Chris's version for network play (essentially just finishing up what he has mostly already accomplished) then I believe Chris would finish it himself, on behalf of a game he loves and two legendary designers, one of whose legacy is yet to be fully written, and one whose legacy he would honor in memoriam. A lot of work is left to be done for MWiF to appear in any sort of ideal form.

When I first started posting in this forum, I was perhaps blinded to these wider considerations, and I lobbied hard for a strictly accurate version of WiF (even keeping the variable scale), so that it was the best training tool possible for over-the-board play. Much has been stated in the forum in the intervening time, especially after the early posts were lost, that has reminded me I am not alone in the WiF universe, and convinced me that Matrix (after all the work they will have to do on this) will deserve the best chance at a "big hit" commercially in MWiF.

Sorry about my manifesto mood; I am just trying to begin that inevitable process of building consensus, in anticipation of the news after Origins. I make my plea to you and others like us Mac... please let us unite in our goal of including faithful play -- in a conciliatory spirit of compromise -- else the process might proceed without consideration for our wishes, if only in annoyance at us. I want us all to be part of the solution.

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 61

RE: scenarios and expansions - 5/31/2005 6:46:38 AM

coregames

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer

IF YOU WHINERS CARED ENOUGH ABOUT THIS GAME TO HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THE PLAYTESTING, YOU WOULD HAVE A COPY!

I think your post is right to the point, except here. Some WiF players in my group have only started playing the board game recently; why couldn't some of the posters be new to the game as well, and therefore, not privy to the CM beta?

Also, many posts were lost in a crash, not long after the news of the deal with ADG was announced.

Glad you agreed with me about the pre-purchase idea too by the way (maybe we can start a groundswell). It allowed ADG to stay solvent on 7 Ages.

< Message edited by coregames -- 5/31/2005 6:54:37 AM >

(in reply to SamuraiProgrmmr)

Post #: 62

RE: scenarios and expansions - 5/31/2005 8:10:33 AM

Greyshaft

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

quote:

Greyshaft recently stated that he understood that synchronous, faithful play was important to enough people that it should be included, in spite of his preference for a PBEM mode.

I have never been against synchronous play. Apart from my single facetious suggestion in an earlier post (which was posed as a counterpoint to the idea of dumping PBEM from the initial release) I don't think anyone in this Forum has ever suggested that MWiF would not have synchronous play. My understanding of the animated discussion was whether the release of the synchronous play version should be held up to allow the development of PBEM and the AI.

However I am intrigued at the idea that synchronous play should be given the title of "faithful". Is asynchronous play thereby to be considered "unfaithful"? Given the levels of emotion already generated in this topic it may be useful to avoid adjectives which imply value judgements about other alternate choices.

_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to coregames)

Post #: 63

RE: scenarios and expansions - 5/31/2005 8:29:59 AM

coregames

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

I don't think anyone in this Forum has ever suggested that MWiF would not have synchronous play.

I refer you to Panzerjaeger Hortlund's thread (WiF on the computer) from October of last year, especially posts by meyerg and Cheesehead.

quote:

I am intrigued at the idea that synchronous play should be given the title of "faithful". Is asynchronous play thereby to be considered "unfaithful"?

By faithful, I am referring to the turn sequence, not to your belief in or passion for WiF... I've read your posts and I would not doubt those Greyshaft.

(in reply to Greyshaft)

Post #: 64

RE: scenarios and expansions - 5/31/2005 7:10:36 PM

macgregor

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

quote:

I have never been against synchronous play. Apart from my single facetious suggestion in an earlier post (which was posed as a counterpoint to the idea of dumping PBEM from the initial release) -Greyshaft

I will politely disagree with you Greyshaft. I know you're not against synchronous play. The only reason I disagree is that I feel the synch version is almost ready to go.(well, I also don't want to have to buy 2 games at once) If I'm wrong -I apologize. Do you have the demo? If so,are you finding lots of problems with it? Because I'm not. One more question. If Matrix was to expand (and simplify -though as little as necesary) the WitP format to that of a global scope (like WiF) and cover all the resource managment and production -essencially make it as 'WiFlike' as possible, would you still prefer pbem WiF?

Personally, the only difference I can see is that the pbem game I want will offer more detail than WiF(with it's 250 plane,20,000 man pieces). My thinking tells me that it would be less work to expand a game that already has pbem than come up with a completely new method(to be sure -make improvements if posssible), especially if you're trying to avoid looking like WitP.

< Message edited by macgregor -- 5/31/2005 7:24:03 PM >

(in reply to Greyshaft)

Post #: 65

RE: scenarios and expansions - 5/31/2005 7:24:45 PM

coregames

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Personally, the only difference I can see is that the pbem game I want will offer more detail than WiF(with it's 250 plane,20,000 man pieces). My thinking tells me that it would be less work to expand a game that already has pbem than come up with a completely new method(to be sure -make improvements if posssible), especially if you're trying to avoid looking like WitP.

Mac, has it occured to you that perhaps this line of reasoning might be more appropriate in the WitP forum? I say this since your opinion is so clear in this forum, and perhaps they might be interested to learn of it in that forum; perhaps it might inspire some of the Matrix devotees there to rally behind a global WitP.

< Message edited by coregames -- 5/31/2005 7:48:34 PM >

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 66

RE: scenarios and expansions - 5/31/2005 8:17:38 PM

macgregor

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

You might be right. Are you trying to get rid of me? Since there's no answer to be extrapolated from that post, should I assume you're against the idea? Honestly, I don't have WitP. What I know is from the screenshots. How about I rephrase it to: the most detailed strategic level pbem format currently in matrix's possesion (I'm assuming that would be WitP).

< Message edited by macgregor -- 5/31/2005 8:35:09 PM >

(in reply to coregames)

Post #: 67

RE: scenarios and expansions - 5/31/2005 9:12:49 PM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

WiTP isn't perfect -- no game is -- but it's a serious game, and it's my favorite computer wargame. It's operational warfare on a strategic scale. It has one-day turns (and a 1600-turn campaign game) and 60-mile hexes stretching from Karachi to San Francisco; it attempts to model every ship in the the theater, from CVs to PT boats; it attempts to model every aircraft in the theater; and it models supply, oil, resources, and fuel. PBEM games take years, but their ebb and flow is historically plausible, in general -- not always, but in general.

Yes, the game includes some design decisions I disagree with, as well as a so-so interface, but it's still an impressive accomplishment, in my opinion. It does indicate that Matrix (or at least 2by3) is capable of a serious wargame at a strategic level.

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 68

RE: scenarios and expansions - 5/31/2005 10:27:45 PM

coregames

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Are you trying to get rid of me?

Not at all Mac... I think all of us should be heard about MWiF (something you show as much interest in as I do). I just thought that particular avenue of exploration (global WitP) was more appropriate to another forum.

As to the quality of WitP, I admit I haven't played it. Excellent naval rules from what I understand. Please keep in mind that I am an avid board gamer (although I do enjoy some computer games); my interest is in helping cultivate an atmosphere of synergy between board games and computer games. This is the only way for board games to survive. I believe a much more sophisticated computer global grand strategy game is possible, as has been discussed in the General Forums [http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=806123]. This is a different thing in my opinion. This project should be considered an homage to over-the-board wargaming (as CM's beta clearly was intending to become). Let computer games do what they do best as you suggest: I think it's a good idea to design increasingly sophisticated means to play WWII (or any other global scenario), be it through TCP/IP, PBEM, AI, over-the-board, or whatever means available. GGWaW, Harper's WaW, WiF, HoI2, even Axis & Allies all have their place. This project, however, is not about creating the perfect computer WWII game. It's about doing WiF for the computer.

I understand that some games will be more suitable for PBEM; in GGWaW it's the standard mode. I think it's an interesting challenge to implement that mode for MWiF. Who knows? Maybe it can't be done while retaining a game we recognize as WiF. If, after Origins, Robert Crandall opens a thread in here officially stating that PBEM is out, I will feel bad for the many voices who have championed that mode. If, instead, he opens a thread that says synchronous play is out, I will be surprised, since it appears he isn't being allowed to start over, and the war using the existing turn sequence in PBEM mode would take years to complete.

The ideas are there however. By scripting contingencies, delegating to the AI, and consolidating the sequence when in asynch mode (in the right mix), I think they could even get the flow to passably resemble WiF for PBEM mode, while retaining the full experience for synchronous play. At least let Robert make his case when the time comes, hopefully with some input about what to do from in here, WiF on yahoogroups, and other places. Until then, I'm going to continue to help brainstorm and comment on other people's ideas, as I'm sure will you.

< Message edited by coregames -- 5/31/2005 10:31:33 PM >

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 69

RE: scenarios and expansions - 5/31/2005 11:59:25 PM

Greyshaft

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: coregames
If, after Origins, Robert Crandall opens a thread in here officially stating that PBEM is out, I will feel bad for the many voices who have championed that mode. If, instead, he opens a thread that says synchronous play is out, I will be surprised, since it appears he isn't being allowed to start over, and the war using the existing turn sequence in PBEM mode would take years to complete.

London to a brick that both modes are in the first release of MWiF. Matrix has said they are developing a (ahem) faithful version of cardboard WiF which includes PBEM and they have never posted anything to the contrary. There is nothing wrong with us all posting our flights of fancy in this Forum but lets not confuse our own ramblings it with official Matrix policy.

_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to coregames)

Post #: 70

RE: scenarios and expansions - 6/1/2005 1:09:16 AM

coregames

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

I don't speak for Matrix. The views I post are my own. No offense intended to anyone; I was merely stating how I would react in those hypothetical circumstances. I also expect Matrix knew what they were doing when they agreed to the listed features. This will take a while and be worth it, because it will set the industry standard for boardgame adaptations, along with EiA and Harper's WaW.

(in reply to Greyshaft)

Post #: 71

RE: scenarios and expansions - 6/1/2005 4:40:36 AM

macgregor

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

No version is out . I'm convinced a pbem version of WW2 in it's entirety is being made. Whether it'll be called wif or not is open to debate. I'm also convinced that what's been referred to as a 'faithful adaption' is will also be released. Whether the 2 are released together or separately (and perhaps even some idea of when) should come out of Origins. If one version is ready before the other it'll be Matrix's call on whether to opt for separate releases. Come to think of it, if it's a global pbem WW2 sim, it may as well be called 'World in Flames', regardless of how much it differs from the synch version.

< Message edited by macgregor -- 6/1/2005 4:44:44 AM >

(in reply to coregames)

Post #: 72