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

World in Flames is the computer version of Australian Design Group classic board game. World In Flames is a highly detailed game covering the both Europe and Pacific Theaters of Operations during World War II. If you want grand strategy this game is for you.

Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets

jardail
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 10:18 pm

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

Post by jardail »

A proper AI that you can use to play the game without having to play both sides.
User avatar
Mayhemizer_slith
Posts: 9101
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 2:44 am
Location: Finland

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

Post by Mayhemizer_slith »

ORIGINAL: Cohen

After enough gaming - I'd like two extra things.

A- In the "Destroyed" pool, the count of Pilots lost, Convoy Points lost, Strategic damage inflicted, ships moving from the map to the Repair pool.

B- An excel alike record of units coming in - and lost turn by turn. A tracker of reinforcements and casualties pratically.

+1
If your attack is going really well, it's an ambush.

-Murphy's war law
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

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

Post by warspite1 »

I know this comment will be unpopular but....

The clue is in the title. PC Game and World In Flames.

The next big project in my opinion is the convoy system. The game does what it sets out to do so incredibly well in most areas by taking out the time consuming, manual calculations and the need for cross referral to the rules on things like supply and movement etc, that face the board game player. BUT the convoy system as it is at the moment is actually harder to understand and more frustrating to operate than the board game ever was - I think the rules are pretty straightforward.

Someone made the blindingly obvious point the other day (so obvious I never even thought about it [:D]) that an AI will be impossible to code if the convoy system isn't attended to - as at present the computer cannot generate the most efficient routes (and in some cases cannot do so without huge manual intervention - which not everyone (myself amongst them) has the brain capacity and/or patience to cope with).

Looked at from a new player's perspective, I think it is a game killer in terms of keeping peoples interest when faced with such a complicated structure.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
juntoalmar
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 2:08 pm
Location: Valencia
Contact:

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

Post by juntoalmar »

Would it be possible to set convoy routes manually? Something like:

- Click resource
- Click port
- Click sea area
- Click sea area
...
- Click sea area
- Click port
- Click factory

(approximately, maybe ports aren't needed)

(my humble blog about wargames, in spanish) http://cabezadepuente.blogspot.com.es/
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

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

Post by warspite1 »

I am not sure whether that is the answer as an auto version will need to be made for the AI in any case. Not suggesting there are easy answers, but AM suggesting this is an issue that needs looking at as it is an area where newcomers to the game can be turned off from continuing.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
paulderynck
Posts: 8356
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Canada

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

Post by paulderynck »

ORIGINAL: juntoalmar

Would it be possible to set convoy routes manually? Something like:

- Click resource
- Click port
- Click sea area
- Click sea area
...
- Click sea area
- Click port
- Click factory

(approximately, maybe ports aren't needed)


You can do this now by using the Route function in Production planning.
Paul
User avatar
juntoalmar
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 2:08 pm
Location: Valencia
Contact:

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

Post by juntoalmar »

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
You can do this now by using the Route function in Production planning.

Thanks! I never tried that (but I will).

What happens when a convoy is sunk? Does the computer recalculates all the routes by itself (meaning you have to redo all your work)?


Another question pops up in my mind. I thought that production bugs came from the computer failing to set routes. If you can set the routes manually. What are the bugs? The manual set routes don't work?
(my humble blog about wargames, in spanish) http://cabezadepuente.blogspot.com.es/
User avatar
paulderynck
Posts: 8356
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Canada

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

Post by paulderynck »

Manually setting routes means they will be defaults or overrides (overrides are one-time directives). If CPs are sunk the program should only deliver what can be delivered, but will preempt any manual plan in order to deliver promised lent resources or BPs if at all possible.

The process to set the convoy routes is cumbersome. That's the main reason it is not done a lot, and the program is so insistent on certain routing that you may very well have to route every single resource that goes overseas before you end up with what you want. And then for the CW a bad turn for CP losses to sub warfare might mean you have to do a lot of manual overriding just for that one turn.

So - it is do-able but it can be tedious for the CW especially.
Paul
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 27449
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

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

Post by rkr1958 »

Let me give an example of what MWiF wants to do that the only way to get around it is to manually set the routes yourself. I wanted to route two CW oil points that were currently being saved in Canada to England and save them there. I had two spare CPs in each of the East Coast, North Atlantic and Bay of Biscay. Should be no problem right?

So, for the first oil point I changed it's save location from somewhere in Canada to somewhere in England. The result was that the oil point was now saved in England as I wanted. However, I noticed that an oil point from Venezuela that I was also saving in Canada now went idle. What?! When I looked at the route the was used for the first oil point that I changed, it was being railed through the USA to be routed starting in the Caribbean - East Coast - North Atlantic - Bay of Biscay. That was madness! Why did it start it's sea route in the Caribbean instead of the East Coast. So I had to go and manually set the route to start in the East Coast and then to North Atlantic an then to Bay of Biscay. Once I did this the Venezuela oil point that had went idle was now, correctly being saved in Canada.

Now, when I changed the saved location of a second oil point being saved in Canada to England guess what? The same thing happened again. And I had to manually route this second oil point as I did the first to ensure that the Venezuela oil point was not idle and was being saved as intended.

I must admit that it's taken me some effort to learn how to do all this. It isn't nearly as intuitive as it should be, but if you take the time to learn how to do it then it pays big benefits. I'm at a point now where I can get things routed and setup the way I want them about 99% of the time. The other 1% of the time I just live with it.
Ronnie
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22135
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

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

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

Let me give an example of what MWiF wants to do that the only way to get around it is to manually set the routes yourself. I wanted to route two CW oil points that were currently being saved in Canada to England and save them there. I had two spare CPs in each of the East Coast, North Atlantic and Bay of Biscay. Should be no problem right?

So, for the first oil point I changed it's save location from somewhere in Canada to somewhere in England. The result was that the oil point was now saved in England as I wanted. However, I noticed that an oil point from Venezuela that I was also saving in Canada now went idle. What?! When I looked at the route the was used for the first oil point that I changed, it was being railed through the USA to be routed starting in the Caribbean - East Coast - North Atlantic - Bay of Biscay. That was madness! Why did it start it's sea route in the Caribbean instead of the East Coast. So I had to go and manually set the route to start in the East Coast and then to North Atlantic an then to Bay of Biscay. Once I did this the Venezuela oil point that had went idle was now, correctly being saved in Canada.

Now, when I changed the saved location of a second oil point being saved in Canada to England guess what? The same thing happened again. And I had to manually route this second oil point as I did the first to ensure that the Venezuela oil point was not idle and was being saved as intended.

I must admit that it's taken me some effort to learn how to do all this. It isn't nearly as intuitive as it should be, but if you take the time to learn how to do it then it pays big benefits. I'm at a point now where I can get things routed and setup the way I want them about 99% of the time. The other 1% of the time I just live with it.
The computer does not 'see' the map. As far as the computer is concerned, what connects to what (be that hexes or sea areas) is completely arbitrary. For example, early in the development of the map, data for some hexes in the Caucasus were coded as being adjacent to the Bay of Biscay). The program code had no trouble with that. You could unload land units from the Bay of Biscay directly into the Caucasus.

My point is that though a human looking at the map 'knows' that Canadian resources going to the United Kingdom can go more directly through the East Coast rather than through the Caribbean. But the program only determines routes by trying all possibilities. When it fines one that works, it stops looking.

As for coding the AIO, I will write code to be more thorough for optimizing routes. Note that the determination of 'optimal' is in the eye of the beholder. The risk of convoys being sunk is something the AIO will worry about. But that is not part of the current code for setting 'computed' routes for the player. How brilliant should the 'computed' route be? I drew a line for how much 'help' the program would provide to the player when Computing routes. Note that some experienced players complain bitterly about the program's initial pass on Computed overseas routes not being what for them is 'optimal'.

On the other hand, no one has ever complained about the overland routes the computer finds and uses. Indeed, as far as I know there has never been any mention in the forums about the overland routes - and there is a lot of code executing to find and implement the overland routes. That that code works correctly is taken for granted.
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

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

Post by warspite1 »

A couple of things to say here:

1. There are, as far as I see it, two issues – one is optimising routes, and the second is the system of manually overriding.
2. The other is re the comments “as far as I know there has never been any mention in the forums about the overland routes” and “That that code works correctly is taken for granted”.

2. The second is the easiest to get out of the way. To say that A works but B doesn’t therefore we should be satisfied is not really the point given that B is important. As this was brought up, I believe there are/were two problems with overland routes that I have highlighted in the past (the Italian resource on the French border and the Soviets using a resource not on a railroad). They may well be sorted now, but they exist(ed). But I do not really understand what this has to do with the original point.

As for the code working being taken for granted, well I do not know how much more praise I can heap on this game or your work Steve, how many more recommendations I can give both (across numerous forums). I think my support for this project stands up to scrutiny, but that does not mean I cannot point out issues I believe are outstanding.

1. The first point is more tricky because – as someone who does not know about computing – I can only guess at the extent to which they are linked and the complexity involved in coding this stuff.

Let me make one thing crystal clear 'Note that some experienced players complain bitterly about the program's initial pass on Computed overseas routes not being what for them is 'optimal'. That is NOT my main area of frustration, although optimal can be optimal in number and/or optimal in route. You said “Note that the determination of 'optimal' is in the eye of the beholder”. When I think of optimal I think of optimal in number i.e. if the Japanese can have 12 build points this turn I want the computer to give me 12 points this turn.

It is important, and I am heartened to see that you said “As for coding the AIO, I will write code to be more thorough for optimizing routes”. That is music to the ears and, depending upon the success of that coding, may make my main bone of contention redundant. The bigger problem for me than the computer failing to “optimise” in the first place, is the sheer time-consuming ball-ache of trying to manually put the program limitations right. I have quoted the case recently whereby I simply had to give up trying to get the correct number of build points for Japan – it was easier to get a lower number than the correct number, and it took me just as much time to then get back to the first wrong number!
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
Centuur
Posts: 9013
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:03 pm
Location: Hoorn (NED).

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

Post by Centuur »

Ok, with the risk of upsetting the programmer: the overseas shipment of resources and build points is not taking place according to the rules. Therefore, the whole routing system needs a lot of work on.

Trade agreements which can be satisfied, should always be satisfied first. That's not how MWIF is coded at the moment.

Apart from that problem (which should be solved), MWIF is great, but with the production planning, things are not great. The interface is too difficult. Sure, one needs to have an automatic calculation for an AI, but I would like to have some more manual control on production planning without the program saying a awful lot of times: "you can't do that", when if you look at the map, one sees that it should be able to do so.

I think MWIF needs a table which describes which ports and sea area's are adjacent to eachother, so the program knows what the shortest and most efficient way is to ship resources and build points overseas, especially since it now comes back at us. Too many times MWIF thinks it does something right, while it robs a power of a promised build point (or even a build point it can produce)...
Peter
User avatar
TeaLeaf
Posts: 440
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 3:08 pm

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

Post by TeaLeaf »

I'd like an easier way to swap all or some units (if more than one) from two different stacks.
Right now I can only swap 1 corps level unit from two stacks, which is annoyingly suboptimal in enough cases. For example: getting only 2ARM (instead of 4ARM) into two stacks that you want to attack with. Quite suboptimal.

I would also like a button for each major power that puts all its aircraft in all stacks on top. Same for divisions. Or at least, put the unit that you have just centered the map around, on top of its stack.
User avatar
juntoalmar
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 2:08 pm
Location: Valencia
Contact:

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

Post by juntoalmar »

For me, when I press Control+Z, I just want to undo the last move (last unit), not ALL of the moves in the phase. That would be quite helpful to me...
(my humble blog about wargames, in spanish) http://cabezadepuente.blogspot.com.es/
User avatar
paulderynck
Posts: 8356
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Canada

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

Post by paulderynck »

There is an Undo command in the unit menu that does what you want if you right click the desired unit. AAMOF it works out of sequence with the moves - or undo moves - of other units so it is very handy.

There are certain points in the turn like capturing factories or interceptions attempted or declined, where all units moved prior can no longer be undone, but that applies to the global CTRL-Z Undo as well.
Paul
User avatar
juntoalmar
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 2:08 pm
Location: Valencia
Contact:

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

Post by juntoalmar »

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

There is an Undo command in the unit menu that does what you want if you right click the desired unit.

I know, but the Ctrl+Z is quicker. I tend to use it for quick undoing of the last action in any program. Let's say that for any "Undo All" that I need there are x20 "Undo Last Movement" (approximately, of course). But this may just be me (I guess, otherwise Steve would have been annoyed but that himself and changed it long ago... [:D])
(my humble blog about wargames, in spanish) http://cabezadepuente.blogspot.com.es/
Post Reply

Return to “World in Flames”