What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames



Message


David Heath -> What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (2/7/2004 1:08:54 AM)

Hi Guys

As I am sure you can see we have lost a lost of good post and all of the World In Flame posts. I know you all put a lot of time into commenting on the game. We do not ask this lightly but we would like you to please start it up again. We want and need your input in order to insure the best game possible.

David




ASHBERY76 -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (2/7/2004 2:55:55 AM)

I would like the game to start in 1933, with the chance of an alternative history being made.I would also like the game pieces to be divisional and not korps.




ZONER -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (2/7/2004 3:13:22 AM)

I would like a periodic update of how the game is developing simular to what has happened in the EIA formum. It first keeps all of us somewhat content knowing the game is being worked on, plus it focuses the discussions on the forum to things in developement at that time. I would rather talk about things you are developing now than something you have not gotten to yet or things already decided. A lot of posts happened and seem to drop off lately because we all cannot keep talking about the same issue over and over. If I come accross as not happy please don't take it that way, I am very pleased matrix has taken this project on. It is only my anxiousness that drives me to know more about where it stands and how I can help give it constructive input.




pasternakski -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (2/7/2004 3:48:53 AM)

To answer David's question, I suggest that the game needs to be:

-true to the original
-augmented to take advantage of computer technology
-playable in all the modes purchasers of the game desire (solitaire, PBEM, etc.)
-graphically pleasing with primary attention paid to functionality

That said, I have two additional comments that I hope will be useful in the ongoing discussion.

First, WiF went through a lot of incarnations and, even in its last edition, seemed to have been a work in progress. I would like to see a "finish" put to the major elements of the game's design in the computer version.

Second, this is not fantasy land or Bizarro World. I would look with disfavor on any attempt to build "alternate history" like 1933 starting dates or wholesale unit scale changes into this simulation. It should still be "WiF," not "WWII Era War Construction Kit."

[image]local://upfiles/6977/Ec896856672.jpg[/image]




Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (2/7/2004 4:33:11 AM)

It's a cash thing for me eventually.

Put it on my computer, make it identical to playing the game solo on my table (as that is how I end up playing most games). Make it so I can assume I might play it email against another human, but get used to it, PBEM is not really a lot better in a lot of cases. Make an attempt at an AI, but don't kill yourself if it isn't worth it. Because in the end, I will probably just play both sides in hotseat mode like I always do. I rarely play the AI, because the AI is usually a dimwit.

Frankly, I am not sure there is any money in this game. Just how many people will be there when the push comes to shove moment arrives, will actually show up with their cash eh. I will pay 50 -70 bucks even if you deliver the real thing sans AI, because a lack of an AI won't kill the game for me.

I want this game to be what I thought HoI might have been. I want a massively detailed global warfare wargame. But I don't want some idiots idea of a "more realistic simulation". Real time is not always realistic. WiF is a famous wargame because of the way it was made in the first place. Turns work where turns belong.

I want to be able to play the original WiF minus the table devouring aspect. That is where my interest lies.
I won't care a hoot if the graphics are no better than the board game. Just make sure the interface is user friendly.




Sigurd Jorsalfare -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (2/7/2004 5:14:53 AM)

LAN play and a respectable AI.




Joe 98 -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (2/7/2004 5:50:47 AM)

All book-keeping functions to be automated wherever possible.

Lots of information screens that can be sorted by title as they are in UV. One screen for all the hexes on the map, one screen for ground units and for air units and one for naval units. And probably other screens fopr other issues.

A Combat Advisor similair to that in KP.

A short cut key that gives me a total of all the ground attack factors in each hex and another that gives me a total of all the defensive factors (inclusive of the defensive bonus for that type of hex).

A short cut key that gives the all the ZOC for all enemy units - and shows the penalties I would incurr if I attempt to move through the ZOCs

A short cut key that provides quik info on which ground units can move where this turn, in the case of transport by fleets - and the fleets required.

In Third Reich there is a strict turn sequence. But players often played through the sequence on one front first then another front second and the third front last. But the PC version, forced you follow the turn sequence strictly so you were constantly jumping from one place to another around the map. I would like to see some flexibility in the turn sequence to increase the fun.

I have not actually played this game so I am sure others can think of information required - and a short cut key can be applied.




denisonh -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (2/7/2004 8:56:37 PM)

Having never played the original, I would echo PasternaksKi's thoughts.

Additionally, I would add that I like the turn managemnt used in UV, with "concurrent" (more or less) player planning and simultaneous execution. May be better than strictly turn based IMHO.




WishIwasRommel -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (2/7/2004 9:32:19 PM)

I'd like to see a finished rules product, as well.

I'd also like to see as many of the many options available in World in Flames as is practical.

As far as the early game start, having the option to start in '33 for a Days of Decision style warmup would be fun. But the option to play a 1939 start historic war should be the main focus. I'd much rather have a cleanly and well made game about the historical World War II then a less focussed game about political might have beens.

I'd love to see some of the stuff from Leaders in Flames.

I like the game's focus on corps level action, but divisions would be okay too...though hopefully with the option of forming corps. Sort of like the reverse of the tabletop breaking down of corps option when using divisions.




Yohan -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (2/9/2004 2:59:23 PM)

I guess the key thing David is that it is highly representative of the board game. Also, one of the strings I had a poll going on showed a strong wish for PBEM, LAN and ftf.

PBEM is my one true wish as I love playing otheres but never have the time for online gaming, nor do my friends. Trying to make it PBEM while still flowing well could be a big challenge, I look forweard to your solution.




Mziln -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (2/9/2004 7:54:39 PM)

I was beta testing the game with others for ADG.

Is there a current status of Wif?

[:D] I realy was enjoying the political point system. And was just starting to understand the Naval rules.

[:-] Taking the game to down to an individual Division level would be a little extreme. Would you then have to take the Naval game to Destroyer flotillas and the Air game to Air groups?

[:)] An excelent AI, one that dosn't just take advantage by having the computer looking at your moves, would be most appreciated.

[X(] Good support for the game is a must. Too many games are being released unfinished and unready for release.




ASHBERY76 -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (2/9/2004 7:59:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln

[:-] Taking the game to down to an individual Division level would be a little extreme. Would you then have to take the Naval game to Destroyer flotillas and the Air game to Air groups?



I disagree. i dont want a korps defending a single hex in norway,i want to spread the divisions around the board in a more flexible manner...




Greyshaft -> One mans viewpoint... (2/9/2004 10:58:42 PM)

IMHO CWiF 1 didn't succeed because:
1. They considered releasing it without an AI. Can you name even ONE successful computer wargame which doesn't have an AI? No? Neither can I.
2. Slavish devotion to existing game sequence. Hey! Lets play air intercepts! First IGO then UGO then IGO then UGO (rinse and repeat)^ad nauseum.
3. Map was OK but units were badly implemented. I loved playing WiF face-to-face but I still have no idea why ships and planes were represented as 1/2 inch cardboard squares on screen for CWiF.

Matrix CWiF needs:
1. Original Game + Planes in Flames + Ships in Flames (with maybe Leaders in Flames - not fussed one way or another)
2. AI able to take any and all of the positions. This would include ability to "turn on" the AI for a turn or two to replace a player who can't make it to a regular game session.
3. Some research ability but lets make it unpredicatable. Can the USA build an A-Bomb? Maybe... start investing and find out. It might appear in two years or maybe not at all. Same for German V-Weapons. Maybe they should be able to win the war for Germany.
4. Additional Eye candy/info screens: If you right-click on a Spitfire counter it should give you a one screen history of the plane. Same with warships
5. Don't break down the land units any further. Having a single Corp in Norway may be unrealistic but one big advantage of WiF was that it allowed the players to concentrate on "the Big Picture" rather than juggling divisions. I hear ADG is working on "Divisions in Flames" as a seperate game (no joke!)




Igor -> RE: One mans viewpoint... (2/9/2004 11:53:48 PM)

I would like to join the corps based contingent; I already have the computerized version of War in Europe if I want to play the ETO on a divisional scale.

I would also prefer Days of Decision to be included, if at all possible.




stewart_king -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (2/10/2004 3:50:28 AM)

I want the computer game to replicate the board game as much as possible. Players should be able to choose between glitzy plane/tank/soldier icons or standard symbology for their units, as in countless other computer games. This shouldn't be a problem

Permitting too many divisions causes the game to be too wild, especially in the Asian theatre. I have conquered China once and re-conquered it (for China and USSR) twice in four games of CWiF.

I would like there to be a Days of Decision-like option but I agree that the focus (maybe for the first edition) should be on the 1939 scenario. If you implement a DoD option, there needs to be some opportunity to change the countermix limitations, e.g., to permit Germany or the USSR to develop a powerful navy. Maybe in connection with a research rule? I don't think you have to go to the extremes that HoI did, but something along those lines would be nice.

The AI need not be too powerful. There should be an option for players to turn certain functions over to the AI -- like interception or CAP -- to avoid the endless cycling of sub-phases in the current version.

This is a really fine game. If it ends up playing a little faster, I'll use it in teaching. I used Europa Universalis and HoI (liked the first much better) and this looks like it could be an even better successor.




geozero -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (2/10/2004 8:04:33 AM)

IMHO the original board game graphics were hideous.

The different scales for various boards was distracting to say the least, and I'm sure that the PC version can have a generously large map board.

Ability to break down units from Army to Corps to Division would be nice.

AI is a must. I know some have stated that they don't like Ai and that it's usually beatable, that's why a GOOD AI is needed. If you throw just anything in there it will be too easy. Perhaps a good AI incorporated with variable difficulty settings.

I agree to allow time period expanded. I would like to see something like 1930 - 1950. That should cover just about everything from Manchuria to Spanish Civil War to Cold War/Korean conflict era.

I always liked the ability to "purchase" units while having to wait for them to be built. The best example of this from an early game was SPI's Global War.

Include more minor countries, colonial troops, etc. Almost similar to HOI, but without getting too bogged down in detail.

I like the traditional NATO type symbols favored in most games, but think this may be an opportunity to do something a bit like Panzer General with 3d type graphics.

Must have Solo Hot Seat, PBEM, LAN support etc.

Well it's a wish list after all...




caine -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (2/10/2004 10:55:49 AM)

I think that DOD III has to be included.If Hot-seat available, better.In general, I like the beta version done by ADG.Better graphics could be a point, however.




Cheesehead -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (2/10/2004 4:26:11 PM)

Tutorials for learning the game. There are probably thousands of people like me who were aware of the boardgame for many years but never bothered with it because of lack of playing space and opponents. I only became interested when I heard about the computer version. Mastering all the little details of game play would be much easier with a tutorial system that gradually brings in more features of game play. I'd also like to see a strong AI and PBEM for those of us without local opponents.




macgregor -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (2/10/2004 9:21:42 PM)

Whatever you do,please don't simplify it.I like complex games with almost endless possibilities.Unit breakdown should not be limited to it's phase and should occur automatically for combat losses.Each peice should have it's own detailed color drawing allowing me not only to see planes and ships,but the various uniforms,tanks and artillery(1 per peice works).Naval and air combat phases may require players to connect via ip,I'm okay with that.Before any fancy animations showing combat,I'd rather see you concentrate on creating the feel of the command bunker/flagship.Other than that,I've played the beta and liked it,though it only needs 2 maps.What do you want for free? Oh yeah,I'd like to be able to edit the peices to make my own modern warfare version,"Guided Missiles in Flames".Good luck and godspeed![8D]




Mziln -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (2/11/2004 12:54:56 AM)

quote:

Ability to break down units from Army to Corps to Division would be nice.


You could break down Corps into Divisions or build them individualy.

From the Demo...

1.2 Scale

Units
A land unit represents an army or corps (optional division and brigade units represent smaller units - all called “divisions”).

A naval unit represents 1 aircraft carrier, battleship, or heavy cruiser in addition to the destroyers.

An aircraft unit represents 250 aircraft in 1939 gradually increasing to 500 aircraft by 1945. Each counter consists of a variety of types, but with the predominant aircraft being that depicted on each counter. Not all of them would be flying in each mission.

You are limited by the number of units included in the game except for Convoy points which can be freely broken down or combined, as long as the total convoy points remain the same.

Time
Each game turn is two months.

Map
Each hex is approximately 100km on the European maps, 230km on the Asian, Pacific, African and Scandinavian maps, and 650km on the America mini-map.


The beta also had an editor that allowed you to change unit colors, unit strengths, unit time of availability, and edit the map.

It had options that made it as simple or as hard as you wanted to make it.




Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (2/11/2004 3:45:23 PM)

I agree on the maps issue, but hardly figure it will be a problem in the computer version. Or at least I would be surprised if it was.

But I find matching up differing size maps to be a bit clumsy and ill thought out. Can't fathom how anyone even allowed that to happen in the first place.

Its a global game, I would hope the computer version takes the opportunity to do what would not have been practical for the board game, and give us a complete map of the world. Just because it was not important in the board game, nor the real thing, does not mean it isn't relevant.

If a ship travels X hexes in a turn fine. And if it is X hexes from England to say Suez via South Africa, then fine, let the ship travel the whole route, and forget abstracted rules simulating a ship going strategically from point A to point B.
Otherwise, why care who controls the Falklands eh.

There is no point in designing a global wargame, if the map isn't indicative the planet is a globe either. The world is round the last time I checked :)
I realise that might sound difficult sounding using hexes, but it isn't. Ask a rolegamer that has mapped out a planet if you have any questions.




yamaslob -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (2/11/2004 5:46:58 PM)

Hello matrix forum. I was overjoyed to learn that Matrix is going to produce a Grand Strategy game for the pc. There seems to be a market for a good grand strat as there is not much in the way of competition. I have been waiting for a global scale game for a long time. Hearts of Iron was not the game I was hoping for but definitely had some strong points. I have every bit of confidence that Matrix will get it right.

I must admit that I have never played WIF but do know that it is a very detailed product. I just hope that it is a system that can work well into a playable pc game. My only concern is that the things that are not quite right in the board game will be transferred to the pc version for the sake of an exact duplicate. I hope that Matrix will abandon any parts of the game that are ‘dubious’ to the system and put into place another more enjoyable, and hopefully a better fitting, system.

One thing that has me concerned is the turn length. I would so much prefer that the game was slowed down to a 2 week or maybe a month long turn sequence. Fighting the whole of ww2 in 36 turns Max seems a little rushed. It should take more time to formulate and bring into fruitation military operations IMHO. Fronts should move slower and it seems that a 2 month turn would severely hamper the feeling of island hopping that was so common in the pacific.

As to the appearance of the game,I really HATED the HOI map. It was just plain ugly IMO. The coastal distortion was awful and not near enough information about the hexes and its content or traits without switching the view too many times. I would love to see a map with the attention to detail as the one provided with UV. The counters should be done well with as much info about the unit as possible. No need for silly sprites imo.

I do not agree with Les_the_sarge in that the whole world be shown. Transfer boxes would be fine with the ability to wage strategic war against such hexes. Les also said;

quote:

I realise that might sound difficult sounding using hexes, but it isn't. Ask a rolegamer that has mapped out a planet if you have any questions.



I think there is no comparison between a made up world and the real one being mapped correctly. Who can critique the placement of borders when there isn’t anything to go off of.

Of course my dream game would have a more advanced diplomatic scale to it. It really adds flavor, but with such a system it is easy to get off of the historical feel of the game. Also a research area like that of Advanced Third Reich would be awesome.

That is about it for now. I don’t want to bombard you with my suggestions with the first post. I do have a question for the developers that would save a lot of time for all of us involved;

Do you indeed plan to follow WIF strictly? If so then design decisions would be better off in the form of interface and look. It is my vote to NOT adhere too tightly to the original.

Thanks,

Yamaslob

Ps…put me down for three copies on world in flames. It’s my turn to buy the next game for my group.




Greyshaft -> Uncertainty (2/12/2004 6:06:32 AM)

Thinking further about a previous post...

We all sit here with the advantage of hindsight... kinda boring really. How about looking at the books and newspapers of the 1930's/40's and presenting a game that reflects the perceptions of the time. I've been rereading Schirer's History of the Third Reich and noted that when Hitler rolled into Austria he had to delay the victory parade through Vienna because Guderian's Panzers were so mechanically unreliable that 40% of them broke down on the way from the German border to Vienna. Yet the following year the German rolled into Poland with their mighty armor units and blew apart the Polish defences. So when the the Germans actually invade Poland in CWif should there be the chance that their Panzers actually fight as (say) a "3-3" rather than a "7-6" like their Generals thought they might? Ditto with the Britich concerns about the invincible armor on the enemy super-ship "Bismarck" and the USA concerns about the effectiveness of the B-29 and every other piece of new technology in the war.

Lets fight the war with the reality of uncertainty... if that makes sense.




Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> RE: Uncertainty (2/12/2004 6:13:52 AM)

Actually the comment with respects to how rolegamers map out globes was in regards to how the projection is handled actually.

You get a map that depicts a sphere in the process. Not sure how a computer would render that though.

Regarding each and every hex, I suppose area boxes might be needed. My main concern, is limiting the abstraction if possible. Emphasis on "if possible".




Joe 98 -> RE: Uncertainty (2/12/2004 8:48:58 AM)

Traditionally, the certainty of uncertainty, is handled by a dice.

In Korsun Pocket, we have a traditional 6 sided dice. In spite of this there are 8 possible results – numbered from 1 to 8.

Even though we have computers, I still like the concept of dice. It is something a human can wrap his mind around. But now that we have computers we don’t need to have a 6 sided dice. 12 sides for example would be great.

In KP, bowling a 1 or a 2 quite often is a very bad result. With a 6 sided dice the odds of bowling this is 4 in 12.

With a 12 sided dice the odds of bowling a 1 or a 2 are 2 in 12.

In other words, as the dice is larger, the results can be smoothed. It means the most fantastic strategic/tactical moves can be damaged by bad luck rather than destroyed by bad luck.




Caranorn -> RE: Uncertainty (2/12/2004 2:03:37 PM)

I will repeat the general thoughts I expressed on the old boards before Matrix got hacked.

1) CWiF (lets call it CWiF II to honor Chris Marinacci) should be as close to WiF as possible. If you wish to design a new game (as much as I understand that is not Matrix's intent) you should also chose a new name and not claim a no longer existing tie to one of the most popular board wargames of all times. Most of WiF's aspects should be easily transferable to the computer (some sequences might need modification to improve Pbem).

2) AI should be optional. The more realistic and complex a game is the worse average or bad AI affects gameplay. Now if Matrix could create the best AI in the world, I might be willing to play against the computer for years and years. But anything less I will always switch to either TCP or solo-ing (hotseat). Some have mentionned a tutorial AI which seems like a good idea. That should greatly help new players get into the game.

3) The game should be editable as much as possible (again I understand this is indeed Matrix's plan). That includes map and counter graphics (or graphics in general), text files for orders of battles, tables etc. This might even include rules, though that I expect would be hard to do.

4) As planned the game should be global at a single scale. On the computer there no longer is a need for the three scales applied to WiF (European, Asian and offmap). As to those who wonder why WiF FE used those three scales, just imagine tghe tables you'd need to play Asia and Africa on the European scale.

5) I like the idea to make the number of division breakdowns unlimited in CWiF. Though I can imagine some abuse to this system. One area would be Japanese garrisons in China which would free Japanese corps for other duties. This area at least could be negated via the Partisan system (just imagine Mao's elite corps' smashing those puny divisions far behind Japanese lines;-). Another problem could be a Germany maxed out on production and adding a division to every Atlantic Wall stack (which I hear can be tough to crack as is, I never played beyond 1943 myself so have no personal experiences of this).

6) Include as many Optional rules as possible, that would include common House rules. If possible include DoD (logically DoD III) or at least plan to add it with a later update. The playable timeframe (for mods) should probably be late 1920's to the mid 1950's (beyond that technology changes to fast and I feel would break the game). The standard game should still be either 1939 to 1945 or 1936 to 1945 (both with optional lengthening of the game).

7) as usual I forgot what else I wanted to say. So maybe I'll fill in some more points at a later time:-)

Marc aka Caran...




Mziln -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (2/12/2004 3:14:56 PM)

quote:

If a ship travels X hexes in a turn fine. And if it is X hexes from England to say Suez via South Africa, then fine, let the ship travel the whole route, and forget abstracted rules simulating a ship going strategically from point A to point B.
Otherwise, why care who controls the Falklands eh.


[:(] I wish you people had downloaded a copy of the demo. [:(]

The rules are still at ADG (Australian Design Group) under Downloads. Download the following files...

Changes between versions
16th July 2000

RAW2-RAW61.zip
RAW4d-RAW6S.zip


The demo put "Hearts of Iron" to shame.

[:(] My last Download was on 9/14/02 [:(]
Editor.zip 555k
Palette.zip 1k
Rules.zip 2,207k
Setup.zip 17k
Wif.zip 131k
Wifd.zip 1,303k

Ships moved by Sea Areas. Eample the Mediterranean sea had 3 sea areas...

Eastern Mediterranean, Italian Coast, and Western Mediterranean. Malta bordered all three making it very strategic.

Sea Areas had a Sea Box (numbered 0-3). The Sea Boxes determined how vunerable you were to being found/attacked. Your choice of location in the Sea Box was dependent on the number of movement points you had remaining.

For Air to Sea searchs how many movement points you expended entering hexes to get tp the Sea Area effected the results.




Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (2/12/2004 3:59:45 PM)

In regards to the last publicly offered demo, or at least the files as of Oct 20th 2003, the ones available on the last day before they were withdrawn, I actually have those.

But as David asked they be removed from circulation (that was his personal request to me), I honoured that request. As such, I am fairly aware of what the game once looked like. Where exactly it is now I am not privvy to though (I am not part of that process).

Essentially speaking, demos that don't contribute, are a harmful distraction in a lot of cases.

I like the fact that Matrix Games actually cares about the public image of games they are involved with.

Bringing a multi phased turn using global strategy board game to the computer is no one's idea of a simple easy prospect.
The board game being a board game, was designed around the assumption both players would naturally enough both be visibly present sitting at a table.
Thus, the game was entirely designed around that reality.

It is that reason, why producing an AI that will even have value is such a challenge. If the game had started as a computer wargame, and had never been anything other than a wargamer for the computer, it is likely the design would have reflected that enough, that an AI would be a lot less troubled.

It is clear that most WANT an AI. But that is a reflection of the fact most of us will insist on being able to play it solo on a computer.
A lot of us will not have the board game, and therefore a lot of us won't have played it, and therefore a lot will expect a tutorial which will in effect teach us how to play the game.
Frankly though, a basic print out of the manual would likely be simpler to produce, than beating the designer over the head to make a viable tutorial eh.
I am unsure of what the cost to make the manual would be. But I am sure it will cost a decent amount in programmer expenses to make the software tutorial. And the manual has always been a fairly simple black and white non colour text document.

It is possible that the game could be done correctly, and made just a computerised board game of itself, unmodified in any way.
It is equally possible the game could be made sans AI and made either capable of hotseat mode for two player, or email capable so that both players don't actually need to be there. It is possible the game can easily accomodate more than two players too.

It is possible all the screaming for an AI will kill off cWiF from being a profitable do able reality too.

I would not mind an AI. I would not mind a moderately capable AI.
I don't actually need one though.
Hell prove to me you can't play both sides of the board game now. Prove to me you could not do the same thing on a computer interface.
Prove to me there is an ABSOLUTE need for an AI.
If 9 out of 10 persons demand an AI, and the need of an AI kills the game, then 9 out of 10 people will have killed the game.

Simple as that.

Its been a number of years now eh. If this game was easy to port to a computer, I think it would have been done by now. So clearly something is wrong with the expectations maybe.

I am stuck comparing this game to two titles.
Hearts of Iron and Strategic Command.
HoI I do NOT want (multiple reasons)
Strategic Command I like.
SC does not have a mulit phased convoluted turn proceedure though. You want to move a unit fine, it has a move radius shown. You want to attack, fine it can make an attack. But it must do so before moving another piece, so the moves need planning and forethought.
Research is a matter of do it or not purchase.
Building or repairing units is a do it or not prospect.
In short, the player is not bogged down with minutae.
Politics is straight and simple.
Various game effects are straight and simple.
Attack with an air unit, and interception is automatic, not in the hands of the player.
Naval interception requires you are in a position to do so.
Supply is handled by the computer, so you don't need to verify it yourself. It is either in supply or it is not.

That is the strength of SC. The AI is not bogged down with intricate multi phased sequenced decisions. I can look at a board while my opponent in moving, and decide instantly about various details as they are played out.
That fortunately, is the one advantage of the hman mind. I think, therefore I am :)
The AI is not thinking, merely employing data routines reactively.

cWiF could likely be on the shelf in a few months if it was "look here is the game, you can play it on your computer, and yes, you have to learn to play it first."
Would it bug me that the game came with absolutely no tutorial, and I had to actually read a manual first? No.

Welcome to wargaming dudes. That's how I did it for 20 years before computers.
Now you know why some of us actually CAN play wargames better than some.




Cheesehead -> RE: Uncertainty (2/12/2004 8:21:40 PM)

It's easy for those of you with local opponents to say "don't worry about AI, it's not important, just get us the game on PC." Those of us who have been unsuccessfully searching for local opponents have a different attitude. If 9 out of 10 potential buyers of this game are without local opponents, it's worth attempting AI.




Greyshaft -> RE: Uncertainty (2/12/2004 10:50:50 PM)

Les:
quote:

If 9 out of 10 persons demand an AI, and the need of an AI kills the game, then 9 out of 10 people will have killed the game.

If 9 out of 10 persons demand an AI and Matrix doesn't provide an AI then 9 out of 10 people won't buy the game. However since Matrix have already promised an "Intelligent computer opponent" as a feature then I'd say that there will be an AI. I'm still interested in hearing of a PC-based successful strategy wargame that doesn't provide an AI? No contenders? I'd say that fulfils your request to "Prove to me there is an ABSOLUTE need for an AI." You add many interesting observations to these boards Les but I think you find it difficult understanding that other people have priorities that are different to your own. I admit I'm a bit the same... I can't understand the attraction of first person shooters when there are historical wars to be refought... but game companies have gotta follow the $$$ and crusty old farts like you and me sometimes get left behind. Let's be glad that there are some wargames coming out... and if you don't like the AI that Matrix is putting in CWiF you can always turn it off [:D]



Marc:
1) Most of WiF's aspects should be easily transferable to the computer (some sequences might need modification to improve Pbem). - AGREED
2) AI should be optional. - AGREED. It should be available but players don't need to use it
3) The game should be editable as much as possible - AGREED
4) As planned the game should be global at a single scale. - AGREED uh oh... I'm agreeing with Marc too much... something's wrong here
5) I like the idea to make the number of division breakdowns unlimited in CWiF. - NOT SURE. Frankly I don't know how much this would change the game. I could imagine the Germans leaving behind stacks of individual divisions as speed bumps for the Russian juggernauts. As long as they avoided the 10:1 overrun the Russians would need to stop and blow away cheapo divisions while the Germans rebuilt their defences a few hexes back. Lots of playtesting needed.
6) Include as many Optional rules as possible, that would include common House rules. If possible include DoD (logically DoD III) - AGREED

Phew! At least I disagreed on one point!




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.046875