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

[David Heath]

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]

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]

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]

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."

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

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]

LAN play and a respectable AI.

[Fred98]

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]

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]

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.

[YohanTM2]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.