Matrix Games Forums

Space Program Manager Launch Contest Announced!Battle Academy 2 is out now on iPad!A closer look at rockets in Space Program ManagerDeal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Zoom

 
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: Zoom Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Zoom - 2/27/2004 4:20:13 AM   
Yohan

 

Posts: 1045
Joined: 10/7/2002
From: Toronto
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

Wif always had problems with stacking too many units (land + air + naval) in the one hex. Hamburg was always a nightmare as were other key ports in the Pacific. Could Matrix consider a filter option that lets players display just air or just naval counters on the map? That would make life easier when hunting around for another uncommitted air unit to help the Panzers reach 3:1 for the final attack on Paris



Excellent idea

(in reply to Greyshaft)
Post #: 61
RE: Zoom - 2/27/2004 4:01:25 PM   
Mziln


Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline
In the demo you would click on the stack and a window would pop up. This window had a filter for land, air, special units, and naval units (by CV, BB, CA, Submarines, transports, and convoys).

What I think would be an improvement would be to show resources available in countries to make spotting of the convoy pipeline bottlnecks eaiser. Or maybe highlight convoys that have more resources reaching them than they can handle so you would see the bottlenecks.

< Message edited by Mziln -- 2/27/2004 2:05:34 PM >

(in reply to Yohan)
Post #: 62
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 2/29/2004 4:39:39 AM   
BumMcFluff

 

Posts: 34
Joined: 2/28/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski
...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."


If that option is there, isn't it then up to the individual player whether they wish to use it?

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 63
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 2/29/2004 4:52:01 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6566
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
You're not getting my point. The game has a design. It is intended to offer a simulation of a particular historical situation. It can't do everything. It has to be built within the framework of the design decisions.

Here, WiF starts you off in fall 1939 as it was historically. It is built around that start date and those historical conditions. If the game accommodates other start dates or situations, it has to be a different design. I suspect that the ADG variants (and others) will come along eventually as add-ons or scenarios, but these will not be part of the core game that is now being created.

You can have a focused historical simulation, or you can have a blurry kiddie game. I choose the former.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to BumMcFluff)
Post #: 64
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 2/29/2004 4:55:19 AM   
BumMcFluff

 

Posts: 34
Joined: 2/28/2004
Status: offline
I don't see it as "a blurry kiddie game". I see it as an alternative history. A version of a "what if?" scenario.

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 65
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 2/29/2004 6:00:13 AM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4393
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline
Timeline.

I hear that Matrix Games is going to take up the attempt to get involved with seeing World in Flames brought to the computer.
This I like.

Then the game becomes a forum topic, and much discussion ensues.

Then it becomes clear everyone expects cWiF to be better than sliced bread.
This is unfortunate.

Given a choice, if I was in charge, I would make the attempt to bring computer World in Flames into creation based off the basic game only, with at best a very modest attempt at an AI.

I would soundly and firmly refuse to attempt to release the game encompassing every single module or concept variant every made or thought up. I would not defacto assume an AI was going to be possible. I would likely settle for making all the maps a unified consistent image and be happy if the game ran true to the actual game design.

Now I have been following the various comments, and I think collectively we are all asking for the moon here.

Glad I am not in charge.

I bet Gary is having less trouble with his game :)

< Message edited by Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -- 2/28/2004 11:04:35 PM >


_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to BumMcFluff)
Post #: 66
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 2/29/2004 6:50:14 AM   
Mziln


Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline
Just because the thread is tytled "What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game" dosn't mean its going to happen.

This is not a demand for everyones requirements for the game it's a request by the readers of this board interested in this particulart game.

The game wouldn't need all the bells and wistles all at once. It's just what you think would enhance the game.

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 67
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 2/29/2004 7:17:24 AM   
BumMcFluff

 

Posts: 34
Joined: 2/28/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

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.


If 9 out of 10 persons demand an AI, and the need of an AI doesn't kill the game, then 9 out of 10 people will have been right!

Who are you to say that AI will kill the game? Just because you don't like it, we have to suffer?

Simple as that.

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 68
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 2/29/2004 3:36:21 PM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4393
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline
It's a half full vs half empty argument to simply reverse what I said BumMcfluff :)

As for who am I, why of course I am the legendary Les the Sarge :)

Of course you have to suffer if I wish it :)

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to BumMcFluff)
Post #: 69
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 2/29/2004 3:58:41 PM   
ASHBERY76


Posts: 1978
Joined: 10/10/2001
From: England
Status: offline
If they release this game with no or very basic A.I it wont just kill the game but kill matrix, because nobody will buy it! apart from a couple of boardgame diehards..

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 70
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 2/29/2004 6:30:13 PM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6566
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76

If they release this game with no or very basic A.I it wont just kill the game but kill matrix, because nobody will buy it! apart from a couple of boardgame diehards..


I don't know if it would kill Matrix, but it would definitely kill this game. Every survey of wargamers ever done, from the SPI feedback back in the '70s to PCGamer's poll that I saw sometime in 2002 shows one thing: at least three out of four games played are played solitaire. We can strut around here and do PBEM AARs and call for TCP/IP play all we want, but we are in a small minority of the customer base for games such as this.

An object lesson is the huge success of "Galactic Civilizations" last year. This game is playable exclusively by one player. To date, it has shipped over 100,000 copies ($40 American per). A competent AI was a #1 design emphasis. I don't have the figures on "Railroad Tycoon 3," but it has done extremely well. While this game can be played by more than one human player, when you look at it, the obvious emphasis is on solitaire play - and again, AI development took up as much design time as anything else, and competent AI play is a feature that is emphasized in the advertising.

Time to wake up and smell the coffee...

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to ASHBERY76)
Post #: 71
The world according to Les - 2/29/2004 10:42:32 PM   
Greyshaft


Posts: 2234
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

It's a half full vs half empty argument to simply reverse what I said BumMcfluff :)

As for who am I, why of course I am the legendary Les the Sarge :)

Of course you have to suffer if I wish it :)


Scientific studies have shown that 9 out of 10 posts made by Les the Sarge are made to offend people and in 9 out of 10 cases he succeeds.

(You might think that his 9_1 tag is a reference to Advanced Squad Leader but it is actually an obscure reference to this little known fact. )

< Message edited by Greyshaft -- 3/1/2004 6:48:26 AM >

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 72
Thought for the Day... - 2/29/2004 10:49:10 PM   
Greyshaft


Posts: 2234
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
Can CWiF be equipped with a numeric victory scale so that we can compare our performance for each game? For example, rather than getting a "Decisive Victory" three times in a row we could then see that we had scores of (say) 92, 96, then 94 which gives us something to aim for next time. Making the scale logarithimic will add to the challenge.

(in reply to Greyshaft)
Post #: 73
RE: The world according to Les - 2/29/2004 11:03:43 PM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6566
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
Yeah, I asked les one time if he ever wanted to be promoted to a 10-2 (which in ASL is a commissioned officer), and he said no. I guess a sarge is a sarge is a sarge.

Legendary? I dunno. There've been a lot of sarges out there...

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to Greyshaft)
Post #: 74
RE: The world according to Les - 3/1/2004 6:00:34 AM   
BumMcFluff

 

Posts: 34
Joined: 2/28/2004
Status: offline
I haven't played the demo for a long time, so please bear with me if this is already included...

Large groups of ship in a sea area should be able to be combined into a single Task Force icon.
Similarly, groups of land units should be able to be combined into groups (with the smallest number of movement points counting for the whole). This would add up to easier handling of units.

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 75
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/1/2004 6:10:53 AM   
BumMcFluff

 

Posts: 34
Joined: 2/28/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

It's a half full vs half empty argument to simply reverse what I said BumMcfluff :)

As for who am I, why of course I am the legendary Les the Sarge :)

Of course you have to suffer if I wish it :)


I think AI should be included, and you don't have to use it. And it's not a half full vs half empty argument. Your initial statement was just a manifestation of your bias. You don't want it, so you'll pretend to have statistics on your side.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 76
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/1/2004 4:29:53 PM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4393
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline
I made no pretense at statistics, the phrase 9 out of 10 is a turn of a phrase and nothing more.

What I was stating when I said that, was if 90% of those clamouring that an AI is imperitive get their way, and it is likely it will be so, then the 10 percent will have the opportunity to say I told you so. If indeed, the AI accomplishes nothing.

It might even be less than an actual 10%, but the phrase is normally termed "9 out of 10". Hence the reason I used it. It is no different than the cliche 4 out of 5 (you don't really think they actually interview 5 dentists and get those 4 out of 5 results do you :) ).

Oh and by the way, when was the last time anyone did a "scientific study" on you hehe eh eh eh :)

I'm clearly awesome (and I intend to remind you if I have to, besides it makes the post more funny when I do this).

Oh point of note, I am probably more likely a humble 8-1 in real life, but I chose 9-1 to honour Sgt Kelso, who is a hero to any Squad Leader player hehe.
10-2 sounds to much like an officer and a gentleman, and that gentleman part gives me the shudders.

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to BumMcFluff)
Post #: 77
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/1/2004 8:04:52 PM   
Cheesehead

 

Posts: 406
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Appleton, Wisconsin
Status: offline
quote:

I think AI should be included, and you don't have to use it. And it's not a half full vs half empty argument. Your initial statement was just a manifestation of your bias. You don't want it, so you'll pretend to have statistics on your side.


I think Sarge would be thrilled if CWiF came out with a decent AI. He's just afraid that AI will kill the project because he is a skeptic.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to BumMcFluff)
Post #: 78
9 out of 10 for effort - 3/1/2004 11:42:00 PM   
Greyshaft


Posts: 2234
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
BumMcFluff:
(All of this discussion is irrelevent since Matrix has already promised that there will be an AI, but please continue the discussion. I enjoy a good bitch session.) Don't make the mistake of taking Les seriously. His post are divided 50/50 between rational discussion and seeing which newbie he can tease. Looks like he's got you well and truly hooked

Actually I think the reason Les doesn't want an AI is because he's afraid it will beat him 9 out of 10 times

(in reply to Cheesehead)
Post #: 79
RE: 9 out of 10 for effort - 3/2/2004 4:33:32 AM   
SeaMonkey

 

Posts: 754
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
"Actually I think the reason Les doesn't want an AI is because he's afraid it will beat him 9 out of 10 times" .

Amen to that Greyshaft, Les is still struggling with the SC AI. Well Sarge, how about it, a little humble pie maybe, ...I know its a "Slow Ride".

(in reply to Greyshaft)
Post #: 80
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/2/2004 5:07:40 AM   
BumMcFluff

 

Posts: 34
Joined: 2/28/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

What I was stating when I said that, was if 90% of those clamouring that an AI is imperitive get their way, and it is likely it will be so, then the 10 percent will have the opportunity to say I told you so. If indeed, the AI accomplishes nothing.


That's right...IF

Greyshaft: Yes I have been told I am easy to goad. Guess they were right.

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 81
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/2/2004 9:37:45 AM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4393
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline
Seamonkey who let you in here hehe.

And stop telling people how I suck at Strategic Command (even if it's true :) ).

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to BumMcFluff)
Post #: 82
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/2/2004 2:36:04 PM   
Caranorn


Posts: 424
Joined: 8/31/2001
From: Luxembourg
Status: offline
Heh, just to repeat myself. I also don't think an ai for CWiF will work. Therefore I am also of the opinion that it might be better to publish the game without (or only with the tutorial ai some mentionned). Unless my memory fails me alltogether that was also the case for most active users of teh WiF mail list afew years ago.

I also would't count on non wargamers to buy CWiF. The first market for this game should be experienced wargamers. That is players who can assimilate the massive load of rules required. Will either look for human opponents or play solo (just the way they play their board games solo today). The same people who will trunce any average ai after at most a week's time. Other gamers probably won't be drawn to CWiF in any case, at least not if they research the debth of the game first. WiF simply never was an introductory level game (though I hear it has been used as such, but that would only work in a large group where a newbie gets to play China or just to push counters on one front while otehrs take care of the rest of the world).

Yes, if you create the best ai ever I'd love to play against it. But I doubt that can be achieved any time soon. I hope CWiF will be published long before that.

Marc aka Caran...

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 83
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/2/2004 3:33:31 PM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4393
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline
Marc likely hit the nail on the head.

I have actually not realised his point till he just mentioned it. But I most assuredly agree. cWiF is not likely ever going to generate sales amongst any but totally fanatic hardcore counter pushers like myself.

With that in mind, the usual arguments vis a vis newbies or those wishing newbie friendly conditions do seem a bit pointless.
Granted though, not all grognards look like me, or have my preferences.

The place to work on newbies, or non total grognards like myself, would likely be more in the realm of Strategic Command or Gary's new project World at War.
You will never be able to make a game like WiF board game or computer option "simple".

If done well, cWiF will easily become more complex than HoI will ever be capable of claiming to be. Complex is not the end of the world if done right. But doing it right requires a high order of true genius.
It probably is the reason the market after all these many years, only has basically Third Reich and Wif out there as substantially well known and well liked grand strategy designs.
Because making one, and making it any good, is not something you accomplish routinely.

The computerization of Third Reich (which I think most will call the "simple" version TR of the series), was mostly a let down due to it's AI. I have the game, and its graphics were adequate, and its interface acceptable. But it had a lot of troubles incorporating the involved nature of the board games design.

Like I think I have mentioned earlier. If it was indeed so simple to just make an AI for this game, then I think it would not have been on the drawing board this long already.
Computerising WiF could easily have been done the same way they computerised A3R with the Warplanner software.

Personally, I think it would be easier to market it as a board game that comes with software intended to be used the same way Warplanner is used.

I don't know this to be the case, but I would not be surprised if the Warplanner crowd was laughing at the WiF crowd's efforts.

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Caranorn)
Post #: 84
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/2/2004 5:12:30 PM   
Cheesehead

 

Posts: 406
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Appleton, Wisconsin
Status: offline
Does anyone know how many copies of WiF have been sold to date?

Could we then assume that at least as many copies of CWiF would sell? Using myself as an example, I was aware of the WiF boardgame years ago but never was interested in buying such a physically large game when I lived in apartments, or had small children, and didn't know anyone else that played. It was only the news that a computer version was in development that I became interested. (Ironically, I bought the board game so that I could start learning the rules). If I'm representative of the typical wargame customer, might we assume that sales of CWiF will exceed WiF?

What are the numbers for a computer game to go "gold?"

What are the numbers for a computer game of this magnitude to make a profit?

Are there plans for CWiF to hit the shelves of mainstream software stores next to all those silly 1st person shooters?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 85
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/2/2004 9:08:32 PM   
Zorachus99


Posts: 949
Joined: 9/15/2000
From: Palo Alto, CA
Status: offline
I've been playing the boardgame WIF for over 10 years. I'm sure you are getting input from the designers, but as a long time player my opinion matters since I've spent over $1000 on the game during that time. No Joke. This game has been revised, improved, and new counters were made time and again. I'm including replacement counters as well.

The game in it's current for is complex to say the least, however me and my human wargaming buddies have been playing for a long time and here is the hardest problem you have barring an AI that can figure out how to launch a successful buildup and naval invasion.

I look at an 7x12 foot board we have laminated our map to. All the counters are in full display and you can make strategic conclusions just based on a glance at the stacks in theatres. No real calculation needed. This kind of overview is still neccessary but you don't have a monitor that is 7x12 feet. Assuming you everyone has a 21" monitor is unrealistic, and yet still insufficient to display this kind of breadth. I wish I had suggestions but this is important while the player is trying to deduce what action they will take. I cant stress how important this idea is.

The clearly worst thing about playing a game with counters is that you can end up wasting time aguing about rules, calculating odds, and trying to sift through tall stacks all packed close to each other. Supply calculation, hex ownership and tracing resources for the UK are the hardest things of all to keep track of. A computer can really help in this area

Additionally almost every aircraft and ship have different capabilities - determined though a lot of research. This must be kept. Removing the Picture Profile of the counter or It's name, is removing a ton of enjoyment in the game. You want to know it was the Yamato task force that sank the Iowa task force, no two ways about it. Anything is possible in the game.

As for real suggestions:

1) make unit stacks slide out as you mouse over the stack so you can quickly determine exactly what is in the stack. I don't want to click to find out a stack contents. They would slide back in after you moved the mouse elsewhere.
2) By clicking a menu I want to sort every stack on the map so that either aircraft, land units, or ships are on the tops of the stacks. This is back to the overview idea. Flipped units should stay on the bottom unless so selected.
3) Make sure flipped units are very distinguishable, but examination is still possible without many clicks. I hate the colored box idea on whether a unit is used or not. There are a lot of ways to do this with palette changes.
4) Don't change the way the units look from the counters in the game. This will cause major confusion for people who are used to the counters and are willing to pay $200 for a game in the non-computer state.
5) Keep the maps included in the game as they are, making everything european scale is just not neccessary and bloats the map out of control.
6) Clicking on a unit should select it and show its movement possibilities as well as any out of supply hexes that it might end up in. Make this part easy. Returning a unit back to where it was before movement as a change of mind is also critical. Automatically blow the map up to a higher scale if you cant see where a unit can go when selected.
7) The combat phases make sense. Do not remove them. It might complicate PBEM, but the phases within a turn or even a combat are there because they make sense. Yes there can be multiple phases before land combat is resolved and that's a nightmare for PBEM. Don't remove them because it's the easiest thing to do.
8) While within a sub-phase such as intercept missions for air units AUTOMATICALLY sort all units to the top of a stack that can be involved that are within range. Additionally they should GLOW as to tip you off that they are selectable.
9) Automatically blow the map up to a higher scale if you cant see where a unit can go when selected.
10) Have a player have a specified preferred view of the map that things revert to after blowing the map up or down.
11) Land Units have up to 7 movement points. There should be a display setting so that if you center on a hex, you can easily inspect all the land units that can make it to that hex thus changing the odds. Without this people will get very annoyed trying to determine odds.

That's what my freinds and I consider critical.

Hope you read this.

Best regards and good luck!

Zorachus99

_____________________________

Most men can survive adversity, the true test of a man's character is power. -Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to Cheesehead)
Post #: 86
Another Blasphemer!!! - 3/2/2004 10:09:40 PM   
Greyshaft


Posts: 2234
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
So Caranorn... you have joined the evil Les in denying the existance of the CwiF AI? Oh, ye of little Faith thou shall be verily smited at the Time of Beta Testing when the strength of the Almighty CPU shall blast thou Panzers into tiny little bits that even the cat can't find.

But seriously... I'm sure that Matrix had a number of long conversations with Harry and Chris before they agreed to this project and so they are well aware of the problems which scuttled the original CWiF. Yet they still promised they will produce an AI. Why shouldn't we believe them? I'm not too worried about the ramblings of Les the Luddite throwing his silicon sabots but I'm surprised that others would hold themselves up as experts on what Matrix can (or can't) achieve. They think they can do it. More power to them!

(in reply to Zorachus99)
Post #: 87
RE: Another Blasphemer!!! - 3/2/2004 10:30:01 PM   
Cheesehead

 

Posts: 406
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Appleton, Wisconsin
Status: offline
"Try, try not....Do, or do not."

--Yoda

(in reply to Greyshaft)
Post #: 88
RE: Another Blasphemer!!! - 3/3/2004 4:05:24 AM   
BumMcFluff

 

Posts: 34
Joined: 2/28/2004
Status: offline
What Greyshaft said.

(in reply to Cheesehead)
Post #: 89
RE: Another Blasphemer!!! - 3/3/2004 5:31:43 AM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4393
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline
No I am not going to dance merely because someone looks like they share some of my notions :) That would come off sounding wrong no matter how I tried to say it.

In the long run, I think what will make cWiF succeed or not, will be the same issue that makes games succeed or not that also possess large sums of detail.
I have MOO3, and looks like a nice game. But it is just such a lot of work. Probably explains why I have hardly played it.

My first encounter with cWiF is still managing to scar me. The interface was horrid.
If it becomes entirely true to the board game, but is still an effort to enjoy, odds are I will just get over it and perfect a storage option for the board game. And pass.

With these level of games, it has to be easy to run at the interface level, because it is already complex enough at the learning to play level.

Zorachus99 made a lot of comments which I would gladly support.

The AI is important if enough need it.
The original nature of the game is important, if you actually want to call it WiF.
It has to be easier to play it on the computer in order to get anyone to put aside the board game.

Lastly, I am unsure if how many board game units sold is any real useful data. It was popular during a time when you played board games or didn't play wargames. But today with computers every bit a real option, the variables and conditions are just not the same.
A good board game, poorly ported to computer, will not sell just because it was based on a good board game automatically in my opinion.

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to BumMcFluff)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Zoom Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.109