Matrix Games Forums

Pandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at WarSlitherine Group acquires Shenandoah StudioNew information and screenshots for Pike & Shot
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

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

 
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: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/3/2004 7:12:38 AM   
Joe 98


Posts: 4032
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline
[quote]ORIGINAL: Caranorn

That is players who can assimilate the massive load of rules required.

[/quote]


Computers have to be utilised to make improve wargaming.

I have no intention of digesting the “massive load of rules”. Rather, its better that a tutorial shows me how to do things and then if I try an illegal move the computer stops me from doing it.

If it is otherwise this wargamer will have no interest in an excellent game.

(in reply to Caranorn)
Post #: 91
RE: Another Blasphemer!!! - 3/3/2004 2:38:22 PM   
Caranorn


Posts: 423
Joined: 8/31/2001
From: Luxembourg
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

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 wish I remembered the sales numbers from a few years back. I recall they were mentionned on the WiF mailing list. Someone had misunderstood and thought Harry must be a millionaire with all the sales of WiF Deluxe. The obvious problem was of course that those sales numbers were for all versions and modules combined (WiF 1 to FE, FA, DoD I-III etc.).

That problem will of course count for CWiF as well. Many veteran players of WiF own multiple copies of the game, or at least multiple versions (I own WiF 4 and FE, 3-4 copies of DoD (I & II) etc.). At least in the first time, even the most devoted players probably won't buy more then one copy of CWiF. On the other hand, a gaming group that used to play with a single copy might have to buy multiple copies of CWiF (this might need to be taken into consideration, maybe offer multi licensing). Then obviously not all who bought WiF FE will be interested in CWiF (some still don't own a computer, others might consider buying WiF FE a mistake and don't want to invest anymore in a game they don't like). On the otehr hand, some players apparently decided not to upgrade from WiF 5 to FE, those might now be willing to buy CWiF. Other gamers yet never bought WiF in any form because of the game's physical size, time needed to setup and play or the extent of the rules. CWiF will not have that problem, or only at a much lower level, accordingly those players might chose to buy CWiF now (that's also the category needing a tutorial ai).

So at least from my outsider's perspective there is no way to tell how large a market CWiF might attract. Even having the sales numbers of WiF would not help much in that aspect. On the other hand I really doubt that many non hardcore wargamers will be attracted to CWiF (maybe some players of HOI or such, simpler, games will try out CWiF).

Marc aka Caran...

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 92
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/3/2004 2:44:04 PM   
Caranorn


Posts: 423
Joined: 8/31/2001
From: Luxembourg
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

Computers have to be utilised to make improve wargaming.

I have no intention of digesting the “massive load of rules”. Rather, its better that a tutorial shows me how to do things and then if I try an illegal move the computer stops me from doing it.

If it is otherwise this wargamer will have no interest in an excellent game.


The computer will help you with the rules. But in the end, to play well you will have to understand the rules of CWiF just like you have to understand the rules of WiF now. Otherwise you will have a few nasty surprises along the way when things don't work as you thought they did. In the worst case you will just be pushing counters without ever understanding why things don't work (I don't suppose most of us will fall into that trap, I obviously know the rules even though I haven't player WiF in over two years (except teh CWiF beta), I expect most other gamers will learn the rules sooner or later). But someone who thinks CWiF will be an easy game to pick up and learn in a matter of a day will be sadly mistaken (and might very well never again buy a wargame or buy a game from Matrix). In that sense, not every sold game is actually good for a company, selling CWiF to the wrong person might well mean never selling any games to that person afterwards (while selling an introductory level game to the same person could have the reverse effect).

Marc aka Caran... who learned to play (push counters at first, heck I was 8 years old or so and did not read english;-) with Panzer Blitz

(in reply to Joe 98)
Post #: 93
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/3/2004 3:08:03 PM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4393
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline
Ok first off I am a veteran Advanced Third Reich player, and you can bet your last dollar you better be great if you think you can play grand strategy against me unprepared.

Second Strategic Command as a game has an idiot simple interface, and a new player can be playing the game in mere minutes. A tutorial for SC would be a waste of the designers time. If you can't figure that game out intuitively, then you might want to reconsider wargaming as a hobby :)

But even as simple as SC is, it still requires the player to sit down with the manual and actually see where the real difference lies in deploying two corps units instead of an army or whether an armour is worth the expense.
And no, the tutorial is not going to really teach you that. It will merely teach you how to buy one, or refit it from damage or how to move it.
Big deal, that knowledge is not going to help you beat your opopponent.

If you were to sit down with a completely computerised version of some games at the grand strategy level, you are simply going to have to spend some time understanding the game's systems and the logic behind the game's design.

Which is why, I wish all those wishing the AI to teach them good luck, because your first human opponent is going to give you such a thrashing if he has read the manual and you have not.

< Message edited by Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -- 3/3/2004 8:11:10 AM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Caranorn)
Post #: 94
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/3/2004 7:38:22 PM   
Mziln


Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

If you were to sit down with a completely computerised version of some games at the grand strategy level, you are simply going to have to spend some time understanding the game's systems and the logic behind the game's design.


Having started with the old AH Stalingragd many decades ago. I use the AI of a computer game as a tutorial and try to figure out why the computer does this or that.

In the demo I got the hang of the ground war, air war, production, transporting troops arround the Mediterranean, figured out how to do a amphibious assult, convoys, and resources easily. I was still working on optimum convoy routes. But the actual naval war was still a mystery.

I tend to agree with Les, some what. But with any AI made available by Matrix. I think you will need to either read the instructions, do some test games to get the hang of some options, or you will have to content yourself with the basic game even.

I would think a program, that could be edited by players, to allow some what of a scripting for the AI might solve the problem of a inteligent AI system. Some could be randomized start ups or triggerd situations. This would also allow the players test their offensive and defensive stratigies.

< Message edited by Mziln -- 3/3/2004 5:39:44 PM >

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 95
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/3/2004 8:02:20 PM   
Cheesehead

 

Posts: 406
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Appleton, Wisconsin
Status: offline
Compare the AH games 'Squad Leader' and 'Advanced Squad Leader.' SL had programmed rules that worked like a tutorial. You could play the first scenario 20 minutes after punching out the counters. With each additional scenario you learned new concepts and rules. This tutorial approach made a complicated game very easy to learn. ASL threw the book at you all at once. The rules (They called it a manual) didn't even come with the first module. They were an entity purchased separately. They modeled this manual after a U.S. Army field manual... and they were just as dry reading. I started in reading this manual, and after about 5 hours later I found something else to do. I never returned. The game has been up in my attic, untouched for the last fifteen or so years. I guess you have to be pretty motivated to learn a massive game like this without a tutorial. I hope CWiF takes the "small bites" tutorial approach.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Mziln)
Post #: 96
Worth repeating IMHO - 3/3/2004 10:39:03 PM   
Greyshaft


Posts: 2234
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
I know this was asked previously but it may have been in the pre-Crash Forum.

Can we get a printout facility that will give a 3-4 page summary of game status with mini-map? This will help us when plotting moves during business meetings, lectures, train trips etc when having your laptop displaying a CWiF map might be a bit too obvious.

(in reply to Cheesehead)
Post #: 97
RE: Worth repeating IMHO - 3/4/2004 12:37:17 AM   
Joe 98


Posts: 4032
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline
Instead of “rules” we should say “features”

Under the rules I am not permitted to drive a panzer division across the ocean. But there will be a feature that allows me to load it aboard ship and sail across the ocean.

So long as every feature is explained in the tutorial, I have no interest in the rules.

(in reply to Greyshaft)
Post #: 98
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/4/2004 7:56:00 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1716
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sigurd Jorsalfare

LAN play and a respectable AI.


LAN play is vital. Most people on this forum and on the EiA forum seem to disagree with me and apparently you also, however, I think that the major point of making a computer game is so that it can be played with other people the same way the boardgame is without the people having to be there. PBEM can be played with or without a computer game so why spend the extra money on a computer game when you can just use CyberBoard for free and do the EXACT SAME THING. Matrix doesn't seem to understand this for some reason, I don't know why.

I would love WiF to be a straight port with all of the "in flames" expansions and a new rule set. If, working with Rowland, Matrix discovers some new rules should be implemented or some things fixed, that's great, however, I don't trust Matrix with the ability to do these things on their own, considering what it seems they are doing to EiA.

(in reply to Sigurd Jorsalfare)
Post #: 99
Cyberboard - 3/4/2004 10:37:47 PM   
Greyshaft


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

PBEM can be played with or without a computer game so why spend the extra money on a computer game when you can just use CyberBoard for free and do the EXACT SAME THING.


Cyberboard is great for simple games but it doesn't provide:

* Hidden movement
* any form of calculation or controls for movement / combat / production gearing limits / anything at all
* combat resolution
* enforcing sequence of play ie reminding you that its now time for the Water Distribution Phase (or whatever)
* multiplayer complications... house rules might help but better if the game does it eg limits on transferring resource points between countries.

I'm not knocking Cyberboard but I think its out of its class here.

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 100
RE: Worth repeating IMHO - 3/4/2004 11:23:33 PM   
Mziln


Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

Instead of “rules” we should say “features”



Features are a known exploits that has been reported but not fixed.

Such as in Civilization (original version) where you could assign a task (raod, irigation, fort, railroad, etc.) to a Settler click on the Settler a second, third, etc. tome and complete the task on the same turn.

It's not a Bug its a Feature.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead

Compare the AH games 'Squad Leader' and 'Advanced Squad Leader.' SL had programmed rules that worked like a tutorial. You could play the first scenario 20 minutes after punching out the counters. With each additional scenario you learned new concepts and rules. This tutorial approach made a complicated game very easy to learn.


We had a tendency to skip the scenarios dump the box and figure out the rules as we played.

< Message edited by Mziln -- 3/4/2004 9:24:12 PM >

(in reply to Joe 98)
Post #: 101
RE: Worth repeating IMHO - 3/4/2004 11:40:05 PM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4393
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline
Squad Leader will likely always remain a good example of a great game, that was made more accurate at the expense of just making it more all encompassing of forces represented.

In the first box you got Russian Germans and Yanks. I personally think it would have sufficed to just add British Italians French Japanese etc with no additional complexity.
It would have been sufficient to add the additional boards and scenarios no more complicated than the first batch too.

But wargamers are never statisfied. We are our own worst enemy there heheh.

The first manual was proof positive a great game does not have to be complicated to be great. But complexity and revision are par for the course for all great games it seems.

Can anyone actually think of any great game that has been released, and never ruined by over fiddling with? They are not easy to recall in my opinion.

I want an all inclusive WiF, and odds are its a disease and affliction too :)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Mziln)
Post #: 102
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/7/2004 5:55:41 PM   
petracelli

 

Posts: 100
Joined: 10/28/2003
From: Herts UK
Status: offline
Hi

Have been playing WIF since the fourth edition and the current final one is by far and away the best. Would just like to see it put as it is on the computer.

I don;t agree with the suggestion about the possibility of Days of Decision as the third version of that is only about to be released and no doubt adding it to CWIF will simply slow up production.

It seems from how popular your site is that you make good quality computer wargames and the creation of computer WIF seems to be in safe hands. As a regular WIF player though simply want to play it as is via e-mail or online.

Look forward to you releasing it and EIA.

regards

Phil

(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 103
Variable Setup - 3/8/2004 10:20:48 PM   
Greyshaft


Posts: 2234
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
In the absence of a social life and in deference to the School of Random Thoughts I came up with the following idea:

Could players have an option that converts a proportion of their initial setup to Production Points and allows them to spend it as desired prior to the start of the game? So Germany could start the war with a Navy to rival the UK, but at the cost of having no Panzers or Air Force. OK...so that's a bit extreme. Maybe allow them to convert (say) 20% of their setup to Production Points. When this is combined with Fog of War then the tension level should go through the roof

(in reply to petracelli)
Post #: 104
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/9/2004 3:40:14 PM   
lexxan


Posts: 21
Joined: 2/12/2004
Status: offline
An "Intelligent" AI is (obviously) the key. I'm "A little skeptic" abt that because there are too many variables also for the state-of-art PCs so I would consider to make the game in 3 modes/options (all together in the game):
1st: No AI (just for the on-line and similar gaming)
2nd: With AI (even if the game would be too easy)

3rd: With AI/Campaigns (maybe branched) made by linked scenarios (with eventually a, i.e., bonus gained for the next scenario depending on the level of victory/defeat achieved). Reducing the number of units and turns it is more likely to have a challenging AI.
Abt all the other aspects of the game (starting date, unit size, ecc....)I would say: put as many options as possible to match the taste of as many players as possible (of course).

A last thing, Don't underestimate the graphic! Not for the real fans of strategic games but because of pure and simple marketing (if Matrix makes money, Matrix would make more games, We would have more fun !).

(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 105
RE: Worth repeating IMHO - 3/9/2004 5:29:08 PM   
Caranorn


Posts: 423
Joined: 8/31/2001
From: Luxembourg
Status: offline
I used to play Squad Leader with only the rules up to Cross of Iron (box two) but all the SL scenarios and all the maps (including ASL ones). I never needed the added complexity, or used small parts of later rule sections as optional rules. ASL on the other hand I never got very far, like many others it seems. I don't think I ever played a game of ASL though I own most of the early games (my brotehr bought them and I inherited his collection 6 years ago).

In general I like complex rules, but tend to play simple versions. WiF is probably one of the few games that I ever played with all add-ons and such. Though I remember I gradually retired some modules the last few games (Mech in Flames for instance) as it seemed to add further inbalances etc. and was no longer really needed in FE.

Marc aka Caran...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

Squad Leader will likely always remain a good example of a great game, that was made more accurate at the expense of just making it more all encompassing of forces represented.

In the first box you got Russian Germans and Yanks. I personally think it would have sufficed to just add British Italians French Japanese etc with no additional complexity.
It would have been sufficient to add the additional boards and scenarios no more complicated than the first batch too.

But wargamers are never statisfied. We are our own worst enemy there heheh.

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 106
RE: Variable Setup - 3/9/2004 5:35:13 PM   
Caranorn


Posts: 423
Joined: 8/31/2001
From: Luxembourg
Status: offline
You should be able to do that in the editor. But don't expect me to ever play that kind of scenario;-) Well at least not I you have Germany field several Graf Spees, Bismarks and upgraded Bismarks:-) Germany simply had no capacity to field a larger navy by 1939. The only option I expect would have been buying ships abroad. And there I expect only Italy would have been an option, or maybe the Soviet build program. As it is, WiF already gives non naval powers too much leeway right now. Naval industries simply aren't that flexible andyou definitelly can't build a battleship in a tank factory.

But the fact that I would not play that kind of game does not mean I'd be in any way opposed to others playing such fantasy games.

Marc aka Caran...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

In the absence of a social life and in deference to the School of Random Thoughts I came up with the following idea:

Could players have an option that converts a proportion of their initial setup to Production Points and allows them to spend it as desired prior to the start of the game? So Germany could start the war with a Navy to rival the UK, but at the cost of having no Panzers or Air Force. OK...so that's a bit extreme. Maybe allow them to convert (say) 20% of their setup to Production Points. When this is combined with Fog of War then the tension level should go through the roof

(in reply to Greyshaft)
Post #: 107
RE: Cyberboard - 3/9/2004 9:43:12 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1716
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

quote:

PBEM can be played with or without a computer game so why spend the extra money on a computer game when you can just use CyberBoard for free and do the EXACT SAME THING.


Cyberboard is great for simple games but it doesn't provide:

* Hidden movement
* any form of calculation or controls for movement / combat / production gearing limits / anything at all
* combat resolution
* enforcing sequence of play ie reminding you that its now time for the Water Distribution Phase (or whatever)
* multiplayer complications... house rules might help but better if the game does it eg limits on transferring resource points between countries.

I'm not knocking Cyberboard but I think its out of its class here.


All of this is true, but consider this: CYBERBOARD IS FREE!! So with very little extra effort on your part, you can play WiF PBEM for free, or you can pay what is probably going to be about $60 to do the EXACT SAME THING, but just be lazy doing it.

My point: LAN and INTERNET PLAY is vital. Real Time play is so much more complex, interesting, exciting, and down right MUCH MORE FUN.

< Message edited by NeverMan -- 3/9/2004 7:44:22 PM >

(in reply to Greyshaft)
Post #: 108
RE: Variable Setup - 3/10/2004 1:46:41 AM   
Mziln


Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

In the absence of a social life and in deference to the School of Random Thoughts I came up with the following idea:

Could players have an option that converts a proportion of their initial setup to Production Points and allows them to spend it as desired prior to the start of the game? So Germany could start the war with a Navy to rival the UK, but at the cost of having no Panzers or Air Force. OK...so that's a bit extreme. Maybe allow them to convert (say) 20% of their setup to Production Points. When this is combined with Fog of War then the tension level should go through the roof


IMO this would require a pre-war campaign scenario (given the number of treaties that would be violated). It could not take place until the WW I armistice had been scrapped. This would give the other powers a option to also change their production. Yes, "the tension level should go through the roof "



quote:

ORIGINAL: lexxan

3rd: With AI/Campaigns (maybe branched) made by linked scenarios (with eventually a, i.e., bonus gained for the next scenario depending on the level of victory/defeat achieved). Reducing the number of units and turns it is more likely to have a challenging AI.
Abt all the other aspects of the game (starting date, unit size, ecc....)I would say: put as many options as possible to match the taste of as many players as possible (of course).



Only if one is of the scenarios covers the full war from Germany's invasion of Poland in September 1939 until the atomic bombs of August 1945. with the extended game option.

I don't care for linked scenarios.

(in reply to Greyshaft)
Post #: 109
RE: Variable Setup - 3/11/2004 9:22:59 AM   
macgregor


Posts: 968
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline
I agree the computer version can save quite a bit of calculation time by displaying available air/sea/art units for support.To the person who suggested retaining the boardgame maps with the 3 different scales: I'm afraid they've already been done away with them,and good riddance if you ask me.If but for the simple fact that you cant make accurate units for one scale and then expect it to some how transcend to the other.That's bush league! ADG broke ground by finding creative ways to increase the accuracy of the portrayal in as succinct a way as possible and it seems they've consistently maintained that as their goal.It seems that matrix is getting all the right people."With every man a genius...how can we lose?"To the guys all feklempt over the fact that they might not release it right away with an AI:Always with the negative threads! It's a mother beautiful AI,and it's gonna be there.With thousands of people on the internet,surely more adept at simulating a human player than a computer looking for opponents,and you still prefer to sit alone with your computer playing a game for 6 months that no one else cares about,and yet you are more sociable with people on this post than I.It does appear inconsistent.To each his own I guess.You buy...therefor you are.

< Message edited by macgregor -- 3/11/2004 7:31:12 AM >

(in reply to Mziln)
Post #: 110
Asynchronous gameplay - 3/11/2004 10:32:13 PM   
Greyshaft


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

ORIGINAL: macgregor
might not release it right away with an AI:Always with the negative threads! It's a mother beautiful AI,and it's gonna be there.With thousands of people on the internet,surely more adept at simulating a human player than a computer looking for opponents,and you still prefer to sit alone with your computer playing a game for 6 months that no one else cares about...


Not exactly.

The problem is that my gaming time is quite random. I can predict 'x' hours of gaming per week but not always on a predicatable schedule.
Honey, can you take out the garbage?
Honey, your Boss called and wants you to ring into the office for a conference call with the UK.
Honey, I missed you... hmmmm.... that's nice...


So agreeing to log on at 6pm every Thursday isn't always achievable. Besides all that, CWiF is asychronous. I have my go while you sit around doing nothing (apart from air/naval intercepts) then you have your go while I sit around doing nothing. Boring! Much better to get in an hour of fighting against the AI which will probably take a shorter time to finish its move than a Wetware player.

PBEM is also promising.

(in reply to macgregor)
Post #: 111
War History Log - 3/11/2004 11:13:39 PM   
Diamond

 

Posts: 5
Joined: 10/30/2003
Status: offline
One feature I would like to see in a game is a war history log - tracking all events/turns so that the game can be reviewed etc. Great for learning, analysing games, writing game reports as well as for PBEM.

(in reply to Joe 98)
Post #: 112
RE: War History Log - 3/11/2004 11:48:55 PM   
Greyshaft


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

ORIGINAL: Diamond

One feature I would like to see in a game is a war history log - tracking all events/turns so that the game can be reviewed etc. Great for learning, analysing games, writing game reports as well as for PBEM.


...especially if it's graphical. The black shadow of the Nazis spreading across Europe with little stars (blue for air and green for land?) showing where attacks occured. If this is combined side-by-side with a constantly updated graph showing relative strengths for each nation then it would show where the turning points were in the war.

(in reply to Diamond)
Post #: 113
RE: War History Log - 3/12/2004 5:56:30 AM   
amwild

 

Posts: 105
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Diamond

One feature I would like to see in a game is a war history log - tracking all events/turns so that the game can be reviewed etc. Great for learning, analysing games, writing game reports as well as for PBEM.


I recall something like this in the original Civilization, where the entire campaign could be replayed, and statistics were kept for a number of factors such as population, military strength and technological advancement.

I suggested full game logging earlier in this thread: this should be a relatively easily implemented use of such data. However, for PBEM, the entire log may be a bit big; only the data required for the player's move in the current turn need be sent, and added to the local logs if desired, in order to keep down the size of the e-mails.

(in reply to Diamond)
Post #: 114
RE: War History Log - 3/12/2004 6:06:17 AM   
pasternakski


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

< Message edited by pasternakski -- 5/29/2004 12:04:02 AM >


_____________________________

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 #: 115
RE: War History Log - 3/12/2004 8:26:34 AM   
Greyshaft


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

What is the color of the sky on your world?


uh... blue... why do you ask?

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 116
RE: War History Log - 3/17/2004 1:12:53 AM   
macgregor


Posts: 968
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline
A warlog history sounds like a good idea.I have an idea.Since making a pbem version will undoubtedly require some AI, (air/nav combat res) perhaps some thought could be given to Leaders in Flames in which each leader not only brings special die roll modifications, but AI movement as well.They'll each have distinct ways of handling air/nav combat res. Leaders could be given objectives to attack or defend.Notwithstanding placement (and construction)of reinforcements(which could probably be scripted),it might make for an interesting AI.AI is not for me though.I don't want sit there helplessly watching a replay of the air/nav combat res watching a bad call by my AI leader.

< Message edited by macgregor -- 3/16/2004 11:14:01 PM >

(in reply to Greyshaft)
Post #: 117
WEGO the best way - 3/19/2004 5:52:06 PM   
EricLarsen

 

Posts: 458
Joined: 7/9/2002
From: Salinas, CA Raider Nation
Status: offline
David,
I'd like to see computer WiF be as close to the original boardgame as possible, including the Ships & Planes and any other add ons built in to give the game more historical flavor rather than generic designations. The only thing I'd like to see changed is the player movement/combat so that it is not IGO-UGO, but WEGO where both players plot their moves and then the computer shakes out the results for us. I just won't buy a game that is IGO-UGO anymore as that system always lead to unrealistic play. While IGO-UGO was necessary for boardgames, computer games make that system obsolete since they can handle WEGO so well.
Eric

(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 118
RE: WEGO the best way - 3/20/2004 5:06:26 PM   
amwild

 

Posts: 105
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EricLarsen

David,
I'd like to see computer WiF be as close to the original boardgame as possible, including the Ships & Planes and any other add ons built in to give the game more historical flavor rather than generic designations. The only thing I'd like to see changed is the player movement/combat so that it is not IGO-UGO, but WEGO where both players plot their moves and then the computer shakes out the results for us. I just won't buy a game that is IGO-UGO anymore as that system always lead to unrealistic play. While IGO-UGO was necessary for boardgames, computer games make that system obsolete since they can handle WEGO so well.
Eric


I recall from the (admittedly few) times I have played WiF that the IGO-UGO system is an integral part of the game, and in fact is part of the initiative system - the player that gets to move first whenever the question of initiative rolls arises effectively limits the actions that the opponent can take by the zones of control exerted by their pieces on the board. That is what initiative means: reacting to the enemy or making the enemy react to you. What is unrealistic about that?

Admittedly, some aspects of the game could be automated if the players choose, but if CWiF is made into a WEGO game, it just isn't WiF any more.

(in reply to EricLarsen)
Post #: 119
RE: WEGO the best way - 3/20/2004 5:53:27 PM   
pasternakski


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

< Message edited by pasternakski -- 5/29/2004 12:04:44 AM >


_____________________________

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 amwild)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   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

0.121