I don't expect anyone to agree buuuuuut

[sogard]

I have been playing with Computer WORLD IN FLAMES (Computer WiF) for the last couple of years and regularily play WORLD IN FLAMES (the board game) with a gaming group. Computer WiF is a remarkably good port of the game to the computer. Instead of the interface being, clunky, I think it is a rather elegant solution to a difficult game problem. Many features in Computer WiF are very well done. In short, I disagree with the comments about Computer WiF that have been made here. I really have to wonder how much time the author of these really has spent playing because they do not track with my experience.

Granted, Computer WiF is at the other end of the scale when compared to STRATEGIC COMMAND. But, in their way, both programs do what was intended very well. If you want detail, complexity and have lots of time, Computer WiF will do. If you want the big picture, but, only of the European theater, the STRATEGIC COMMAND may work. What is true about both Computer WiF and STRATEGIC COMMAND is that they are both serious wargames and that is the criteria, by which, I would judge any game with a historical subject.

[arax3]

I was about 14 or so, taking some time off from playing baseball or basketball from dawn to dusk (or watching American Bandstand) I wandered into the toy section of a department store. I saw a blue and white box with a civil war cannon of the front offering me a chance to re-write history (my favorite subect) and my knees buckeled. I could not sleep hardly until I had earned enough money to buy it. Of course, it was AH's gETTYSBURG game! I bought every game they made. In law school, I save Panzerblitz in the bookstore during finals! I almost flunked out!! CMBO is Panzerblitz, squad leader, etc. on computer and rather than fight with people over line of sight rules . ... Well, my wife would kill to have not had me see that blue and white box. A3

[blackbellamy]

"I really have to wonder how much time the author of these really has spent playing..."

Why? Would that be an indication that I would be qualified to comment on an amateurish, confusing, and frustrating interface?

Perhaps if I mention that I am a professional with years of experience testing user interfaces in particular?

Users should not have to "get used" to an interface. They should not have to suffer for the lack of effort in that area, just because all the mechanics and rules are in there. A lot of developers fall into that trap unfortunately - they concentrate on gameplay and implementing all their rules, and meanwhile the users are looking at crappy graphics, nonsensical element placement, scrolling difficulties, tiny buttons, hard to read text, etc.

I am a big fan of WiF. Unfortunately I will be staying far, far away from CWiF. I applaud the effort, but the developer spent approx 5% of his resources on the interface, then dashed off to make sure the convoy routes are being properly set.

I challenge anyone here to download CWiF, then go to http://www.the-underdogs.org and see if they can find a crappier wargame interface from any wargame published since 1985.

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

Well I for one have to come clean and say I have only used the demo once. But I didn't get a lot out of it at that time.

I will say though, I have rarely expected a board game to become a computer game though.

I would like to play actual ASL on the computer, actual A3R would be nice too. I would think actual WiF would be a boon, or maybe Pacific War.

But in the case of board games that I actually already own, a computer version has to do it better and easier to be worth it. I need more than the convenience of it being on the computer and not on the table (because frankly I have a room dedicated to wargaming).

I am not overly dedicated to Pbem games. I am happy to play an intentionally designed for computer wargame that has no past connection with a boardgame to some extent.

[Norse]

Originally posted by blackbellamy:

Perhaps if I mention that I am a professional with years of experience testing user interfaces in particular?

Yes, that would be a good idea. Now go ahead and mention it (you asked, I answered)

[iolo]

WiF

Worst. Interface. Ever.

The game does show a lot of promise but frankly it would be easier to use if they implemented a command-line version.

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

Of course if 1000 people say the world is flat and even can point out this obvious truth in their favourite book we all know it's round eh.

Same goes with games to some extent.

I see people makes some really comical claims, but reality fortunately is not subject to a democratic vote.

Still it is not always easy to know if we are not just one of those 1000 idiots eh.

[Brian Rock]

Originally posted by Agua:

[QB] It's difficult with communication over the internet to discern the tone underlying a communication. I'm not insulted at all by your assesment, but I think that a) you don't have a good handle on the depth of Combat Mission; and / or you haven't spent enough time in the CM forums to provide you with an informed approximation of the background and likes of CM fans.

QB]

I wanted to write something like this, but Agua just said it so much better.

I think you'd find CM is too slow for many (most?) RTS and FPS players - you have to plan, and your control is far more limited than in the typical RTS of FPS. There have been more than a few threads where someone comes in calling for CM to be made into a RTS, and the overwhelming response is a thundering "NO!". Me included.

I also understand your RTS-slagging, given the amount of mediocre me-too-ness in so many of them. Even so, there are some surprising gems out there. If you like modern combat, there's a demo just out for ATF (Armored Task Force) over at shrapnel.com. This one's written by Capt Pat Proctor, and is a hard core military simulation real-time game.

[Plugged because you can't have too many good wargames...]

[iolo]

Thanks for the Armored Tank Force link, it looks interesting.

There's also an important lesson for this forum in particular -- it illustrates what can happen when too many research and 'improvement' ideas get added to a game:

Armored Tank Force screenshot

Tanks with freakin' lasers!!

[Brian Rock]

LOL.

It does look rather like a laser - trust me, it's good old fashioned ballistic weaponry.

[J Wagner]

Perhaps it's the screen resolution but where is this battle taking place, TRON?....actually it reminds me of AH Tobruk with its individual unit counters.....

[Brian Rock]

The ATF demo battle is at the NTC in Death Valley. The map is a digitised version of the real NTC.

Also, the game resolves down to the individual vehicle level, but you can play at higher command levels if you choose. For example, you can set the map to show units as platoons or even companies for larger engagements. As a devout non-micromanager I think this is just wunnerful.

[jmbunnelle]

Yeah, the WiF demo is a mess. When is the game scheduled for final release? And have they done the AI yet? The non-AI version is way overdue if memory serves. The longer they put it off, the less enthusiasm they'll be, unless they're redesigning the interface. I second what the other poster said about the restricted view. It's very hard to get the feeling for the big picture.

I really love the boardgame, although not as much as Advanced Third Reich or Totaler Krieg. Some may find them functional, but I think WiF's maps are horribly busy and difficult to stare at for any length of time.

[sogard]

The reason why WORLD IN FLAMES (WiF) is a game I play on a regular basis and not ADVANCED THIRD REICH or TOTALER KRIEG is because only in WiF do you see World War II in a global context. The entire war unfolds before your eyes on a global scale. It is this holistic presentation that blows the competition away.

Computer WiF is an attempt to bring this great game to the computer. I, personally, could care less if they ever implement an AI for it. Just look at how the AI performs in STRATEGIC COMMAND and you will understand why. WiF will present the AI with many more decisions and complications. All I expect from an AI is something that helps teach me how to play the game in an enjoyable manner. When I want real competition; I need hotseat or tcp/ip enabled so that the computer I am playing against is found in another human's brain.

It has always fascinated me that many computer gamers do not care much for hotseat or tcp/ip gaming. They only judge a computer game by whether or not they can play it solo against a computer AI. I prefer not to see a computer AI distort a historical game by its cheats or short cuts. I can quibble with the way the design of STRATEGIC COMMAND does this or that; but, the single element lacking at the moment is the ability to play tcp/ip.

The support so far behind STRATEGIC COMMAND is most impressive and I hope all the feed back and replays (actually continued play testing by gamers) are incorporated into the game or the next game that pops out from the mind of STRATEGIC COMMAND's creator. I hope that STRATEGIC COMMAND is the beginning of a whole series of games of similar quality.

[iolo]

Gamers have come to rightfully expect decent AI in a game. With literally thousands of published papers and articles on proven game AI techniques, there is really no excuse.

SC's AI is amazingly solid, which is what makes its relatively few weak spots stand out.

Games that release with weak AI are shooting themselves in the foot. AI isn't meant to be a tutorial mode, it should be challenging -without handicaps- for at least a little while.

And I agree that multiplayer support is even more important. That's where the real fun is to be had in games. I've always maintained that SC limited its potential by releasing in such a manner.

Imagine SC in Gamespy or MSNZone? With TCP/IP implemented it's actually easy to setup. Sigh...

[jmbunnelle]

Originally posted by sogard:

It has always fascinated me that many computer gamers do not care much for hotseat or tcp/ip gaming. They only judge a computer game by whether or not they can play it solo against a computer AI.

I know the AI in any game will have horrible shortcomings but you learn to deal with it and have fun anyway. I'm very busy and just cannot coordinate multiplayer, at least not without leaving someone impatient and in the lurch. I play whenever I can squeeze in ten minutes here, thirty minutes there. I don't like the pressure of knowing someone is relying on me to continue playing. I've tried it and I simply don't enjoy it. If playing against people, I need the face-to-face contact and social interaction, and anything else just can't sustain my level of interest.

As far as computer strategy gamers go, I might be in the minority but inclusion of the AI gives me the opportunity to continue wargaming as a working adult who no longer has the two or three friends down the street who can pop over for an afternoon of Third Reich, Civilization (Avalon Hill's, not Sid's), or Axis & Allies. These lazy bastards are now scattered all over the place, all of them as busy as I am, and coordinating anything with them is a logistical nightmare. So if it weren't for the great contributions by the teams behind East Front 2, West Front, Operational Art of War, Panzer General, Combat Mission, and Strategic Command, I'd have given up wargaming long ago.

Of course, I still have War In Europe in my closet just in case said lazy bastards show up unexpectedly one afternoon for one final crap-kicking.