World in Flames

[Honch]

After reading the Matrix forums it is conceivable that "World in Flames" will be ready in late 2008. (I would expect 2009 though)

I know that some of you will say that they will be completely different games, but, when it comes to my strategic, turn based, World War Two dollar, I have to give serious consideration to WIF. (And I would rather support SC)

Ignoring the obvious differences of tiles vs hexes and stacking vs no stacking, what does SC3 need to realistically compete with a computer based WIF?

My thoughts as to what Hubert MUST make a priority:

1. A grand strategic map with either the European theatre on a division level scale (Like CEAW) and/or a world map on a corps level scale.

2. An atomic bomb unit.

3. The ability to amphibious assault tiles with units in them. (eg. Malta, Gibralter, coastal cities)

4. Battleship and Cruiser surface raiders.

5. Garrison/Militia unit. (Like CEAW)

6. Cavalry unit.

7. Marine unit.

8. Leaders attached to units instead of just naming HQ units after them. (Like CEAW)

9. Oil consumption. (Like CEAW)

What else am I missing?

[SeaMonkey]

How about an underlying communication/supply network, that's subject to interruptions.

Sort of like the convoy routes now except the owning player can override the automatic creation of the net and place emphasis to certain locals.

[Gdtrfb]

How about a supply unit instead of HQ being used as this...and the HQ can be attached to say 5-8 units depending on ability

also the ability for surface ships to intercept convoys

slighty bigger map would be cool...

ability to forify cities as the player/ai

ability to support partisans in enemy lands..OSS/ABWEHR

use of sabotage on enemy oil/resource/ports

just a thought might not be good tho!!

[william bowen]

Honch I agree with everything you are saying in your post, adding from my view point that two of the most important rules that can be implemented into a good game are zones of control and resupply into places that really can't happen in reality [i know just a game] Maybe WAW is too vast to implement those kind of rules I will let smarter people than I am figure that one out. I have read and reread the rules and studied the maps of WIF and they are quite good, this is a game at least three years in the making with maybe another year to go. These are two entirely different games to me, one is a great beer and pretzels game [WAW, not a dig] and the other is a very deep and complicated game that may be too hard for the average player meaning me, some of the greatest board games ever made sit on the shelf gathering dust because they are superbly done but are too difficult to play.

Willy

[Moonslayer]

Ignoring the obvious differences of tiles vs hexes and stacking vs no stacking, what does SC3 [smile] need to realistically compete with a computer based WIF?

Absolutely nothing. There is no competition as they are scratching completely different itches imho. I would have both!

[The K Man]

Agree with some items, and not on others.

1. A larger world map would be great. I tried playing the world map on SC2, but since I'm use to the scale of the regular SC2/WAW (Fall Weiss), the map is much to small for my liking.

2. A-bomb. I have no desire for this at this point for a WW2 game. I guess it depends on how its done. All I can visualize is people just researching this right off the bat, and with luck as it can be, Germany using it in 1942 on Russia. Game over...No thanks...

3. Amphib. Since I haven't really had a need for this in SC2 or WAW, it doesn't matter either way. If the maps are bigger, that could take care of this. I'm fine with the current system. May be more of a factor with Japan involved in the game.

4. Surface raiders are nice, but if your going to have them, then maybe you should be able to control and change the convoy routes. You know the allies didn't use the same route all the time.

5. Garrison unit. Nice to have if the map is much bigger, but I think with the current WAW, there would be too many units on the "board." One realistic problem you do have as Germany now is manpower shortages with all the Russian and French cities to occupy, if you not winning the war.

6. Cavalry Unit. Like to have for the larger scale campaigns. Haven't missed it though for Fall Weiss...

7. Marine unit. To go along with the special forces unit. Different attributes?

8. ? HQ's. Probably fine with current system, but haven't seen/played CEAW to compare. Current system is pretty simple and easy to use.

9. Oil. Would be nice to factor that in separately, but then you probably have to do other resources such as iron, coal, etc...How complicated/detailed do we want to get is the question.

I agree with Bowen also regarding "if its too complicated" it may not get played as much. I don't want to read a text book to play a game. (I don't mind going to the text book when u have question as the game goes along.) One past game that comes to mind as confusing and complicated and not fun to play was Grisby's World at War.

[xwormwood]

Originally posted by Honch:

What else am I missing?

As much as i like a good discussion i feel the urge to write

you missed the StratCom Design Challenge.

And oh, yes: Sorry!

[arado234]

If SC3 were made and all these suggestions were included then it would definitely be a totaly different game than any of the SC2 games.

If this game were to be made I would like to see armour have the ability to exploit like in

Third Reich.

As far as adding in resources for a direct effect on the game,that would be real hard to do and still make the game winnable for Germany .Allied industrial might is just to much.I think SC2 has done a excellent job in the way it is now without complicating things to much.

As far as the A bomb goes just imagine if both sides got them about the same time:KABOOM.No more world.

[SeaMonkey]

I'm with the current consensus, KISS.

A-bomb is a nonissue, we have them today, we don't use them. WW2 was conventional, let's keep it that way.

Exploitation necessary, that's that move->attack->move->attack condition until all APs are expended. That means the click off function doesn't negate the remaining APs.

All coastal tiles that are invadeable should have a special tile adjacent to them (looks like water with a beach) that only units in amphibious mode can enter and change into assault mode.

With the additional APs the unit has, it must move into a land tile before the turn is ended or guess what? Do you think you might be discretionary, faced with the units' elimination? Better have some good recon or you will pay the price, remember Tarawa, specifically Betio.

If we're going to include the Pacific simulation you must have some kind of supply net. ZoCs could work provided that there are some specifically designed rules for their interruption that are dependent upon constant naval patrolling.

This requires some in depth thought and may be very hard for an AI to manage, once again KISS.

Bottom line, I don't want SC to be WiF, I want to finish a game, PBEM, in a reasonable amount of time. Frankly MWiF looks to be on par with WitP, and we all know what a monster that game is.

[Liam]

May I inquire is it anything like other Hexagon WW2 games. I never got as far as WIF board game. Concerned it will be boring... I wrote on the forum there they said there were some walk throughs and the learning curb is about 20 hours.

[pzgndr]

1. A grand strategic map with either the European theatre on a division level scale (Like CEAW)

I keep seeing this and wonder. Firstly, CEAW is NOT division scale; it's corps level. Something more along the lines of Computer War in Europe 2 being developed by Decision Games is more applicable as a division-level game.

Unfortunately CWIE will not have AI. It would be really cool if Decision Games would work with Hubert to implement his AI package. :cool:

[SeaMonkey]

A grand suggestion Bill.

From what I hear HC has the foremost AI for human competition of any PC wargame.

Are there really any rivals?

[william bowen]

Honch I mentioned ZOC's for waw global is this a nono because of the scale of waw. And I still believe that a unit that is surrounded even on a seaside hex with combat units and powerful naval forces adjacent cannot be resupplied, for goodness sake can't we have a little realism once in a while?

Willy

[arado234]

I tend to agree with willaim bowen.In some cases it would be possible to sneak in bare essentials but overall if units are surrounded then they shouldnt be able to be resupplied.Perhaps it could be like Third Reich where if a unit(s) is surrounded and isnt relieved within a certian amount of turns(Third Reich turns are one month)then the unit(s) are wiped out.

[william bowen]

Originally posted by arado234:

I tend to agree with willaim bowen.In some cases it would be possible to sneak in bare essentials but overall if units are surrounded then they shouldnt be able to be resupplied.Perhaps it could be like Third Reich where if a unit(s) is surrounded and isnt relieved within a certian amount of turns(Third Reich turns are one month)then the unit(s) are wiped out.

TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT ONE

WILLY

[Retributar]

QUOTE by: Honch

3. The ability to amphibious assault tiles with units in them. (eg. Malta, Gibralter, coastal cities).

I say!, what a GREAT-IDEA!,...however...only MARINE-UNIT'S should be the only one's to have this capability!.

If implemented!,...then finally...perhap's the creation of a 'War In The Pacific' game could be created!. Not only that, but troop transport convoy's should not be going it alone, subject to whole-sale slaughter, but should be escorted by 'Air-Craft-Carrier' Battlegroup's or something to help ensure their survivability!.

[Hubert Cater]

Hey Honch,

Was just reading your list and I am a little confused on #8. What exactly is the difference?

[Timskorn]

@Honch

1. World map to match scale of Fall Weiss is a good idea.

2. A-bomb: unnecessary.

3. Definitely a good idea, which would likely combine with #7 (Marines).

4. Not sure if it's a big issue or not. Imagine having the ability in SC2. How often would the Kriegsmarine be out in the Atlantic to disrupt shipping lanes? If they're already out there, chances are their subs are too.

5. I like the idea, but am against having the ability to produce lots of cheap, replaceable units that could simply be used to clog the map and force an opponent to spend months simply chewing through a bottleneck.

6. Not necessary for the scale, IMO.

7. Certainly a welcome addition for a Pacific theater, and also for the ability to assault tiles from sea.

8. Haven't played CEAW, but is this similar to HOI where you create a group of units and then attach a leader to them? I like seeing the HQ units and they also act like supply wagons, which the new way would alter how that system works entirely.

9. I'm not a fan of adding oil. If someone can propose a fun way of implementing it, and not because it was a historical necessity (can anyone say slippery slope?), I'm sure everyone would love to hear it. The magic of SC, if anyone hasn't noticed, is MPP's. It represents everything from manpower to ball bearings to oil, coal and steel. You only get so much and can only do so much with it. MPP's, in itself, is the limiting factor on what you can build, research, reinforce, use diplomacy, etc. If you have a lot then you can afford to buy and reinforce more expensive units like level 5 tanks. Naturally, when you're running short, you're going to get cheaper stuff. MPP's abstacts all of those minutae so we don't have to adjust sliders or production values, or be forced to fight over specific resources in the same location every game to have a chance at winning. I'm not saying this way can't be done, but it changes the core design of the SC series entirely which has always been "easy to learn but difficult to master."

[Honch]

Great discussion so far guys!

1. I think that there is a concensus on the need for a Fall Weiss corps/division level and World Map corps level scale. (You're right PZRGDR, CEAW is really just a Corps level map, but it is a better scale than SC2). Your map is perfect for A3R fans.

2. Everyone has different views on atomic bomb, marine and garrison units. But to provide them and then give the option of turning their availablity on or off would be great!

3. If you have played CEAW then you know that one of its few nice options, besides the map scale and tactical commanders, are the oil and manpower features.

In response to Hubert (who reads all of these posts, now that's support!), CEAW (and WIF) uses a system of being able to "pin" a tactical commander onto an armour or infantry unit (naval and air would be great as well) and use his abilities for that unit only. For example, "Patton" and his additional exploitation abilities could be tacked onto the US 3rd Army, "Paulus" and his supply benefits onto the German 6th Army or "Student" and his paratroop attack benefits onto the German FSJ etc. This is a great method for adding the flavour of using "tactical" commanders. These commanders can be killed or put out of action for several turns during combat and can be switched to different commanders to add different abilities to units when needed.

I still beleive that SC2 type HQ units are good ideas as they represent general theatre level command and supply such as "Eisenhower", "Zhukov" or "Army Group North" etc.

[Gdtrfb]

Just wanting to add my 2 cents (tho in my state of mind might be only 1/2 cent)we must be careful not to fix this game til its broke!

i agree that some things like surface ships should be allowed to attack convoys...marine units imo a must for pacific theatre/US assault on red europe...and units that are surrounded should say only be able to reinforce 50% of their losses per turn i.e if an infantry unit in Kiev is attacked and is reduced from 10 to 1 then next turn only can be reinforced to 5 and no more representing non lethal wounds

also Mpp's are agreat way to keep this game from becoming way to micromanaged....if you want to play civ go play civ...just my opinion and love this game and the fact that its FUN and don't take like 3 weeks to play a game yes its not historicly 100%correct but if it was it would be no fun to play as the Allies would win every single time......anyhoo just my thoughts and mindless ramblings....Great Job Mr Cater and Crew!!!!!!

[SeaMonkey]

Perhaps we should allow a unit to tranfer a portion of its current supply to an adjacent unit.

Let's say naval units have to retain at least one supply point to move each turn a defined number of sea tiles. Like you have 5 supply you move 50% of the unit's AP that turn to simulate discretionary use...rationing, cruising at good gas mileage.

Every turn at sea costs a naval unit, transports and amphibs included, one supply point(like it is now). Additional actions like bombarding, airstrikes, disembarking, or assaulting requires an additional supply point expenditure, just like when subs raid.

I guess when you think about it, certain naval units will have special requirements of supply expenditure depending on their historical consuming characteristics. Obviously Subs don't use as much as CVs but you could make a case for a CV group having a greater capacity to carry supplies.

So maybe its a wash, but then again perhaps Subs need a special rule, a limited transfer ability.

Anyway, if a naval unit like a BB, CV, Ca, DD, and even a SS, as the Japanese used, can get to an isolated base with some extra supply(think...escorted transports or limited capacity) points....why can't they give a little!

Can't give them all, but some! choices...choices... choices. :cool:

Now wouldn't that make a case for having a network of connected bases for power projection across the wide expanses of like an ocean?

Sure...you can still make a "Shangri-La" like attack, but you'll know your at the end of that operational shoestring with supplies and perhaps a sitting duck. :eek:

[Honch]

I think that limited "at sea supply" is a good idea in some fashion as well as allowing BBs and CAs to surface raid convoy routes. Otherwise, why would you want to send the Bismarck into the Atlantic at all?

I tried to simulate this in my old MOD using scripts and will probably put it in again. If an Axis BB or CA occupies Brest, St.Nazaire, Cherbourg or Bordeaux (or Bilbao) then there is a % chance of Liverpool taking an MP hit each turn.

If one occupies Bergen or Trondheim then same for Archangel when USSR is at war.

I also tried to simultae at sea supply by adding Montevideo as an Axis supply base but its not realistic enough. (You know me, its all about realism)

[SeaMonkey]

I like it Honch...good improvisation.

[Gdtrfb]

Good idea as it seems the RN was petrified of Bismark/Tirpitz gettin in the convoy lanes ....also british subs sank like 450,000 tonnes of axis shipping in the med....is there a way to have this put in ...perhaps an Axis convoy from Tripoli to Italy....i dont know just rambling....or maybe a random script when transporting troops across from Italy?...anyhoo just some thoughts might not be good ones tho...

keep up the kickass work!!!

[Scook]

I have been thinking about WiF, quite a bit. I met Harry Rowland, and got to playtest V 1.0, and 3.0. I will say, the most fun I had was with the very first, original V1.0. The game had balance, and no one had extra units just to throw around. I have a feeling if they try to include XXXX of Flames, it will be a fiasco, even for pvp, as one impulse of a turn could take an hour, and really be unplayable.

Kneejerk reactions to other games can hurt what is something really good, and can also make it into something it is not. SC2 is not WiF, nor CEAW, but it is SC2. Expand and grow on that concept. Make a new game instead of turning SC2 into something it is not.