Slitherine

quote:

1 - Would you agree that deciding which units to scrap is difficult? That it requires a thorough understanding of each unit's strengths and weaknesses in various combat circumstances? That it requires you to anticipate which units you are going to want to build over the course of the war? That you know what additional units are going to be added to your force pools in the coming years? That you anticipate what kind of war the enemy is going to engage in: land, naval, or air?

This is the very first decision a player is asked to make in WIF and it requires the player to have an enormous amount of knowledge to make it intelligently. It is like asking a chess player to decide whether he is going to castle long or short and wehther he is going to fiancetto the corresponding bishop, before he is allowed to move a piece. If that doesn't make sense, that's precisely my point.

What I expect to do if the player does not select Scrap Units, is to have the AI Assistant make those decisions for the player. From the novice player's point of view, no scrapping of units is ever mentioned or discussed. It simply goes on behind the scenes.

quote:

2 - Yes.

quote:

3 - Yes, I consider this a standard rule and that there is no need for it to be mentioned in the context of optional rules. I do take exception to the phrase ".. so it must be included in MWiF." ".. should be included ..." is a better.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


1 - Would you agree that deciding which units to scrap is difficult? That it requires a thorough understanding of each unit's strengths and weaknesses in various combat circumstances? That it requires you to anticipate which units you are going to want to build over the course of the war? That you know what additional units are going to be added to your force pools in the coming years? That you anticipate what kind of war the enemy is going to engage in: land, naval, or air?

This is the very first decision a player is asked to make in WIF and it requires the player to have an enormous amount of knowledge to make it intelligently. It is like asking a chess player to decide whether he is going to castle long or short and wehther he is going to fiancetto the corresponding bishop, before he is allowed to move a piece. If that doesn't make sense, that's precisely my point.

What I expect to do if the player does not select Scrap Units, is to have the AI Assistant make those decisions for the player. From the novice player's point of view, no scrapping of units is ever mentioned or discussed. It simply goes on behind the scenes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Pro Axis Options :
7 Engineers
14 Synthetic Oil Plants
20 Surprised ZoCs **
24 Frogmen
25 SCS Transport
36 Large ATRs
39 Blitz Bonus **
40 Chinese Attack Weakness
42 Allied Combat Friction
51 En-route Aircraft Interception
59 Flying Bombs
60 Kamikazes
67 City Based Volunteers **

** my own judgement, because this option did not exist when the poll was conducted.

Note : Here are the Poll author's notes about how it was done (I do not remember the name of the author) :
*****************************************************
The numerical ratings are on a scale of 1 to 5. Rules with low values favor Axis and rules with high values favor the Allies.
I took the ratings, threw out one highest and one lowest and divided the sum of the remainder by the total number of remaining responses.
A - Rule favors Allies =>3.5
X - Rule favors Axis =<2.5
*****************************************************

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

[

This is a new subject for me, but as a statistician and market research analyst, it is familiar territory. The poll that was conducted appears to have been asking for whether an option is biased towards one side or the other. It does not appear to have attempted to measure the impact of the optional rule. Kamikazes, for instance do not happen very often during a game even if the rule is included. Allied Combat Friction happens frequently and occurs throughout the entire war.

I think what would be of use is some kind of scale (preferably in terms of Victory Points at game's end) for taking each option. I have a vague recollection of having seen something along those lines somewhere.

The idea of informing the player about the subtleties of the rules options in terms of impact on helping or hurting one side or the other seems out of scope for MWIF. This is controversial stuff and best left to written articles on the game rather than incorporated/standardized/blessed by MWIF. If we do decide to include this topic in the game, it belongs in the Player's manual, not as part of the start game screen.

quote:

The idea of informing the player about the subtleties of the rules options in terms of impact on helping or hurting one side or the other seems out of scope for MWIF. This is controversial stuff and best left to written articles on the game rather than incorporated/standardized/blessed by MWIF. If we do decide to include this topic in the game, it belongs in the Player's manual, not as part of the start game screen.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

Its interesting that the multitude of options in WiF being one of its strong points as a board game may turn out to be a weak point as a computer game.

When you play a board game you are likely to play the same group of people alot - adding only 1 or 2 new players to an existing group at a time and those new players will then just accept the group's set of optionals or atleast the group will evolve together.

When you play a computer game you are more likely to play the game solo getting used to your own personally preferred set of optionals. When you find opponents you are also more likely to be drawing from a larger but far less steady pool of people. This means that getting a game started will often begin with a far longer debate about which optionals to use. It will also mean that not everyone will be able to play WiF against each other simply because they want too different sets of optionals.

This may end up a non-issue if an enormous number of copies are sold to people that play actively - or it could fragmetise the players wanting to play across the net (pbem or tcp) to a degree that the game community gets below critical mass.

Having a reasonable set of options be standard might help - but the problem is defining what is reasonable. I dare say that asking the posters that are active here is likely to lead to an overburdening of optionals compared to what might be more commonly reasonable :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

This is a new subject for me, but as a statistician and market research analyst, it is familiar territory. The poll that was conducted appears to have been asking for whether an option is biased towards one side or the other. It does not appear to have attempted to measure the impact of the optional rule. Kamikazes, for instance do not happen very often during a game even if the rule is included. Allied Combat Friction happens frequently and occurs throughout the entire war.

I think what would be of use is some kind of scale (preferably in terms of Victory Points at game's end) for taking each option. I have a vague recollection of having seen something along those lines somewhere.

The idea of informing the player about the subtleties of the rules options in terms of impact on helping or hurting one side or the other seems out of scope for MWIF. This is controversial stuff and best left to written articles on the game rather than incorporated/standardized/blessed by MWIF. If we do decide to include this topic in the game, it belongs in the Player's manual, not as part of the start game screen.

Steve -- the chart I remember from LoC did quantify the impact in terms of some units (victory hexes??) and was by Harry, so it has somewhat more weight. And I almost agree with you that subtleties of rule options should be out of scope for MWIF. But they are just too confusing for a newb without providing some guidance. What I would suggest is that you provide hyperlinks from the options tabs to external sources of guidance like the WiF list or perhaps a page or two created by the test team. ;-)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here are the final list of optional rules for MWIF product 1. I apologize for the weird spacing - I have trouble getting it to accept my use of tabs.


Optional Rules
(as of February 6, 2006)


I. Add-ons to the World in Flames Standard Game

MWIF Product 1 will include the add-ons:
Africa Aflame
Asia Aflame
Carrier Planes in Flames
Convoys in Flames
Cruisers in Flames
Mech in Flames
Planes in Flames
Ships in Flames
*** The Guards banner armies (option 70), and Chinese warlords (option 71) will be included even though these technically are part of Leaders in Flames and Politics in Flames respectively.

MWIF Product 1 will NOT include the add-ons:
Leaders in Flames
America in Flames
Patton in Flames
Politics in Flames
Days of Decision III


II. Changes from CWIF Optional Rules to MWIF Optional Rules

CWIF optional rules that are standard rules in WIF FE and will be standard rules in MWIF
Vlassov - replaced by city based volunteers, and
Lend lease (Supply Rules),
CV strategic bombing (Air Rules),
Japanese carrier range (Air Rules),
Carrier plane fighters - needs updating to reflect changes (Air Rules).

CWIF optional rules that are not in WIF FE but will be kept in MWIF 1:
Fog of war (Other),
Scrap units - play testers requested this be optional to simplify play (Prod. Rules),
Limited view of opponent’s production (Prod. Rules), and
Facility repair - separated from Option #7 at request of play testers (Other).

CWIF optional rules that were discontinued in WIF FE and will not be included in MWIF
Separate die rolls on land combat table (Land Rules), and
Territorial conquest (Other Rules).

III. Options - Listed by Rules as Written (RAW) Number

CWIF	MWIF
Option Page	Option Number and Name	WIF FE Rules Reference
NA	Not App.	1. African & Scandinavian maps	2.1.1, 2.1.4, 2.4.2
Yes	Add. Units	2. Divisions	                2.2, 2.3.1, 9.5, 11.4.5, 11.14, 11.15, 11.16.1, 11.16.5, 22.4.1
Yes	Add. Units	3. Artillery    	                2.2, 2.3.1, 11.2, 11.5.9, 11.5.10, 11.8, 11.9, 11.11.2, 11.16.4, 11.16.5, 16.1, 16.3, 22.4.2
NA	Not App.	4. Pacific & Asian map ZOCs 	2.2
Yes	Add. Units	5. Fortifications	                2.3.1, 4.2, 11.16.1, 22.4.9
Yes	Add. Units	6. Supply units	                2.3.1, 2.4.2, 11.11.2, 11.12, 22.4.10
Yes	Add. Units	7. Engineers	                2.3.1, 11.11.2, 22.2, 22.4.1
Yes	Air Rules	8. Flying boats 	                2.3.1, 8.2.9
Yes	Standard	9. Ships In Flames units	2.3.1, 4.1.4, 4.2, 11.3, 11.5.8, 13.3.2, 13.5.1, 13.6.1, 13.6.5, 14.4.1, 22.4.7
Yes	Add. Units	10. Territorials	                11.16.5, 2.4.2, 4.2, 17.3, 18.1, 19.4, 22.4.5
Yes	Supply	11. Limited overseas supply	2.4.2, 22.4.11
Yes	Supply	12. Limited supply across straits 	2.4.2, 11.10, 13.6.1
Yes	Supply	13. HQ supply and support	2.4.3, 11.16.3
Yes	Add. Units	14. Synthetic oil plants	4.2, 13.5.1, 22.4.11
Yes	Other	15. Off-city reinforcement 	4.2
No	Other	16. Recruitment limits 	4.2
Yes	Land Rules	17. HQ movement 	                11.11.2
Yes	Naval Rules 18. Bottomed ships 	                11.2
Yes	Naval Rules 19. In the presence of the enemy    11.4.2
No	Land Rules	20. Surprised ZOCs 	                2.2
No	No	21. Task forces (hidden)	11.4.3
No	Air Rules	22. Bounce combat 	                14.3.3
Partial	Add. Units	23. V-weapons and Atomic bombs  11.7.1, 11.8
Partial	Add. Units	24. Frogmen	                22.4.3
Yes	Naval Rules 25. SCS transport	                11.4.5, 11.14
Yes	Naval Rules 26. Amphibious rules 	11.13, 11.14, 22.4.12
Yes	Naval Rules 27. Optional CV searching	11.5.5
Yes	Add. Units	28. Pilots	                                4.2, 11.2, 11.5.8, 11.5.11, 13.6.5, 13.6.7, 13.7.1, 14.6, 19.1, 22.4.19
No	Prod. Rules 29. Food in Flames 	                13.6.1
Yes	Prod. Rules 30. Factory construction and destruction 11.7, 13.6.8, 22.2, 22.4.11
Yes	Prod. Rules 31. Saving build points and resources     11.7, 13.1, 13.3.2, 13.5.1, 13.6.3, 13.6.8
Yes	Air Rules	32. Carpet bombing 	                11.8, 14.6
Yes	Air Rules	33. Tank busters 	                11.9, 11.16.4
Yes	Land Rules	34. Motorized movement rates 	11.11.2
Yes	Air Rules	35. Bomber (& no paradrop) ATRs  11.12, 11.15, 11.18.1
Yes	Air Rules	36. Large ATRs	                11.12, 11.18.1, 11.18.4
Yes	Land Rules	37. Railway movement bonus 	11.11.2
Yes	Naval Rules 38. Defensive shore bombardment  11.16.2, 15.1
No	Land Rules	39. Blitz Bonus 	                11.16.1, 11.16.5
Yes	Other	40. Chinese attack weakness	11.16.5
Yes 	Other 	41. Fractional odds 	                11.16.5
Yes	Other	42. Allied combat friction 	11.16.5
Yes	Land Rules	43. 2D10 Land CRT 	                11.16.6
Yes	Air Rules	44. Extended aircraft rebasing 	11.17
Yes	Supply Rules 45. Variable reorganization costs 13.6.3
Yes 	Add. Units	46. Partisans 	                13.1, 13.7.4
Yes	Supply Rules 47. Isolated reorganization limits  13.5
Yes	Prod. Rules 48. Oil	                                5, 13.5.1, 21
No	Prod. Rules 49. Hitler’s War ()	                13.3.2
No	Other	50. USSR-Japan compulsory peace  13.7.3
No	Air Rules	51. En-route aircraft interception 	14.2.1
Yes 	Air Rules	52. Night missions 	                14.2.1, 14.2.3, 22.4.2
Yes	Air Rules	53. Twin-engined fighters 	14.3.2
Yes	Air Rules	54. Fighter-bombers 	                14.3.2
Yes	Air Rules	55. Outclassed fighters 	14.3.2
Yes	Add. Units	56. Carrier planes	4.2, 11.2, 11.5.2, 11.5.8, 11.5.11, 11.18.4, 13.5.1, 13.6.5, 14.3.2, 14.4,  14.4.1, 14.8, 16.2
No	Air Rules	57. Limited aircraft interception 	14.2.1
No	Air Rules	58. Internment 	                14.6.4, 19.1
Partial	Air Rules	59. Flying bombs	                14.6, 14.7
Partial	Air Rules	60. Kamikazes 	                14.6, 14.8
Yes	Add. Units	61. Offensive Chits 	                16, (16.1 - 16.5)
No	Other	62. The Ukraine 	                19.12
No	Other	63. Intelligence 	                22.1
No	Other	64. Japanese command conflict 	22.3
Yes	Add. Units	65. Ski troops	                22.4.1
Yes	Add. Units	66. The Queens	                22.4.4
Mostly	Add. Units	67. City Based Volunteers	4.1.2, 22.4.8
Yes	Add. Units	68. Siberians	                22.4.7
Partial	Add. Units	69. Naval supply units	                22.4.13
Partial	Add. Units	70. Guards Banner Armies	22.4.14
No	Add. Units	71. Chinese Warlords	                22.4.15
No	Add. Units	72. Partisan HQs	                22.4.16
Partial	No	73. Heavy Weapons Units	22.4.17
Partial	No	74. Air Cav	                22.4.18
No	Add. Units	75. Cruisers in Flames	13.5.1, 22.4.6
No	Add. Units	76. Convoys in Flames	19.4, 22.4.19

quote:

It was stated that Mech in Flames was to be included in MWiF. I am under the impression that most players do not use the corps from that module since it was intended as a supplement to WiF 5. WiFFE has already included the Mechs and by using Mech in Flames corps the units are doubled up.

The Divs, Guns and the other non corps units are what is moslty in use.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

JanSorensen, what you say about the critical mass & all seems right, but what can be done about that ?
If you ship a WiF computer game without the options, you'll loose all WiF players as customers.
If you ship a WiF computer game with all the options as standard, you'll have a game too complicated for the non WiF players to play.

I think that Steve approach of having 2 preconfigured sets of options solves this problem nicely.
And that's why I thought about having those 2 sets miroring what a Classic WiF FE box / Deluxe WiF FE box was containing and what play can be done with a Classic WiF Box / Deluxe WiF Box.
Lots of people play the Classic style when they are beginners or want a lighter experience, or have little time to play.
Lots of Expertens play Deluxe for the feel & interest of the optional rules & extra counters.

Steve justs easily allow for both, and I think this is good.

We just have to define what the "beginner package" and the "experten package" will be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

Oops, in trying to quote from a part of an earlier posting, seem that i just ended up sending it over again without any explanations.

It was stated that Mech in Flames was to be included in MWiF. I am under the impression that most players do not use the corps from that module since it was intended as a supplement to WiF 5. WiFFE has already included the Mechs and by using Mech in Flames corps the units are doubled up.

The Divs, Guns and the other non corps units are what is moslty in use.

Lars

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

That raises another question, are the late war units from Leaders in Flames included?

Regarding Divisions, unlimited breakdowns adds units to the force pool. Someone already touched on this subject and the suggestion that the unit broken down would end up in a separate sidelined pool so it could not be built again except by recombining was made.

Another means of dealing with Division breakdowns would be to take be Div's from the available forcepool only and thus avoid the problem of any separate pools. Often it woud mean that no breakdown is available.


Lars

quote:

Adding the new counters for Cruisers in Flames and Convoys in Flames is the bulk of the work that needs to be done. The other corrections are minor.

quote:

What I did find that was interesting is that a few other corps sized units have been added to the German army. Guderian as an armor corps HQ, a 12-5 armor, a 11-6 mechanized, and a 10-5 motorized. I did not check the infantry corps. I do not know why these units were added to CWIF. Perhaps Patrice knows.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

Adding the new counters for Cruisers in Flames and Convoys in Flames is the bulk of the work that needs to be done. The other corrections are minor.

I can provide you with the CSV file for them if you want.

quote:

What I would like your help on is deciding which options should be set for novices and which for experienced players.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen


I do not offer a better solution than the one already being undertaken by Steve nor do I believe I criticised it.

I still think its an issue that is worth airing rather than ignoring though as someone else might get to thinking by realizing it could be an issue and hence come up with an even better idea.

I do not recall ever seeing a game that will play as differently as WiF based on optional rules - in particular in relation to the time it takes to play a full game meaning that you are unlikely to play 100s of games of WiF so you are more inclined to stick to one set of rules.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ieamlot
p.s. Is that JanSorenson that plays WaW so well?

quote:

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman

quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen


I do not offer a better solution than the one already being undertaken by Steve nor do I believe I criticised it.

I still think its an issue that is worth airing rather than ignoring though as someone else might get to thinking by realizing it could be an issue and hence come up with an even better idea.

I do not recall ever seeing a game that will play as differently as WiF based on optional rules - in particular in relation to the time it takes to play a full game meaning that you are unlikely to play 100s of games of WiF so you are more inclined to stick to one set of rules.

I agree this is an important concern. As a newb, it is a negative for me to have to worry about having to endure a prolonged options debate to start a game, even more so since the outcome may wind up "screwing" me. What I hope will happen is that standards will emerge around Steve's proposed defaults.

Steve, I would suggest that you make options files saveable, and provide a hyperlink to a repository of them (the WIF list Downloads area perhaps). That way, people can create helpful packages -- "Patrice's Options Choices" and share them with others. That way, when people are looking for a game, they can just post "looking for game -- Experienced default preferred, Patrice's Options acceptable" -- eliminating, I hope, much of the options negotiation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ieamlot

As a non-WIF player, but an all round wargamer, are you saying that the optional rules will be pre ticked when you choose one of the standard options packages: Begginer, Intermediate or Advanced?

This would be my preference, with the link off to a description of what the options will effect.

For my two pence worth i have a thought on pbem, etc games. I assume that there are victory conditions involved with the game (as i think I saw mention above), could the optional rules be used to adjust the victory level up and down based on the options chosen for a game.

That way you could use the Begginer to Advanced standards (with seperate sub forums for each, possibly). Players could then bid/bargain on optional rules that would help their chosen side at the cost of increased victory condition points.

All you would then need to do is decided on what optional rules will be included in each of the 3 standard set of rules.
This could even be broken down further by having:
Begginer Allied Adv. or Begginer Axis Adv.
Intermediate Allied Adv. or Intermediate Axis Adv.
Advanced Allied Adv. or Advanced Axis Adv.

As with any game when you play different people than you may be used too, at a game with a vast range of optional rules, you always have to come to an accomodation to play.

What you chaps need to do (in my opion) is not try and get the game set up how you like it at this design stage, but decided amongst yourselves what rules should be placed in what slot by accomodating each others opinions.

p.s. Is that JanSorenson that plays WaW so well?