haromar
Posts: 19
Joined: 10/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
First let me thank you for these ideas. As you know already, there are a lot of rules involved with moving groups of naval units and I want the task force implementation to not mess things up. I am trusting that the readers of this forum, such as yourself, will keep critiquing my design until it is solid.
Opening caveat - my references to Task Forces (TF) will be the MWIF implementation, not to be confused with the more general term, or some other definition (explicit or implied).
1 - Task forces will be restricted to units controlled by a single major power. The only exception will be transported units. Note that this still enables the British to include Dutch units, since they are aligned. The reason for this restriction is that one and only one decision maker needs to be in charge of moving a task force (computer implementation is stricter than over the board play). If you want to create a super task force containing a mixture of US and CW naval units, you will have to create two task forces and "pick them up" at the same time for movement. This design issue is not set in stone, but I think it is a good one. Feel free to make a case for changing this. Oh, and since players are able to 'loan' units to each other freely, the US player could 'loan' several naval units to the British which would enable the British player to add them to a CW task force.
2 - The definition of a task force does not change just because it is stacked with other units, either at sea or in port. The player is free to change the definition of a task force at any time, since it is merely an administrative designation and has no effect on game play.
3 - A task force is represented by a single 'counter/unit' but it can travel with other units and/or task forces. During its travels it can mutate by dropping off units in sea areas it travels through. And obviously it can embark, pick up while at sea, and debark transported units - those actions would change the composition of the task force.
4 - How about a defense rating as an average followed by the rating for the best ship in parentheses? E.g., 4.7 (1).
5 - Air to air and and naval air will be maximums. Obviously setting one of them to the maximum is likely to change the other number significantly - but for the summary page this doesn't matter a whole lot.
6 - For shore bombardment I will show a single number taking into consideration the sea box section. If there is different weather in the coastal hexes that will change this number, I will show a range: 8-13. I hadn't thought about this until you mentioned it.
7 - Why do you feel it is so important to know that a task force has 1 TRS and 1 AMPH versus 2 TRS, instead of a simple '2'? If you want more details on a task force, you can always click on it to bring up the detailed screen showing the actual units in the task force. This is just a summary page. If you were talking about a game to another player over the phone would you need to make this distinction? Or would saying a TF has carrying capacity for 2 corps sized units sufficient?
8 - I am thinking about a simplified variation on a task force called a wolfpack for submarines. But I keep thinking that is excessive. Opinions? My time is limited, so take that into consideration.
9 - I am coming around to the opinion that this form will not be called the task force form when you are looking at enemy naval units. It will be the same form, but will show all the enemy units in a port or sea box section. Perhaps even merging all the sea box sections in one sea area into an aggregate. The idea is that you could use this summary page to see all the locations of enemy naval units: at sea or in port. Then you could scan through the list. This idea is less than 1 minute old, but I think it has promise. Perhaps some filtering ability so you can see all the ports that can reach a sea area? I do not want to get too elaborate here but some way to gain an overview of enemy fleets seems very valuable to me. Then clicking on a column would bring up the detailed screen of what is on the port/sea area. Opinions?
This design is evolving, and it is important to keep an open mind to new ideas (especially true for myself). Building on someone else's idea(s) is an excellent way to come up with something great, instead of merely adequate.
I'm glad you appreciate any comments. Obviously discard comments you do not care about.
1. Ok, the definition of a task force is a little complicated since the wif rules directly adress this task forces as a grouping of ships. This is irregardless of whether you use a separate WiF TF marker. Thus imo MWiF definition should match the WiF definition, e.g. From the Rules: ". You can’t have surface naval units and SUBs in the same task force."
A) There is the WiF TF counter definition
B) But there is also a WiF Rules TF definition.
For example task forces are only defined as units starting in port together etc. This is very important for interception combat, since TF not coming from the same port, can be intercepted individually. This is all very confusing and quite a few wiffers play this wrong, especially in the RTB phase. I suggest you use a different wording for your administratvie TF.
Task forces in WiF are not restricted to units controlled solely by one major power. In most practical cases (esp. while in port) they are solely from one mp, since having mixed units incurs the 1 movement penalty I mentioned. However, especially when returning to base with trs / amphs, you will take along scs from a cooperating mp in case you have to move through sea zones with axis subs.
Yes, If you want to do a "super" task force from different MPs starting in one port, click on both and move them together
The decision maker in charge should be the one whose activity limits are spent. Not sure how your phasing /sequence will work, but moving ships from the us and cw toghether should be analog to flying a bombing mission with a us and cw bomber to the same hex, expending one air mission for both MPs.
2. Yes, the definition of the MWiF task force will not change. However, WiF task forces do have an effect on game play.
3. It can only travel with other units if it started in the same sea box or port. Each time it drops a unit its a naval move.
4. 4.7 (1) sounds good.
5. Yes, maximum values. And yes, setting up all CVPs as one type will affect the other type.
6. Better than range of SB show the 2 possible Max values. The player will know which Max value to use for his math. When out at sea, make sure not to include SCS wih laoded DIVs. When still in port, he also has a third potential value. Don't lough, the Italians will support air paradrops on Malta out of the 1 Box covered by ME109, thus substracting 2. They will have a sole SCS in the 3 box for the INF invasion, but the Roma class might move into the the 1 Box.
7. Actually, quite often you are more concerned about AMPHs. Typical questions to ask on the Phone or across teh Map are: How many AMPHs, PARAs with ATRs and MAR do you have in Europe. By 42 you have loads of TRS, but still few AMPHs. As early as 42, the IJN might target AMPHs instead of Essexs, depending of course on game situation and US builds. AMPhs also take 8 instead of the TRS 6 Turns, making them an in between target to the Essex with 10 turns.
8. Feel free to call adminsitrative task Forces for Submarines "Wolfpacks".
9. I think you are better off not calling these Task Forces at all.
-> Again
. When showing Task Forces in Port, please substarct 1 movement point if stacked with ships from another MP. Otherwise you will confuse a newbie, who will wonder why he is not allowed to move the ship 5 MP even though your TF display says he does.
. Include the 4 or 7 range cvps while in port or at sea. The 4 range CW CVPs is always of interest in 39 to 42 and the 7 range IJN CVP is always searched for from 42 on.
Thanks.
|
Printable Version
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 
. The WIF grognards will love it.
This also will add in divisions on surface units. 
I'll think about thinner - though they are pretty thin already as I recall. 
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