Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Well, indeed, those Trade Agreements between enemies can only be achieved through the signing of neutrality pacts (9.5 Other Major Powers + clarification from Harry quoted in post #374 as Q180-2 and 13.7.3 quoted in post #374 + clarification quoted in post #374 as Q180-1), and neutrality pacts can't be broken at will, so goes the trade agreement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

A Neutrality pact can be broken if the garrison numbers are sufficient to do so but there is no need to also go to war. One can remain at peace after a neutrality pact is broken.

Lars

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Such a TA cannot be modified or canceled but can include a time table of what is lent when. Come to think of it, the WiF term "on any terms mutually acceptable" is impossible to program.

Perhaps MWiF will have to pin something down instead of "any terms", or have a phase and facility to manually lend resources/oil/BPs to countries with whom a neutrality pact exists on each and every turn.

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

Perhaps the opposing powers can, when defining a trade agreement that results from a neutrality pact, also define when it is up for re-negotiation: any number of turns, or not at all (i.e. the trade agreement goes only when the pact is broken). At each re-negotiation point, they can cancel the agreement or alter its terms.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ullern

Aha. So MWIF gives you the ability to define trade agreements for several turns between players. I find this a good thing. But it may also cause confusion:

In RAW the wording “trade agreement” always refers to arrangements between {countries on a side} and to or from {neutral countries or countries on the other side}. I am pretty sure that RAW never uses the wording Trade agreement for arrangement on the same side. (You can't say that Rumania is on the Axis side before it's actually aligned. Theoretically an Axis power may DOW Rumania.)

I agree with Patrice that a neutrality pact established by a trade agreement can’t be renegotiated before the pact is broken. (Which normally is a war declaration, but not necessarily so.)

House rule:
In my board game I would also allow two powers that both agree they no longer benefit from such a trade agreement to cancel it, but this is not strictly after RAW and must be labelled a house rule.

Grey area:
The trade agreements linked to a neutrality pact need not be completely fixed but may change when certain conditions are met, as long as the conditions are well defined. Is what I would say. But since the rules just says “any terms mutually agreeable” and does not give direction, this is of course up to the individual group in a board game.

What I would like for a start is a possibility to define trade agreements that run out of time. Example:
Japan and Russia agrees to a trade agreement of 1 BP from Japan to Russia, and 1 oil for Russia to Japan for 1 year.
Japan and Russia agrees to a trade agreement of 2 resources from Japan for 2 years.
And that the trade agreements are not changeable while the pact is in place. (And should also be automatically broken if pact is broken.)

I think this sounds something like what Steve already has in the code. And I think that such an arrangement alone is enough for the neutrality pact options really.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ronster

I would like to see a lot of tutorials showing how the game operates. And also a way to make production easy to calculate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ronster

Another suggestion, and I have not read every post concerning CWiF, except what about Victory conditions. I think it would be neat if the victory cities were marked differently somehow or when a victory is taken, maybe a video comes on or something saying such a city has been taken. Also, maybe a table you could look at and see how many each country has so a player can see how he is doing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Horaf

Great to see this game progressing!  As a long time player of the Boardgame, i hope that you can put in some time saving devices.  We used to have a "phase" called "the Russian Observation Phase", during which, the Russian player would stare at the board following the german players impulse. This "phase" could last up to 30 minutes.... well, anyway, during this time, many of us, would start planning our production, even going so far as to put it on the spiral.  Will it be possible to "pre-plan" production, so when the phase actually occurs, you can just click on a submit box, or verify box.  I'd hate to have to wait thru many "Russian Observation Phases", only to follow it by a USA player, giddy with his new found production, saying, "Maybe I'll build Strat bombers....or maybe i should produce ahead a few carriers..." anyway, my point is i hope there are ways to shorten the actually time people have to spend. 

Also, i was thinking that a reminder button that you could set for a unit.  Many times, i have forgotten about the Sydney Militia, that face-to-face opponents will allow you to move AFTER the correct phase is over...but with a large map, on a small(ish) computer screen, it'll be easy to forget about that small militia sitting in Adelaide...but if i could mark it during the "Russian Observationn phase" i'd be happy!

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Another nice-to-have would be a continuous update of the Russo-German garrison values or at least a way to request the current values.

Our games see a lot of time wasted counting these up and the amazing occurrence of counting three times in a row and getting slightly different numbers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: abj9562

quote:

ORIGINAL: Horaf

Great to see this game progressing!  As a long time player of the Boardgame, i hope that you can put in some time saving devices.  We used to have a "phase" called "the Russian Observation Phase", during which, the Russian player would stare at the board following the german players impulse. This "phase" could last up to 30 minutes.... well, anyway, during this time, many of us, would start planning our production, even going so far as to put it on the spiral.  Will it be possible to "pre-plan" production, so when the phase actually occurs, you can just click on a submit box, or verify box.  I'd hate to have to wait thru many "Russian Observation Phases", only to follow it by a USA player, giddy with his new found production, saying, "Maybe I'll build Strat bombers....or maybe i should produce ahead a few carriers..." anyway, my point is i hope there are ways to shorten the actually time people have to spend. 

Also, i was thinking that a reminder button that you could set for a unit.  Many times, i have forgotten about the Sydney Militia, that face-to-face opponents will allow you to move AFTER the correct phase is over...but with a large map, on a small(ish) computer screen, it'll be easy to forget about that small militia sitting in Adelaide...but if i could mark it during the "Russian Observationn phase" i'd be happy!

I agree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Another nice-to-have would be a continuous update of the Russo-German garrison values or at least a way to request the current values.

Our games see a lot of time wasted counting these up and the amazing occurrence of counting three times in a row and getting slightly different numbers.

I do not know what you mean by continuous. But if you go to the Neutrality Pact table, MWIF provides all those numbers, including whether the pact can be broken.

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Another nice-to-have would be a continuous update of the Russo-German garrison values or at least a way to request the current values.

Our games see a lot of time wasted counting these up and the amazing occurrence of counting three times in a row and getting slightly different numbers.

I do not know what you mean by continuous. But if you go to the Neutrality Pact table, MWIF provides all those numbers, including whether the pact can be broken.

If you can move a unit then go to the Neutrality Pact table to check the totals, then go back and move another unit - that would be continuous. Also what you describe would have to yield different numbers to the Axis verses the Russian player as a result of any chits hidden from each other.

Thank you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spetsnaz

dunno about WiF, but i do know what id like in a GRAND STRATEGY game:
* turn based
* unit icons AND counters (preferably a lot of icons and good looking ones)
* LOTS of diplomacy options (pacts, alliances, war & peace declarations)
* Options to steer your research (best iv seen so far was in HoI 2 - liked that a lot)
* a grand choice in unit types: arty, tanks, AT, AA, Boats of all kinds, FLyers, etc etc

sorry if this post sounds a bit off in comparison to most others, but im just a guy that likes wargames, but i havent heared of WiF but i saw the label "Grand strategy" and that interests me (just bought Commander EaW - good gameplay, but lacking in field of research, Diplomacy options and it starts too late; otherwise fine)

gr

steven, Belgium

quote:

ORIGINAL: mussey

This all looks very good! I tried to play WiF but took up too much space and time sorting thru all the counters. I think, based on all the threads, replies, and comments that you have this well in hand. If it's not too late, I would like to make one philisophical (sp) comment: Do not be afraid to deviate from a 'board game' to a 'computer game'. I know many of the great fans of this game are very familiar to the board game and may want many of the same old things. But please try to incorporate as many computer pleasantries and advantages as possible. For example, is a ground unit just a counter that is removed if it takes casualties, or does it slowly wittle down? Anyway, I'm waiting anxiously for release!

quote:

ORIGINAL: ezz

Did I see a thread a while back for adding a picture to the armour units instead of the standard Nato symbol. This would be a counter similar in  look to the planes in flames counters. Just a generic type for the armour counter by year it goes into the force pool I guess.. Light tank MK VII, Matilda II, Crusader MK I,Churchill MK IV,Cromwell I, Sherman Firefly etc .

Anyway is this something envisaged ?