Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Fog of War

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> Fog of War Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Fog of War - 4/2/2005 8:24:00 PM   
Zorachus99


Posts: 1066
Joined: 9/15/2000
From: Palo Alto, CA
Status: offline
I've been playing several years with a house fog-of-war rule.

If you have a corps size unit adjacent to an enemy stack, the inherent recon ability of that corps size unit allows you to inspect the stacks adjacent to it. Yes corps size units have inherent recon capabilities, particularly for the local area. This is simply part of why ZOC exists. Recon prevents unimpeded advance.

If you are not adjacent to a stack, an air mission must be effectively made to that location to reveal the stack. No bombers getting through does not reveal the opponent.

Otherwise, only the top unit is displayed to your opponent, and he cannot investigate that stack.

Works great on the boardgame, and provides privacy of plans and a bit of fog-o-war. Very playable rule, easy to implement on the board.

_____________________________

Most men can survive adversity, the true test of a man's character is power. -Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to coregames)
Post #: 211
RE: Fog of War - 4/5/2005 7:18:55 AM   
Mziln


Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

I've been playing several years with a house fog-of-war rule.

If you have a corps size unit adjacent to an enemy stack, the inherent recon ability of that corps size unit allows you to inspect the stacks adjacent to it. Yes corps size units have inherent recon capabilities, particularly for the local area. This is simply part of why ZOC exists. Recon prevents unimpeded advance.

If you are not adjacent to a stack, an air mission must be effectively made to that location to reveal the stack. No bombers getting through does not reveal the opponent.

Otherwise, only the top unit is displayed to your opponent, and he cannot investigate that stack.

Works great on the boardgame, and provides privacy of plans and a bit of fog-o-war. Very playable rule, easy to implement on the board.


There was a Fog of War option in CWiF. This may be covered in the RaW (Rules as Written).

(in reply to Zorachus99)
Post #: 212
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/7/2005 6:45:58 PM   
hbrsvl

 

Posts: 1155
Joined: 10/2/2002
Status: offline
Hi-I'm just getting into WIF. A few thoughts as to what to include, as well as what NOT to do, IMHO. Time- I think HOI had right time frame, but it should be 1936-1950. ISTM 2 weeks should the max time frame. I've played around with game turns in WITP & I always come back to a one day event. So much happens. Complexity-yes, yes, yes, as long as there is a convient way to keep track of everything. In WITP, I kept losing ships & had to search-they had a way to do so, but it wasn't complete-i.e. If I wanted to know where the Saratoga was(& coulndn't find the TF) You can scroll a list of ships, which tells you what TF she is in, but doesn't tell you where the TF is. When you scroll the list of TFs it tells you "on the way to Lunga" -thats a lot of ocean to search. Graphics-DO NOT DO what World at War did. I hate ships zipping from here to there & divisions running through several Zones. (If I knew a way to return WAW I would, I'm so dissapointed in it.) I also prefer the NATO divisonal, etc. unit usage. Combat resolution- have an option to view the combat or just a combat report. OK, enough for now. Thanks for letting let of some steam Hugh Browne

(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 213
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/7/2005 8:03:00 PM   
Cheesehead

 

Posts: 418
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Appleton, Wisconsin
Status: offline
quote:

I think HOI had right time frame, but it should be 1936-1950. ISTM 2 weeks should the max time frame.


There is companion game for WiF called 'Days of decision' that enable you to play 1936 to 46. It brings in all the political wrangling you're looking for. It also allows for the ahistorical scenarios that frequently occur in HoI.

When you consider the impulses within each 2 month turn, a typical "turn" probably averages out to around two weeks. For example, the July-August time-frame can easily run 14 impulses. Think of that as 7 "turns" within a 2 month time period. That come out to a little more than week long turns. Of course the winter months have fewer impulses, but it averages out to the time frame you're looking for.

WiF will never have the level of detail found in WitP or HoI. The platforms are totally different. Yet, it is still the best strategy WWII wargame out there IMO.

Welcome to the WiF community and check out the WiF discussion group at: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/wifdiscussion/

< Message edited by Cheesehead -- 4/7/2005 8:14:33 PM >


_____________________________

You can't fight in here...this is the war room!

(in reply to hbrsvl)
Post #: 214
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/20/2005 7:50:17 AM   
Grotius


Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline
hbrsvl, one note on WITP: you can locate a Task Force by right-clicking in the TF screen. (Er, I can't remember exactly what you right-click on, but I think it's the rightmost field.) The game will center on that TF for you. I think this also works for individual ships.

(in reply to hbrsvl)
Post #: 215
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/26/2005 8:27:57 PM   
hmsmystic

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 4/7/2005
Status: offline
Nice discussion- the original was something awesome to behold!

Any updates on timeframe please? This year??

(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 216
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/27/2005 12:57:45 AM   
Vyshka


Posts: 275
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Chandler, AZ
Status: offline
quote:


DO NOT DO what World at War did. I hate ships zipping from here to there & divisions running through several Zones. (If I knew a way to return WAW I would, I'm so dissapointed in it.) I also prefer the NATO divisonal, etc. unit usage. Combat resolution- have an option to view the combat or just a combat report. OK, enough for now. Thanks for letting let of some steam Hugh Browne


You did know that WaW was supposed to be a lighter game akin to Axis and Allies and not along the lines of WiF, yes?

(in reply to hbrsvl)
Post #: 217
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 4/27/2005 2:55:41 AM   
Grotius


Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline
I actually think WaW is a terrific game for what it is. I find it much more deep than A&A. Of course, it's nowhere near as complex as WiF or WITP.

Also, the supply model in WaW really limits "zipping" around with your ships. You really can't "zip" around if you're playing with Advanced Supply on. And the only land units that can move two provinces are armored units (and paratroopers via airdrop).

(in reply to Vyshka)
Post #: 218
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 8/31/2005 6:26:52 AM   
BumMcFluff

 

Posts: 34
Joined: 2/28/2004
Status: offline
You should have the option to turn elements of the game on or off, not have things that must be rigidly adhered to because some people don't like them. This is a game for everyone, not a select few.

_____________________________

They do say, Mrs. M, that verbal insults hurt more than physical pain. They are, of course, wrong, as you'll soon discover when I stick this toasting fork in your head.

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 219
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 9/26/2005 8:37:32 AM   
Janet Reno


Posts: 29
Joined: 3/26/2004
Status: offline
Sealion is a must. And maybe "the bomb"

_____________________________

"You can get further with a gun and a kind word than just a kind word alone"-Al Capone

(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 220
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 9/26/2005 8:41:19 AM   
Janet Reno


Posts: 29
Joined: 3/26/2004
Status: offline
Another thing you may want to consider is jet aircraft. And the ability to control your own production and research. Also the type XXI U-Boats.

_____________________________

"You can get further with a gun and a kind word than just a kind word alone"-Al Capone

(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 221
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 9/26/2005 1:00:48 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Janet Reno
Sealion is a must. And maybe "the bomb"

Both are in WiF FE.
Sealion is a possibility amongst many others, and is very possible. The game give you the tools you may need to achieve this, all you need to do is plan, and then conquer.
The A-Bomb is a new weapon available in early 45, and the USA can do what they want with it.
In regular WiF FE games, it is rarely dropped on strategic objectives, but rather on military concentrations. I've seen it dropped on Karlsruhe, Paris, Milan, Shanghai, Canton or Tokyo (on the fleet).
There are no rule for "inventing the A-Bomb" as there is in American in Flames.
Maybe this will be for a future version

Cheers !

< Message edited by Froonp -- 9/26/2005 1:02:02 PM >

(in reply to Janet Reno)
Post #: 222
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 9/26/2005 1:05:47 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Janet Reno
Another thing you may want to consider is jet aircraft. And the ability to control your own production and research. Also the type XXI U-Boats.

All this is regular WiF FE things, except SUBs which are not detailled up to having the model specified.
Jet Aircrafts are part of the force pool each country has, which is enlarged each year by new units. The CW, the USA, Japan, the USSR and Germany all have jet aircrafts at one time or another.
Here too, there is no specific rule to control and manage the "invention of Jet aircrafts", but there are some rules mechanisms that allow their appearance to be linked to some player will (advance built).
About the production, WiF has a solid rule mechanisms to built virtualy anything military.
There are no research rule, except the advance built rule (which is not a research rule, but has some effects on the appearance of new technologies on the battlefield).
Cheers !
Patrice

< Message edited by Froonp -- 9/26/2005 1:07:10 PM >

(in reply to Janet Reno)
Post #: 223
RE: Fog of War - 9/26/2005 6:08:23 PM   
Private_Paula

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 9/26/2005
Status: offline
Will be PoliF a part of MWIF?

_____________________________

"In the war there is no substitute with the victory."

(in reply to Zorachus99)
Post #: 224
RE: Fog of War - 9/27/2005 11:34:14 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Private_Paula

Will be PoliF a part of MWIF?

To make it short, yes, and no.
Please see the "Units, Scenarios, Options, and Add-ons" thread, posts 114 & 117 for the complete answer.

(in reply to Private_Paula)
Post #: 225
RE: Fog of War - 1/18/2006 9:28:50 PM   
Peeking Duck?

 

Posts: 96
Joined: 8/30/2001
Status: offline
Hi,

Don't know if this suggestion has already been posted - if so please ignore.

Would it be possible to allow for a full screen map by using one hot key?

I could never see enough of the map on CWiF and always wished there could be a simple button, like tab, to dispense with all the toolbars and other accoutrements so that I may see one giant map.

Hope thats not too muddled of a request. Of course, this also brings into question whether MWiF will support higher resolutions - I certainly hope it will.

Thanks to all those participating in making this game happen as I've been waiting on it for roughly 10 years.

cheers,
Peek

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 226
RE: Fog of War - 1/19/2006 5:30:12 AM   
Neilster


Posts: 2890
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

I've been waiting on it for roughly 10 years

Bah! Only 10!

Cheers, Neilster

(in reply to Peeking Duck?)
Post #: 227
RE: Fog of War - 1/19/2006 8:45:31 PM   
YohanTM2

 

Posts: 1143
Joined: 10/7/2002
From: Toronto
Status: offline
You would probably need a hi-res 42" monitor to be able to see anything worthwhile Peek

(in reply to Peeking Duck?)
Post #: 228
RE: Fog of War - 2/12/2006 9:08:20 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Peeking Duck?

Hi,

Don't know if this suggestion has already been posted - if so please ignore.

Would it be possible to allow for a full screen map by using one hot key?

I could never see enough of the map on CWiF and always wished there could be a simple button, like tab, to dispense with all the toolbars and other accoutrements so that I may see one giant map.

Hope thats not too muddled of a request. Of course, this also brings into question whether MWiF will support higher resolutions - I certainly hope it will.

Thanks to all those participating in making this game happen as I've been waiting on it for roughly 10 years.

cheers,
Peek


Sorry, I missed this post when it was originally made.

Part of the interfacae design it to let players have different 'views' that they define. Then a list of these definitions, each with a unique name that the player has assigned, will be available on screen. It will either be persistent (always on top) or as a drop down menu. My internal debate continues on that particular decision. In any event, the player clicks on a predefined 'view' and the program displays it.

The primary purpose of this feature is to be able to jump from Russia to North Africa, to China, to London with single mouse clicks.

There are several possible secondary purposes, one of which you mentioned. Others are to view: only air units, only tactical bombers and fighter escorts/interceptors, only armor/mechanized, only out of supply units, only units that are still available for movement during the turn, ...

My goal is to remove the need to reposition and reconfigure (which units are displayed, what level of zoom) the detailed map when switching from one theater of operations to another.


_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Peeking Duck?)
Post #: 229
RE: Fog of War - 4/17/2006 6:14:31 AM   
Zorachus99


Posts: 1066
Joined: 9/15/2000
From: Palo Alto, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

My goal is to remove the need to reposition and reconfigure (which units are displayed, what level of zoom) the detailed map when switching from one theater of operations to another.



Would i be possible to:
1) If next unit to be viewed is on the screen maintain screen position, and set it as default for that unit.
2) If unit to be viewed is within a margin (say 4 hexes) the screen recenters without affecting zoom.
3) If the unit to be viewed is not on the screen, then go to last screen setting used with that unit.

Implement a stack of screen positions... arbitrarily say 255, and pop old entries from the stack as they disassociate over time.

Great Work!!!

After so many years of waiting you give me and freinds hope


_____________________________

Most men can survive adversity, the true test of a man's character is power. -Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 230
RE: Fog of War - 4/17/2006 11:35:37 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
My goal is to remove the need to reposition and reconfigure (which units are displayed, what level of zoom) the detailed map when switching from one theater of operations to another.


Would i be possible to:
1) If next unit to be viewed is on the screen maintain screen position, and set it as default for that unit.
2) If unit to be viewed is within a margin (say 4 hexes) the screen recenters without affecting zoom.
3) If the unit to be viewed is not on the screen, then go to last screen setting used with that unit.

Implement a stack of screen positions... arbitrarily say 255, and pop old entries from the stack as they disassociate over time.

Great Work!!!

After so many years of waiting you give me and freinds hope


Thanks.

Designing how to cycle through the units needs a lot of thought, in my opinion. CWIF (the legacy code I started with) has a fairly simple approach, which is to center the screen on the next unit automatically.

I find this very disconcerting because I usually want to move one group of units before moving on to the next group. For example, if I am building an attack on a hex, then I fill up all the available stacking room in each of the adjacent hexes. Or, if I am forming a defensive line, then I start at the top and work my way down to the bottom, maximizing the strong points, or striving for even strength throughout the line. In both cases, I have a fairly good idea of which unit I want to move next.

I do not see a way to anticipate which unit I will want to select next. More to the point, I do not see a way to automatic/program which unit should be next in line.

CWIF permits the player to set a unit to "sentry mode". All that means is that the unit is skipped over when cycling through the list of units "yet to be moved".

Obviously I can put the units in any sorted order the player might specify: by unit type, by year built, closest to last moved unit, next strongest, etc.. but that doesn't seem quite right to me though. I would like something that is very functional/practical.

As it is now, I turn off the automation of selecting the 'next' unit, because it keeps jumping me around on the board and gets in the way of me moving a set of units that are performing a related task.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Zorachus99)
Post #: 231
RE: Fog of War - 4/17/2006 11:45:04 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

As it is now, I turn off the automation of selecting the 'next' unit, because it keeps jumping me around on the board and gets in the way of me moving a set of units that are performing a related task.

I agree that the automation of selecting the "next" unit is wrong.
I for one am used to move the units in the order that I like, that I prefer, and then, to use the keyboard keys that allow me to cycle through all available units, very rapidly, just to check that I did not forget some unit in some far corner of the world. This is very convinient and very quick for me, and I'm quite sure of achieving all I wanted to achieve during the privious impulses / turns.
You can also use the "note" function to put some text on a unit if you want to remember in a few turns in the future what you intended this unit to perform.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 232
RE: Fog of War - 4/17/2006 5:33:17 PM   
SamuraiProgrmmr

 

Posts: 353
Joined: 10/17/2004
From: Paducah, Kentucky
Status: offline
It would be nice to :

1) have a list of units that have movment points left.

2) be able to remove units from that list for this impulse (i.e. 'I am not going to move this unit, now show me the rest that I might move)

This could be done both by having a list that when you doubleclick on it, it displays the map with that unit selected and also by making the units in question a lighter color upon request.

These are just ideas. As much thought as you are putting into this, I am sure you will come up with something at least as good.



_____________________________

Bridge is the best wargame going .. Where else can you find a tournament every weekend?

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 233
RE: Fog of War - 4/17/2006 6:58:23 PM   
lomyrin


Posts: 3741
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline
Having played CWiF for a long time, the method of selecting units and canvassing the entire map for any forgotten units to move that I use is exactly the same as Patrice describes.

I find it very easy to use and indeed the 'select next unit ' function is one I never use and I have noted it to be jumping around in an annoying fashion.

Lars


(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 234
RE: Fog of War - 4/17/2006 8:45:25 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer
It would be nice to :

1) have a list of units that have movment points left.

2) be able to remove units from that list for this impulse (i.e. 'I am not going to move this unit, now show me the rest that I might move)

This could be done both by having a list that when you doubleclick on it, it displays the map with that unit selected and also by making the units in question a lighter color upon request.

These are just ideas. As much thought as you are putting into this, I am sure you will come up with something at least as good.


Thank you for your ideas. I like them.

Coming up with something "at least as good" is because I shamelessly take ideas from other people and incorporate them into how the game works. So it is not so much "my thought" as it is a distillation of the best thoughts from experienced players.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to SamuraiProgrmmr)
Post #: 235
RE: Fog of War - 4/17/2006 8:47:53 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin
Having played CWiF for a long time, the method of selecting units and canvassing the entire map for any forgotten units to move that I use is exactly the same as Patrice describes.

I find it very easy to use and indeed the 'select next unit ' function is one I never use and I have noted it to be jumping around in an annoying fashion.

Lars


Ok. So I will take the current CWIF functionality, as employed by Patrice and yourself, as the minimum requirements for reviewing unit moves. And now see if I can find improvements.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to lomyrin)
Post #: 236
RE: Fog of War - 4/18/2006 3:48:23 AM   
Zorachus99


Posts: 1066
Joined: 9/15/2000
From: Palo Alto, CA
Status: offline
Perhaps the 'jump to next unit' function should select the 'next available unmoved unit on the current screen' (pretty fast routine even with sloppy programming),
Then a 'recenter map on unmoved unit offscreen' function if no unmoved units are on the screen (or marked as not moving)?

That would make the 'next unit' function much more useable... Yes I dislike the current method jumping between units by enumeration... as a result I consistantly forget to move units because I bypass the 'next unit' function altogether.

_____________________________

Most men can survive adversity, the true test of a man's character is power. -Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 237
RE: Fog of War - 4/18/2006 5:32:32 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
Perhaps the 'jump to next unit' function should select the 'next available unmoved unit on the current screen' (pretty fast routine even with sloppy programming),
Then a 'recenter map on unmoved unit offscreen' function if no unmoved units are on the screen (or marked as not moving)?

That would make the 'next unit' function much more useable... Yes I dislike the current method jumping between units by enumeration... as a result I consistantly forget to move units because I bypass the 'next unit' function altogether.


What I have created for the Setup Units Form, (used when placing units on the map at the start of a scenario), is a list of units and some buttons for selecting subsets. I think something similar might be useful (as an option) when moving units.

Say, you had all your units displayed as small counters in a column at the side of the screen, or as a row at the top or bottom of the screen. The units shown would only be those that could move during the phase. So, during air phases it would contain only air units, and so forth for other types of phases. Each unit could be marked as: fully moved, partially moved, "in sentry mode", "ignore for this phase", or yet to be moved. If there were a lot of units eligible for moving during the phase, the subset buttons could reduce the list to something that fits on the screen. For example, just armor, strategic bombers only, carriers only. That would let the player move all of one unit type and then go on to another type. I see this as especially helpful during phases involving tactical bombers, since they are often hard to locate on the map when playing.

We have also been considering having groups of naval units placed into task forces for ease of play. No changes or effect on the rules, just a convenient way to 'grab' a bunch of naval units and place them in the North Sea (for example). The compositions of the task forces would remain intact from impulse to impulse and turn to turn, unless the player decided to change them. Again, the whole idea would be convenience, it would be optional, and hopefully, players would find it a feature that helps them complete a turn in less time (always a bonus - when you are playing on the opposite side).

So, one of the ways to sort units would be by task group. I vaguely see possibilities for having this apply to air and land units too. This gets back to cycling through the units. If you have assigned some fighters to the defense of Germany from strategic bombing, then those fighters would be grouped together and cycled through in order. I am somewhat ambivalent about this, because the pain of bookkeeping might exceed the benefit that would be derived. However, ideas need to be explored, not stifled at birth.

Anyway, back to the list of units that are eligible to move during the turn. They could be dynamically sorted by the player - with one of the choices for how to sort them being such that those that haven't moved are listed first. My vision is the player first sorts the list in whatever form is best for placing the units. At the end of the turn, he sorts them so those that haven't moved are at the front of the list. Indeed, if some units haven't been moved, then the program could not only prompt the player to confirm the end of phase, but also do that sort automatically at the same time.

Drifting along, letting the mind create possible interface designs.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Zorachus99)
Post #: 238
RE: Fog of War - 4/18/2006 1:08:36 PM   
YohanTM2

 

Posts: 1143
Joined: 10/7/2002
From: Toronto
Status: offline
I really like the task force option for naval, it will save both time and aggravation. I would not likely use the unit function you describe (except perhaps during an air phase or then again maybe naval). Being able to move a stack of land units is great. I like the idea of just moving to the next closest unit on the screen when you click "next unit"

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 239
RE: Fog of War - 4/18/2006 7:57:21 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yohan

I really like the task force option for naval, it will save both time and aggravation. I would not likely use the unit function you describe (except perhaps during an air phase or then again maybe naval). Being able to move a stack of land units is great. I like the idea of just moving to the next closest unit on the screen when you click "next unit"


Ok. By closest unit I assume you mean closest unit that hasn't moved yet. I'll include that as one of the choices for sequencing through all eligible units. I also will make it so that the screen doesn't refresh/recenter on the unit automatically, unless the unit is not currently on the visible portion of the map. What I found most annoying with the CWIF "cycle through units" feature (i.e., next unit) was the continual screen refreshes.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to YohanTM2)
Post #: 240
Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> Fog of War Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Jump to:





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
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.500