RE: Start of Game Screen

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames

Message

Froonp -> RE: Start of Game Screen (2/6/2006 11:34:52 PM)
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. Indeed now you say it this way, you're right. Anyway, you're right for the initial scrap phase, the one before the setup, but what about the scrapping done during the turn, during each production phase and after each combat ? Will the player who do not choose "Scrap" as an Optional rule be presented those choices ? quote: 2 - Yes. Yepeee !!!! 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. OK, you're right [:D] I'm happy you explained this this way (not an option as it is standard rule). I was afraid that the sentence would be out of the game, as it is important. If this sentence was not in the game, the game would be a nightmare in the Pacific.

wfzimmerman -> RE: Start of Game Screen (2/6/2006 11:38:06 PM)
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. Speaking as a newb, I wholeheartedly endorse Steve's suggestion that scrapping should be hidden during startup. This very issue has bedeviled me on many occasions when I tried to poke around in CWIF 0.771.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Start of Game Screen (2/6/2006 11:39:33 PM)
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 *************************************************** 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.

JanSorensen -> RE: Start of Game Screen (2/6/2006 11:41:19 PM)
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 fragment 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 :)

wfzimmerman -> RE: Start of Game Screen (2/6/2006 11:43:43 PM)
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. ;-)

Froonp -> RE: Start of Game Screen (2/6/2006 11:47:44 PM)
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. I think you're right.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Start of Game Screen (2/6/2006 11:50:58 PM)
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 :) Perhaps I should have explained the Personal button more. I am not asking for each forum members' selection for their personal default optional rules. Instead, I am looking for some common ground that is likely to be agreed upon by experienced players of WIF. Tricky thing to do, getting them to agree, I know. But we can take a stab at it. Patrice's suggestion of labelling the two buttons Standard and Deluxe seems to be on the right track. Perhaps a less emotional adjective than Deluxe would be better though - Expanded, perhaps? ADG used the word Deluxe to sell more copies, I am sure. It is a common marketing technique. We don't have that goal here. [If MWIF product 2 is ever completed, then we'll talk about Deluxe.[;)]].

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Start of Game Screen (2/6/2006 11:57:31 PM)
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. ;-) I am almost done the design document for the tutorials. Now I can see that this would be something to include there: "Optional Rules, How to Decide". A short tutorial that discusses some of the pros and cons without arguing for or against any one point of view. There could be references to other sources of information on the topic. When a novice player goes through the tutorials, he could be told to skip this one and just press the key for the Ooptional Rules Standard Defaults. If he wants to learn more later, he can come back to the Optional Rules tutorial and read about it in more detail.

JanSorensen -> RE: Start of Game Screen (2/6/2006 11:58:45 PM)
Steve, I quite understand what you meant by those two "standard" sets and the "personal" set. My point though is that a) its very hard to get anyone to agree and b) the input you get here is likely to be more "hard-core" than what might be reasonable. Thats not the main point of the post you just quoted though. My main point is that the fact that WiF (and hence MWiF) can be played with so extremely different rules it could turn out to fragment the player base making each fragment fall below critical mass to remain active. Quite alot of games fall below critical mass while others remain going strong for years. The many optional rules could end up providing longivity to the game (and its sales) or it could make the game burn out fast because its too hard for some players to find opponents with similarly prefered optionals.

lomyrin -> RE: Start of Game Screen (2/7/2006 12:05:57 AM)

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

Froonp -> RE: Start of Game Screen (2/7/2006 12:08:28 AM)
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.

lomyrin -> RE: Start of Game Screen (2/7/2006 12:12:47 AM)
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

lomyrin -> RE: Start of Game Screen (2/7/2006 12:15:55 AM)
I think Patrice is very much right on target with his beginners and experienced approach to MWiF. Lars

Froonp -> RE: Start of Game Screen (2/7/2006 12:21:17 AM)
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. As far as I know, the corps from MiF are not included in MWiF, only the DIVs, Guns, and other non corps are.

JanSorensen -> RE: Start of Game Screen (2/7/2006 12:21:41 AM)
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. 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.

YohanTM2 -> RE: Start of Game Screen (2/7/2006 12:43:40 AM)
The DOS version of SPIs War in Europe actually kept track of the benefits of each optional rule for both sides. Obviously the weighting of each option would have to be determined in advance. As each option was clicked the status of the weighting anywhere from Major Allied through Major German advantage was tracked. Thus you could end in a balanced or unbalanced state, whatever you desire. It also allowed for players who were playing PBEM to select a set of options that were balanced thus making a competitve game against folks who did not "gather around the table to play" without a lot of crying foul over the options being balanced too much in favour of the other player(s). Anyway, seemed to work fairly well, unlike the game itself ;)

wodin -> RE: Start of Game Screen (2/7/2006 1:53:36 AM)
Mouse over tips are a superb idea. Im a newbie aswell to the game. A very good manual is needed to! Also I agree about the colour scheme. Maybe Army green and khakis would be a better scheme.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Start of Game Screen (2/7/2006 2:08:28 AM)
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 Patrice reviewed all the units in MWIF for me back in August: Land, Naval, and Air. I have implemented most of his corrections and will do the rest "some day soon". 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. Just to double check for your concern I went through the German units and yes the Corps units are ommitted from MWIF. Some of the divisional units too where they were superceded by Asia in Flames counters. I did not check all the units on the Mech in Flames countersheet, just the Germans. 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.

lomyrin -> RE: Start of Game Screen (2/7/2006 3:58:33 AM)
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

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Start of Game Screen (2/7/2006 4:14:37 AM)
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 Ah, that's where those extra units came from - Leaders in Flames. It was a 11-5 mechanized, not an 11 - 6. Yes, the combat units (not the leaders and vetos and all that stuff) will be included in MWIF product 1. If you want to omit them, the CSV file can be changed easily enough. Your comment about unlimited divsional breakdown (UDB) reminds me that I will have to add two more optional rules eventually: UDB, and more cities in China. Sigh. Just when I thought I had all this mess about optional rules nailed down, it squirms away again.

Froonp -> RE: Start of Game Screen (2/7/2006 8:59:51 AM)
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 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. Some corps were added in CS25 (LiF) and some were added in CS30 (PoliF).

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Start of Game Screen (2/7/2006 10:01:20 AM)
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. Yes, please.

c92nichj -> RE: Start of Game Screen (2/7/2006 2:52:04 PM)
quote: What I would like your help on is deciding which options should be set for novices and which for experienced players. Ok here comes my suggestions, I know that options can be discussed at lenth but those are my suggestions. For novices: 15. Off-city reinforcement 23. V-weapons and Atomic bombs 30. Factory construction and destruction 34. Motorized movement rates 39. Blitz Bonus 40. Chinese attack weakness 41. Fractional odds 42. Allied combat friction 44. Extended aircraft rebasing 46. Partisans 47. Isolated reorganization limits 50. USSR-Japan compulsory peace 61. Offensive Chits For experienced players 2. Divisions 3. Artillery 5. Fortifications 6. Supply units 7. Engineers 8. Flying boats 9. Ships In Flames units 10. Territorials 11. Limited overseas supply 12. Limited supply across straits 13. HQ supply and support 14. Synthetic oil plants 15. Off-city reinforcement 19. In the presence of the enemy 20. Surprised ZOCs 23. V-weapons and Atomic bombs 24. Frogmen 25. SCS transport 26. Amphibious rules 27. Optional CV searching 28. Pilots 30. Factory construction and destruction 31. Saving build points and resources 32. Carpet bombing 33. Tank busters 34. Motorized movement rates 35. Bomber (& no paradrop) ATRs 36. Large ATRs 39. Blitz Bonus 40. Chinese attack weakness 41. Fractional odds 42. Allied combat friction 43. 2D10 Land CRT 44. Extended aircraft rebasing 46. Partisans 47. Isolated reorganization limits 48. Oil 50. USSR-Japan compulsory peace 51. En-route aircraft interception 52. Night missions 53. Twin-engined fighters 54. Fighter-bombers 55. Outclassed fighters 56. Carrier planes 57. Limited aircraft interception 58. Internment 59. Flying bombs 60. Kamikazes 61. Offensive Chits 65. Ski troops 66. The Queens 67. City Based Volunteers 68. Siberians 69. Naval supply units 70. Guards Banner Armies 71. Chinese Warlords 72. Partisan HQs scrap units Items that will not be part of any default: 16. Recruitment limits 17. HQ movement 18. Bottomed ships 22. Bounce combat 29. Food in Flames 37. Railway movement bonus 38. Defensive shore bombardment 45. Variable reorganization costs 49. Hitler�s War 62. The Ukraine 63. Intelligence 64. Japanese command conflict 75. Cruisers in Flames 76. Convoys in Flames fog of war facility repair Limited view of production

wfzimmerman -> RE: Start of Game Screen (2/7/2006 4:11:20 PM)
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.

ieamlot -> RE: Start of Game Screen (2/7/2006 8:55:38 PM)
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?

JanSorensen -> RE: Start of Game Screen (2/7/2006 9:16:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ieamlot p.s. Is that JanSorenson that plays WaW so well? I dont know about well but I do also play WaW thats correct. Infact, I have also done some coding on WaW recently - mostly fixing bugs.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Start of Game Screen (2/7/2006 9:41:19 PM)
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. Nice. The ability to save/load a set of options is already on the Start Game screen. You can save them under the label "Personal Default" or any other file name you like. As to providing a repository of setups, I believe that is better handled outside of MWIF proper. The saved optional rules file is a very simple file listing the optional rules one per line with either On or Off following the name of each option. These are tiny files and anyone could set up a 'repository'. That is a ways down the road yet.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Start of Game Screen (2/7/2006 9:51:00 PM)
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? I am reluctant to be the arbiter of the value of optional rules. Or even the central clearing house for same. As a mathematician I also expect that there will be synergistic effects for certain combinations, where the net gain is either more than the sum of the parts or less. These are subtleties best left outside of the code, to be handled as part of the general negotiation to start playing a game. To some degree, ADG has set up a pretty neat system that accommodates all the variability due to optional rules. Set up which rules you are going to play by, and then bid for who gets to play which country. If you think the Axis gains a lot because of the optional rule set decided upon, then you will bid higher in order to play the Axis. In any event, I am placing this this topic outside of my concerns until after the game is released for sale. ---- Oh, and yes. Preticked is how a default set is 'loaded'.

amwild -> RE: Start of Game Screen (2/8/2006 2:19:06 PM)
Steve, Since I am a relative newbie to WiF, I can't really comment on all these options. However, a friend asked me the following rules-based question, which I am now passing on as well as I undetstand it: In cardboard WiF, production is limited to those unit types for which there are counters available in the box and not yet deployed to the map - i.e. only a limited number of any unit type can be produced. Since a computer does not have any such physical limits on the number of each unit type counter that can be produced, is it possible to set an option so that: 1. The numbers of each unit type that may be produced is limited to those available as counters in cardboard WiF or 2. Unlimited numbers of each unit type may be produced. I would expect that there may be named units - such as HQs - that it might not be desirable to produce in numbers in excess of those available in cardboard WiF. So, will MWiF have limited, unlimited or selectable limits on production of units?

YohanTM2 -> RE: Start of Game Screen (2/8/2006 2:23:06 PM)
I am pretty sure the answer is 1. The unit pool will also change based on what mods you are playing like "Asia in Flames" and even "Leaders in Flames" had some extra units but it will be limited to the cardboard force pool. The Leaders in Flames rules will not be part of MWiF. At least not release 1.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

0.953125