RE: optional rules (Full Version)

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



Message

dale1066 -> RE: optional rules (10/21/2007 11:26:14 AM)

Japanese player will certainly get advantage from the port 'Pakhoi' as this enables an attack on Nanning without requiring a HQ so that must surely strech the chinese player a little more (too much?). Tho' IMHO this is possibly more than offset by the China player having more options when placing reinforcements and the odd extra assault required by Japan. Any way really looking forwar to checking the impact these new features have on that aspect of the game. In fact already taken a look at possible setups. The start lines discussed in the other threads have been finalised?



Froonp -> RE: optional rules (10/21/2007 12:56:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dale1066

Japanese player will certainly get advantage from the port 'Pakhoi' as this enables an attack on Nanning without requiring a HQ so that must surely strech the chinese player a little more (too much?).

No, because in WiF FE the Japanese already can attack Nanning without an HQ (The Japanese in WiF FE stand on coastal hexes to attack Nanning).
This is the same.



Froonp -> RE: optional rules (10/21/2007 12:59:50 PM)

Here is something to help people compare apple with apples.
Here, you see why I answered in previous post about Nanning, and other posts saying that the Chinese is ALWAYS in supply in China with WiF FE (contrarily to MWiF where it is nearly always out of supply in China, without the additinal cities.


[image]local://upfiles/10447/23EECC19E2D74C68A940B67CBDC426F6.jpg[/image]



Zorachus99 -> RE: optional rules (10/22/2007 12:27:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
quote:

ORIGINAL: wosung
As for the additional cities: Doesen't also the Japanese player profit from them?


Not really.

1) Cities force the Japanese attacker to use the assualt table and a -1 to the die roll unless a HQ or Eng participates.
2) They are Primary supply sources for Chinese units
3) They do not provide supply for Japanese

Pretty major difference.

As I said previously, this -1 only matters if you really are forced to fight. The Chinese do not have a large enough army.
I'd add :
4) Provide rail move stations for the Japanese, which is invaluable when fighting the Partisans.
5) Cities force the Chinese attacker to use the assualt table and a -1 to the die roll unless a HQ or Eng participates, when trying to take it back.

So I won't say that they do not profit to the Japanese player.


Do you know how to play Go? My guess is we have very different play styles. Whether one is better than another will have to be seen. [sm=00000622.gif]



dale1066 -> RE: optional rules (10/22/2007 3:43:38 PM)

too much CWif for me I think :)



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: optional rules (12/6/2007 1:47:17 AM)

I modified the optional rules review form for use during game play (as opposed to during setup).

What is new is the additional of (ON) after those rules which are on. This makes understanding the 3 default sets of optional rules easier to comprehend. Shown here is the Novice Set.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/FDBCB77EB9854AF6994237EE81E58D46.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: optional rules (12/6/2007 1:49:01 AM)

I have added the text description for one of the optional rules that is ON for each of these screen shots.

This is the Standard set.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/20175EF457144382B65BD9B0301AC454.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: optional rules (12/6/2007 1:51:21 AM)

Third and last in the series.

Here is the Advanced Set. You can create your own 'Personal' set too and have it available "a mouse click away" when you start a new game.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/B7CEE6703AAB4B2783740144AD4A9F1D.jpg[/image]



lomyrin -> RE: optional rules (12/6/2007 5:05:59 AM)

This certainly shows which options are on and which are not and that is indeed needed. Being able to recall the details of an options is also good.

The only problem I see with the above screens is that they get very busy and at glance one can not really see what the on options are.

Bold versus faded lettering in additon to the 'on' statement would help make it clearer I believe.

Lars




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: optional rules (12/6/2007 7:10:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

This certainly shows which options are on and which are not and that is indeed needed. Being able to recall the details of an options is also good.

The only problem I see with the above screens is that they get very busy and at glance one can not really see what the on options are.

Bold versus faded lettering in additon to the 'on' statement would help make it clearer I believe.

Lars



Yeah, I agree.

That will take more work though and I do not see a real lot of benefit. ... and I have all these other things to work on.



Page: <<   < prev  13 14 15 16 [17]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.597656