RE: Tutorial #4 (Full Version)

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



Message

Froonp -> RE: Tutorial #4 (10/21/2006 6:51:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin
I think that the unit size information should still be shown in this last tutorial screen. For stacking purposes the visual knowledge of which units are Division sized is important.  The Russians do have some units that one might think are Divison sized but are not.
Lars

I wholeheartly agree.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Tutorial #4 (10/21/2006 8:55:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

I think that the unit size information should still be shown in this last tutorial screen. For stacking purposes the visual knowledge of which units are Division sized is important.  The Russians do have some units that one might think are Divison sized but are not.

Lars


Could you provide examples? I have been trying to make all divisional units have different colors for their NATO symbol.

While there appears to be room for the x's in this screen shot (Z4), at Z3 and Z2, where I expect some players will use medium resolution, they would just be a smudge.

----------
Patrice,

The player will be able to assign the default unit resoultion for each zoom level. And override (or change) those settings whenever he wants. That was what I was trying to say somewhere in there. Since I have plenty of room for more text, I'll make it clearer.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Tutorial #4 (10/22/2006 1:42:48 AM)

Here is the missing (final) page for this tutorial. The screen shots are old, which is why the top 3 don't match the bottom one (which is in the new style).

I was going to talk about reserve units here but there wasn't room. I'll do that later.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/063F8024CBB4447292E313CD4BCB078F.jpg[/image]



lomyrin -> RE: Tutorial #4 (10/22/2006 4:20:35 AM)

In the Russia forcepool there are 2 2factor CAV units that are not Divisions.

Those, as well as any number or 3 and 4 factor Inf and Mech and Armor units that have been added into the game by unit breakdowns can be confused with corps sized units if there are no unit level markings on them at say zoom level 4.


Lars



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Tutorial #4 (10/22/2006 4:31:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin
In the Russia forcepool there are 2 2factor CAV units that are not Divisions.

Those, as well as any number or 3 and 4 factor Inf and Mech and Armor units that have been added into the game by unit breakdowns can be confused with corps sized units if there are no unit level markings on them at say zoom level 4.

Lars

Yes. That was a problem in CWIF. I have changed the interior coloring for the divisions though (they roughly match those of WIF FE). So the players should be able to tell them apart by color (and for the color blind, the brightness is different). I think the divisions stand out pretty well based on color.

For example, as they appear in page 9 of 9 for this tutorial (#4) both the Russian and the German divisions are quite different from the corps/army/army group sized units. In fact, I rely on the color more than I do the number of x's above the NATO symbol when looking at units in high resolution.

Not that I want to remove the unit size. It is just that I don't think it will be detectable/helpful at zoom level 2. At that level, the numbers are hard to read on medium resolution units. If I added the x's, they would be 1/4 the size of the numbers - just a blur.



lomyrin -> RE: Tutorial #4 (10/22/2006 5:31:58 AM)

OK, I see your point with the Russian units on page 9 of 9, The German Divisions are harder to see as different, their interior color is the same as the whiteprint corps units.

Lars




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Tutorial #4 (10/22/2006 5:45:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin
OK, I see your point with the Russian units on page 9 of 9, The German Divisions are harder to see as different, their interior color is the same as the whiteprint corps units.

Lars


The colors for the regular corps, elite, and divisions were all created simultaneously and laid out side by side back in January/February. I was especially careful that the color blind players could tell them all apart.

The only issue I have left on my task list for unit colors is to review all the minor countries and make sure we don't have any black font on navy blue backgrounds remaining (e.g., Netherlands). There are some other hard to read color combinations too as I recall, but only a half dozen or so. For the major powers, I am extremely unlikely to change the colors at this point.



pak19652002 -> RE: Tutorial #4 (10/22/2006 8:50:01 AM)


And we love you for it![sm=kiss.gif]


quote:

I was especially careful that the color blind players could tell them all apart.




pak19652002 -> RE: Tutorial #4 (10/22/2006 9:02:11 AM)

On a more serious note, I can't tell one bit of difference between the division and corps sized units on 9 of 9. Color and brightness look the same. I don't think it's a big deal, though, since you can zoom in to count the xxxs or wave the cursor over the unit to see it in the unit screen on the bottom. Also, memory comes into play.

Still, I'm surprised a little that you dumped all the detail even at this zoom level. I haven't been following it too closely so I guess you had your reasons.

But, bottom line is I think the div/corps differentiation scheme fails for the colorblind, but it is not a show stopper.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin
In the Russia forcepool there are 2 2factor CAV units that are not Divisions.

Those, as well as any number or 3 and 4 factor Inf and Mech and Armor units that have been added into the game by unit breakdowns can be confused with corps sized units if there are no unit level markings on them at say zoom level 4.

Lars

Yes. That was a problem in CWIF. I have changed the interior coloring for the divisions though (they roughly match those of WIF FE). So the players should be able to tell them apart by color (and for the color blind, the brightness is different). I think the divisions stand out pretty well based on color.

For example, as they appear in page 9 of 9 for this tutorial (#4) both the Russian and the German divisions are quite different from the corps/army/army group sized units. In fact, I rely on the color more than I do the number of x's above the NATO symbol when looking at units in high resolution.

Not that I want to remove the unit size. It is just that I don't think it will be detectable/helpful at zoom level 2. At that level, the numbers are hard to read on medium resolution units. If I added the x's, they would be 1/4 the size of the numbers - just a blur.





Neilster -> RE: Tutorial #4 (10/22/2006 3:37:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Last in the series. This screen shot did not have to be modified to fit on the page.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/A895193CDC99421DAAE5685897CA8536.jpg[/image]


Perhaps the bit about the Rumanians could be put as something like...

"Try to identify the Rumanian HQ and militia units and the 4 types of terrain in the picture."

As it is currently written, someone who can't identify said units might feel a bit foolish and disheartened.

Cheers, Neilster



Froonp -> RE: Tutorial #4 (10/22/2006 3:43:55 PM)

quote:

On a more serious note, I can't tell one bit of difference between the division and corps sized units on 9 of 9. Color and brightness look the same. I don't think it's a big deal, though, since you can zoom in to count the xxxs or wave the cursor over the unit to see it in the unit screen on the bottom. Also, memory comes into play.

I (not color blind) can tell the DIV and corps appart from the color.

quote:

Still, I'm surprised a little that you dumped all the detail even at this zoom level. I haven't been following it too closely so I guess you had your reasons.


I asked this already, and Steve answered :
***************************
Patrice,

The player will be able to assign the default unit resoultion for each zoom level. And override (or change) those settings whenever he wants. That was what I was trying to say somewhere in there. Since I have plenty of room for more text, I'll make it clearer.
***************************



trees trees -> RE: Tutorial #4 (10/22/2006 9:11:39 PM)

won't the computer enforce stacking limits anyway? that should sort out most corps/division questions? for pretty much everything except 2d10 blitz bonuses I would think, and choice of combat table. I would hope the computer by default would place division sized units on top of a given land stack, with the option to change default stacking priorities to suit the players' taste.

The Morocco TERRitorial should have an "MOR" on it if abbreviated, not "MAR".

And the Seoul MIL probably shouldn't have a "KOR" on it as it is a Japanese unit for all purposes.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Tutorial #4 (10/22/2006 10:15:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: trees trees
won't the computer enforce stacking limits anyway? that should sort out most corps/division questions? for pretty much everything except 2d10 blitz bonuses I would think, and choice of combat table. I would hope the computer by default would place division sized units on top of a given land stack, with the option to change default stacking priorities to suit the players' taste.

The Morocco TERRitorial should have an "MOR" on it if abbreviated, not "MAR".

And the Seoul MIL probably shouldn't have a "KOR" on it as it is a Japanese unit for all purposes.


I took the 3 letter abbreviations for all the countries (100+) from some official document - I'll look up which. There are many countries with similar names so the abbreviations aren't always what you would expect at first.

If Korea is conquered and the Seoul Militia destroyed, isn't it removed from the force pool?



Froonp -> RE: Tutorial #4 (10/23/2006 12:16:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
quote:

ORIGINAL: trees trees
won't the computer enforce stacking limits anyway? that should sort out most corps/division questions? for pretty much everything except 2d10 blitz bonuses I would think, and choice of combat table. I would hope the computer by default would place division sized units on top of a given land stack, with the option to change default stacking priorities to suit the players' taste.
The Morocco TERRitorial should have an "MOR" on it if abbreviated, not "MAR".

And the Seoul MIL probably shouldn't have a "KOR" on it as it is a Japanese unit for all purposes.


I took the 3 letter abbreviations for all the countries (100+) from some official document - I'll look up which. There are many countries with similar names so the abbreviations aren't always what you would expect at first.

You took it from the International Olympic Committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IOC_country_codes)
Morocco is abbreviated MAR.

quote:

If Korea is conquered and the Seoul Militia destroyed, isn't it removed from the force pool?


Quote from RAW :
*******************************
19.13 MIL units
All MIL that arrive in cities in an aligned minor country are units of that minor county. All other MIL are major power units.
*******************************
So the Korean MIL is a Korean Unit, because Korea is an Aligned Minor Country of Japan.
Same for Manchurian MIL.
Same for the Burmese MIL.

On the other hand, the Paris German MIL on the other hand, is a German unit, as France is usually a conquered country, not aligned.
The INA MIL is the same, Japanese unit, as it comes in a conquered Calcutta.

When Korea is conquered, it is completely conquered (as Korea controls no Minor Country), so all Korean units are removed from the game during the conquest Phase. The Korean MIL cannot survive to Korea conquest, it is removed from the game, even if defending Truk.



jesperpehrson -> RE: Tutorial #4 (10/23/2006 12:17:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: trees trees
won't the computer enforce stacking limits anyway? that should sort out most corps/division questions? for pretty much everything except 2d10 blitz bonuses I would think, and choice of combat table. I would hope the computer by default would place division sized units on top of a given land stack, with the option to change default stacking priorities to suit the players' taste.

The Morocco TERRitorial should have an "MOR" on it if abbreviated, not "MAR".

And the Seoul MIL probably shouldn't have a "KOR" on it as it is a Japanese unit for all purposes.


I took the 3 letter abbreviations for all the countries (100+) from some official document - I'll look up which. There are many countries with similar names so the abbreviations aren't always what you would expect at first.

If Korea is conquered and the Seoul Militia destroyed, isn't it removed from the force pool?


In most European languages Morrocko is written Mar* (Marrocko, Marruecos, Maroc, Marokko, Marocco and so on) so maybe this would be the official abbreviation. Either way it matters very little no?



Mziln -> RE: Tutorial #4 (10/23/2006 2:11:38 AM)

All the sites I have checked use a 2 character country codes and Morocco is MA.



trees trees -> RE: Tutorial #4 (10/23/2006 6:00:44 AM)

sigh. 2 games a year for a long time now and I'm still learning rules. one of the last in the book, a tough one to recall.



Froonp -> RE: Tutorial #4 (10/23/2006 8:09:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln

All the sites I have checked use a 2 character country codes and Morocco is MA.

We are using a 3-metter abbreviation.



Froonp -> RE: Tutorial #4 (10/23/2006 8:10:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: trees trees

sigh. 2 games a year for a long time now and I'm still learning rules. one of the last in the book, a tough one to recall.

And so am I. [:D]



Froonp -> RE: Tutorial #4 (10/23/2006 9:49:44 PM)

Statistics about MWiF Land Units.


[image]local://upfiles/10447/D78C51606B0C4BC4AFF8CDDBC9AAEBFC.jpg[/image]



CBoehm -> RE: Tutorial #4 (10/23/2006 10:58:04 PM)

Does MWIF run in windows? ...how about creating a small online manual with more indepth playersnotes & statistics ...and have appropriate links from the tutorial?? or something to that effect?? I like to think Im a quite skilled player and know a lot of the small "tricks of the trade" so I wouldnt mind contributing some playersnotes ...ofcause all that could also be done via a FAQ / Strategy section of this forum ...



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Tutorial #4 (10/24/2006 12:26:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CBoehm

Does MWIF run in windows? ...how about creating a small online manual with more indepth playersnotes & statistics ...and have appropriate links from the tutorial?? or something to that effect?? I like to think Im a quite skilled player and know a lot of the small "tricks of the trade" so I wouldnt mind contributing some playersnotes ...ofcause all that could also be done via a FAQ / Strategy section of this forum ...

This sounds interesting but it is out of scope for what I am doing for MWIF product 1. I really don't even have the time to coordinate such a thing.

However, since it is outside my area of involvement, that means others could do this in a manner they think is reasonable.



SamuraiProgrmmr -> RE: Tutorial #4 (10/24/2006 12:35:02 AM)

Can I write the section on 'Stupid Things Not To Do Or You Will Lose'?

I think my experience at this game would be good for that

[:D]



Greyshaft -> RE: Tutorial #4 (10/24/2006 12:53:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
quote:

ORIGINAL: CBoehm

Does MWIF run in windows? ...how about creating a small online manual with more indepth playersnotes & statistics ...and have appropriate links from the tutorial?? or something to that effect?? I like to think Im a quite skilled player and know a lot of the small "tricks of the trade" so I wouldnt mind contributing some playersnotes ...ofcause all that could also be done via a FAQ / Strategy section of this forum ...

This sounds interesting but it is out of scope for what I am doing for MWIF product 1. I really don't even have the time to coordinate such a thing.

However, since it is outside my area of involvement, that means others could do this in a manner they think is reasonable.


Player Notes are quite useful. Perhaps it would be simpler if the MWIF tutorial included links to existing MWiF sites which already host those sort of articles. There are quite a few superb sites already existing. I appreciate that some MWiF sites come and go, but there are a few that have been around for many years.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Tutorial #4 (10/24/2006 1:34:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
quote:

ORIGINAL: CBoehm
Does MWIF run in windows? ...how about creating a small online manual with more indepth playersnotes & statistics ...and have appropriate links from the tutorial?? or something to that effect?? I like to think Im a quite skilled player and know a lot of the small "tricks of the trade" so I wouldnt mind contributing some playersnotes ...ofcause all that could also be done via a FAQ / Strategy section of this forum ...

This sounds interesting but it is out of scope for what I am doing for MWIF product 1. I really don't even have the time to coordinate such a thing.

However, since it is outside my area of involvement, that means others could do this in a manner they think is reasonable.


Player Notes are quite useful. Perhaps it would be simpler if the MWIF tutorial included links to existing MWiF sites which already host those sort of articles. There are quite a few superb sites already existing. I appreciate that some MWiF sites come and go, but there are a few that have been around for many years.


I doubt that I will include links from within the program - for the reason you gave.

But the player's manual should definitely contain a section on "for more information on ... see ...", which could point to books as well as websites.



Neilster -> RE: Tutorial #4 (10/24/2006 9:52:18 AM)

Are the players' notes from WiFFE being included? They would be a good start. I must have read them (in an earlier version) dozens of times and they gave me a good feel for the best style of play and what's possible.

Cheers, Neilster



CBoehm -> RE: Tutorial #4 (10/24/2006 10:43:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

Are the players' notes from WiFFE being included? They would be a good start. I must have read them (in an earlier version) dozens of times and they gave me a good feel for the best style of play and what's possible.

Cheers, Neilster



Funny ...I always wondered how much Harry and his bunch actually played the game [:D]

edit: ok to be fair I guess in an abstract way they are ok to give a general introduction to the game ...



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Tutorial #4 (10/24/2006 12:15:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster
Are the players' notes from WiFFE being included? They would be a good start. I must have read them (in an earlier version) dozens of times and they gave me a good feel for the best style of play and what's possible.

Cheers, Neilster


I will try to do that.



Mziln -> RE: Tutorial #4 (10/24/2006 5:27:04 PM)

What Neilster is referring to is found at the ADG site in DOWNLOADS\Scenariotxt.doc.



25.1 Players’ notes

In 1985 it was difficult to provide notes on good play in a few paragraphs because of the large number of variables in World in Flames. Since then, the game has changed markedly, making up-to-date strategy notes even harder. Fortunately, this final edition has been heavily play tested for the last 10 years, giving me some idea of how to play (of course, I could be wrong). I’ve also added bits and pieces to help you out with some of the more difficult new rules.

First off, you will have noticed the players’ notes at the end of the scenarios. Those notes cover the strategies for each of those campaigns. The following notes deal more generally with handling the systems (and their interaction) in World in Flames.

Grand strategy

etc...



My note: And the player notes for a scenario, which could be included, for example, as part of: MWiF Tutorial\Page 4\Steve’s post 102



24.2.1 Barbarossa ~ “One Kick...”: May/Jun 1941~Jan/Feb 1942

Players’ notes: This is the ideal scenario to try first because it deals mainly with the parts of the game most commonly used in general play, the land and air systems.

[:D] My note: Unless you choose the "Unrestricted Setup" option. [:D]

USSR: You are forced into the dangerous front-line, historical set up that Stalin was caught with in the summer of 1941 ~ but don’t despair, Russia won that war and you can, too.

etc...



c92nichj -> RE: Tutorial #4 (10/26/2006 5:05:55 PM)

quote:

Quote from RAW :
*******************************
19.13 MIL units
All MIL that arrive in cities in an aligned minor country are units of that minor county. All other MIL are major power units.
*******************************


This is interesting as we had a small disagreement in a previous game of mine where Japan became neutral after China surrendered, she only had Kunming left in play.

When a major power becomes neutral all it's Militia units are lost, but since the Korean unit is not a Japaneese unit, but an Korean unit it will not be removed like the the Tokyo militia right?

The japaneese player argued that the Korean unit would not be lost and the Allies that it should be removed like the normal japaneese militia. What further complicated things was that the japaneese player had missed FTC and placed the Militia from Formosa in Korea.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.40625