RE: Sequence of Play Tutorial - #10 (Full Version)

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



Message

lomyrin -> RE: Sequence of Play Tutorial - #10 (9/15/2007 2:53:44 AM)

Per the rules, yes you are right.

CWiF worked so well that after a while one considers it correct. Perhaps the coding was less complex to have the actions in the DoW phase ?

Lars



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Sequence of Play Tutorial - #10 (9/15/2007 4:38:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

Per the rules, yes you are right.

CWiF worked so well that after a while one considers it correct. Perhaps the coding was less complex to have the actions in the DoW phase ?

Lars


One of the minor terrors in my life is that MWIF may become the 'standard' rules for WIF. I have no intention/objective of that becoming so, but the thought looms over me from time to time. It is one reason I am very close to being anal-retentive about getting the rules correct.



brian brian -> RE: Sequence of Play Tutorial - #10 (9/15/2007 5:10:40 AM)

Don't worry about that too much, some rules depend on what your definition of "is" is. i.e. they aren't always 'correct' right now and MWiF will most likely be an improvement on some of the 'loose' ones.



Froonp -> RE: Sequence of Play Tutorial - #10 (9/15/2007 7:45:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

Per the rules, yes you are right.

CWiF worked so well that after a while one considers it correct. Perhaps the coding was less complex to have the actions in the DoW phase ?

Lars


One of the minor terrors in my life is that MWIF may become the 'standard' rules for WIF. I have no intention/objective of that becoming so, but the thought looms over me from time to time. It is one reason I am very close to being anal-retentive about getting the rules correct.

Hopefully the rule clarification project will get us the closest from the original Designer's intends with the rules, this is what is important.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Sequence of Play Tutorial - #10 (9/15/2007 10:19:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

Per the rules, yes you are right.

CWiF worked so well that after a while one considers it correct. Perhaps the coding was less complex to have the actions in the DoW phase ?

Lars


One of the minor terrors in my life is that MWIF may become the 'standard' rules for WIF. I have no intention/objective of that becoming so, but the thought looms over me from time to time. It is one reason I am very close to being anal-retentive about getting the rules correct.

Hopefully the rule clarification project will get us the closest from the original Designer's intends with the rules, this is what is important.


Yes.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Sequence of Play Tutorial - #10 (9/15/2007 12:18:04 PM)

A couple of more pages for this tutorial. Just grinding them out these days.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/C0BDBBA24C40464DA3D3925B3F5CF511.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Sequence of Play Tutorial - #10 (9/15/2007 12:19:29 PM)

2nd and last in the series. I just saw a typo: the next to last word should be 'isolate'.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/C4E70648E6944E17BF96427898E9D65A.jpg[/image]



bj_rohde -> RE: Sequence of Play Tutorial - #10 (9/15/2007 3:23:39 PM)

I have a question about the "declare emergency HQ supply" step.

Shouldn't this be possible also for the non-phasing side before movement? That way, emergency supply may prevent a possible overrun, while restricting emergency supply to after combat declarations would not give the defender that option. Also, in other steps, emergency supply may let out-of-supply FTRs intercept (and AA guns fire), which also can be of important value.

Bjarne



doctormm -> RE: Sequence of Play Tutorial - #10 (9/15/2007 3:51:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets



One of the minor terrors in my life is that MWIF may become the 'standard' rules for WIF.



I'm with you on that. It's bad enough trying to convince people how the pulp version of the game is supposed to be played. If they start pointing to MWiF as gospel, it's going to be even more fun. It's hard enough trying to convince WiFfers that Harry isn't perfect. Imagine the trouble doing so for you!

[:)]



Zorachus99 -> RE: Sequence of Play Tutorial - #10 (9/15/2007 6:53:58 PM)

Any way you look at it, the new capabilities a computer adds is going to make any possible V2 a heated debate.  I for one would like sea zones to go away, and interception have to do with actual plotted naval movement, with ships having a range in hexes.  A plane would simply be placed in a box to indicate that it is patrolling at sea, and the range from it's original hex would determine how far it can intercept task forces.

I do like WiF naval combat as it is, but it's exploited, particularly in the case of short range fighters rebasing implausible and occasionally impossible distances.



composer99 -> RE: Sequence of Play Tutorial - #10 (9/15/2007 6:59:20 PM)

I might mention that HQ support comes in two steps:
(1) Announcing HQ support, which happens before you throw in ground support from aircraft.
(2) Resolving HQ support, which happens after.

This only matters in 1D10, if I'm not mistaken, since you have to roll a die to resolve whether HQ support works or not (with the corresponding odds shift), whereas in 2D10 the HQ adds/subtracts half its reorg value from the combat modifiers without die rolling be required.

Nevertheless, it might not be a bad idea to conflate these two parts into one. I have a hard time understanding how someone else's announcing HQ support is going to change what ground support I throw into the battle (all the more so since my group plays with fractional odds and a modified 2d10 chart that gives bonuses/penalties to combat mods for throwing in ground support).



bj_rohde -> RE: Sequence of Play Tutorial - #10 (9/15/2007 8:23:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

I might mention that HQ support comes in two steps:
(1) Announcing HQ support, which happens before you throw in ground support from aircraft.
(2) Resolving HQ support, which happens after.

This only matters in 1D10, if I'm not mistaken, since you have to roll a die to resolve whether HQ support works or not (with the corresponding odds shift), whereas in 2D10 the HQ adds/subtracts half its reorg value from the combat modifiers without die rolling be required.

Nevertheless, it might not be a bad idea to conflate these two parts into one. I have a hard time understanding how someone else's announcing HQ support is going to change what ground support I throw into the battle (all the more so since my group plays with fractional odds and a modified 2d10 chart that gives bonuses/penalties to combat mods for throwing in ground support).



I am talking about emergency HQ supply, not HQ support. Those are two entirely different things. HQ supply allows out-of-supply units to act as though they were in supply, thus making out-of-supply and disorganised units fight with their actual strength instead of 1 or 3, as well as letting out-of-supply aircraft perform other missions than rebases (only interception and ground support really of consequence for the non-phasing player).

Bjarne



composer99 -> RE: Sequence of Play Tutorial - #10 (9/15/2007 8:40:36 PM)

Yes. You were talking about emergency HQ supply.

I was talking about HQ support.

What I was bringing up wasn't meant to be in reply to or related to what you were bringing up. [:)]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Sequence of Play Tutorial - #10 (9/15/2007 9:01:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: doctormm


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets



One of the minor terrors in my life is that MWIF may become the 'standard' rules for WIF.



I'm with you on that. It's bad enough trying to convince people how the pulp version of the game is supposed to be played. If they start pointing to MWiF as gospel, it's going to be even more fun. It's hard enough trying to convince WiFfers that Harry isn't perfect. Imagine the trouble doing so for you!

[:)]

Yowl[X(]!

"Perfection is an elusive goal." - quote by me.

The compiler and linker inform me of the dozens of mistakes I make everyday. And then the beta testers seriously critique my performance.[;)]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Sequence of Play Tutorial - #10 (9/15/2007 9:07:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

I might mention that HQ support comes in two steps:
(1) Announcing HQ support, which happens before you throw in ground support from aircraft.
(2) Resolving HQ support, which happens after.

This only matters in 1D10, if I'm not mistaken, since you have to roll a die to resolve whether HQ support works or not (with the corresponding odds shift), whereas in 2D10 the HQ adds/subtracts half its reorg value from the combat modifiers without die rolling be required.

Nevertheless, it might not be a bad idea to conflate these two parts into one. I have a hard time understanding how someone else's announcing HQ support is going to change what ground support I throw into the battle (all the more so since my group plays with fractional odds and a modified 2d10 chart that gives bonuses/penalties to combat mods for throwing in ground support).

I thought about adding a separate box for the resolution of HQ support. However, I do say in the beginning of this tutorial (waaaay back there) that not every rule is necessarily addressed completely in this tutorial.

Eventually I will go through and reassess at lot of these graphics - I am not happy with what is identified as a phase, a subphase, and a 'step'. For now however, I just want to get something done that covers 98% of the ground.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Sequence of Play Tutorial - #10 (9/15/2007 9:13:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bj_rohde

I have a question about the "declare emergency HQ supply" step.

Shouldn't this be possible also for the non-phasing side before movement? That way, emergency supply may prevent a possible overrun, while restricting emergency supply to after combat declarations would not give the defender that option. Also, in other steps, emergency supply may let out-of-supply FTRs intercept (and AA guns fire), which also can be of important value.

Bjarne

Yeah, this is a problem for me. Basically the rules say you can declare emergency HQ supply at any time. In practice over the board, a player can just yell out. Using the computer, it is a little trickier. For one thing, you do not want to be doing this in the middle of Production. I would be happiest if I could identify certain places where the non-phasing player can invoke emergency HQ supply. It is not a concern for the phasing player; he can simply right click on an HQ unit and select Emergency HQ Supply.

But for the non-phasing player? I'm not so sure. I am open to suggestions on how to handle this. The best solution would give the non-phasing player the opportunity to invoke this when he might need it, but not be so open-ended as to have the computer fanatically checking to see if this (very rare) event has occurred.



bj_rohde -> RE: Sequence of Play Tutorial - #10 (9/15/2007 10:12:25 PM)

I'm not sure if this is a feasible way of doing this, but maybe units could have a secondary supply status ("potentially in supply") known by the program, that prompts the non-phasing player only when a situation occurs that may invoke emergency supply.

A dialog would then trigger for the non-phasing player when a unit that may act as in supply (via emergency) would be overrun, or might intercept, ground support or fire (AA/ART). This should probably be possible for players to preset via the Standing Orders in some way.

I'm not a programmer, so I have no idea if this could work, but it's my 5 cents anyway.

Bjarne





Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Sequence of Play Tutorial - #10 (9/15/2007 10:40:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bj_rohde

I'm not sure if this is a feasible way of doing this, but maybe units could have a secondary supply status ("potentially in supply") known by the program, that prompts the non-phasing player only when a situation occurs that may invoke emergency supply.

A dialog would then trigger for the non-phasing player when a unit that may act as in supply (via emergency) would be overrun, or might intercept, ground support or fire (AA/ART). This should probably be possible for players to preset via the Standing Orders in some way.

I'm not a programmer, so I have no idea if this could work, but it's my 5 cents anyway.

Bjarne

Standing Orders is only for PBEM. When playnig over the Internet they will not be used.

You do bring to my mind a couple of ideas though. If the non-phasing player wants to use Emergency HQ supply for flying air units or for anti-aircraft fire, then he will already have 'control' - the program will be waiting on his decisions as to what he wants to do. If he wants to invoke EHQS, he merely has to right click on an HQ unit to bring up a menu to do so.

Perhaps the only occasion when he won't be in 'control' already is during Overruns? Or are there some other circumstances too?



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Sequence of Play Tutorial - #10 (9/17/2007 12:03:22 PM)

The last 4 pages of this tutorial.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/68CA80C9D2124212A216313F399E9CBE.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Sequence of Play Tutorial - #10 (9/17/2007 12:04:48 PM)

I still have to go back and finish up some of the remaining pages on weather and hex control/stacking.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/8FD58B67CF964B9C886D64E7F67FCEEC.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Sequence of Play Tutorial - #10 (9/17/2007 12:07:08 PM)

The sequence of play for the End of Turn is code that I have not looked at very much. And in the case of the Intelligence Phase, it is a brand new phase (CWIF did not have anything about it) and I haven't written any code for it yet.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/25F2F7C9B3A147A7BA5BE215F4E9B959.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Sequence of Play Tutorial - #10 (9/17/2007 12:08:02 PM)

4th and last in the series.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/DB5FBC72F3BB416892215542C41B12CD.jpg[/image]



Froonp -> RE: Sequence of Play Tutorial - #10 (9/17/2007 8:02:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I still have to go back and finish up some of the remaining pages on weather and hex control/stacking.

On page 17, penultimate you say :
"When the Oil rules are in effect, some oil will have to be spent on reorganizing the more expensive units."

It should be IMHO :
"When the Oil rules are in effect, some oil will have to be spent on reorganizing the oil dependant units."



Froonp -> RE: Sequence of Play Tutorial - #10 (9/17/2007 8:08:36 PM)

Page 18 you mention the Naval Repair Phase, that is just before Production Phase.
What's this ?



Froonp -> RE: Sequence of Play Tutorial - #10 (9/17/2007 8:12:32 PM)

Page 18, third para you write :
"Some BPs may have been lost to strategic bombing...."

Strategic bombing destroys PP, not BPs. You should change this as this will misslead people already well misslead about this rule.



Mziln -> RE: Sequence of Play Tutorial - #10 (9/17/2007 10:04:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Page 18, third para you write :
"Some BPs may have been lost to strategic bombing...."

Strategic bombing destroys PP, not BPs. You should change this as this will misslead people already well misslead about this rule.


Patrice is correct.

Steve would be correct if he was talking about "saved build points". But that is in another paragraph and nothing is mentioned about Strategic bombardment of them.

quote:

11.7 Strategic bombardment

Where there is more than one target in the hex, the order you apply results are: production points, oil resources, saved oil (see 13.5.1), saved build points (13.6.8), blue factories (22.2), red factories (22.2), synth oil (22.4.11), and then oil hexes (22.4.11).



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Sequence of Play Tutorial - #10 (9/17/2007 11:37:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Page 18 you mention the Naval Repair Phase, that is just before Production Phase.
What's this ?

I haven't figured this out yet, though I have spent several hours analyzing the CWIF code. As near as I can tell/remember, naval units that were repaired in an earlier turn are advanced closer to being a reinforcement. This is not how I would have coded naval unit repairs, but I am reluctant to make any changes until I fully understand what is going on.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Sequence of Play Tutorial - #10 (9/17/2007 11:38:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I still have to go back and finish up some of the remaining pages on weather and hex control/stacking.

On page 17, penultimate you say :
"When the Oil rules are in effect, some oil will have to be spent on reorganizing the more expensive units."

It should be IMHO :
"When the Oil rules are in effect, some oil will have to be spent on reorganizing the oil dependant units."


Ok.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Sequence of Play Tutorial - #10 (9/17/2007 11:38:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Page 18, third para you write :
"Some BPs may have been lost to strategic bombing...."

Strategic bombing destroys PP, not BPs. You should change this as this will misslead people already well misslead about this rule.


Patrice is correct.

Steve would be correct if he was talking about "saved build points". But that is in another paragraph and nothing is mentioned about Strategic bombardment of them.

quote:

11.7 Strategic bombardment

Where there is more than one target in the hex, the order you apply results are: production points, oil resources, saved oil (see 13.5.1), saved build points (13.6.8), blue factories (22.2), red factories (22.2), synth oil (22.4.11), and then oil hexes (22.4.11).


Ok.



Greyshaft -> RE: Sequence of Play Tutorial - #10 (9/21/2007 6:04:09 AM)

uh... maybe you want to rename this step?
Imagine what would happen if they were being squeezed on both flanks... [sm=vomit-smiley-020.gif]

[image]local://upfiles/10508/0FB20DEEC4A44440B821D75AAEC5FAB8.jpg[/image]



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.703125