quote:

ORIGINAL:  SamuraiProgrammer
My wife has encouraged me to frame and hang my set of WiF maps in the game room.  They are beautiful.
However, as much as I would like to do so, I can't see myself devoting 170 sq. ft. of wall space.
BUT...
What I would like to see is an atlas style booklet with color maps in it.  This could be useful in hotseat games and also for pondering strategies when the computer is otherwise engaged.
Furthermore, while we are dreaming....
There is an inexpensive reporting engine for Delphi that natively produces PDFs. Wouldn't it be great to be able to produce map images at the press of a button so you could email them to yourself for lunch-break at work?
[sm=00000028.gif]  Steve
[sm=terms.gif]     Dean
Not really a serious proposal for this version, but there is always version 2.0

quote:

ORIGINAL: abj9562

The following quote is fro another topic but bears posting here.

quote:

ORIGINAL:  SamuraiProgrammer
My wife has encouraged me to frame and hang my set of WiF maps in the game room.  They are beautiful.
However, as much as I would like to do so, I can't see myself devoting 170 sq. ft. of wall space.
BUT...
What I would like to see is an atlas style booklet with color maps in it.  This could be useful in hotseat games and also for pondering strategies when the computer is otherwise engaged.
Furthermore, while we are dreaming....
There is an inexpensive reporting engine for Delphi that natively produces PDFs. Wouldn't it be great to be able to produce map images at the press of a button so you could email them to yourself for lunch-break at work?
[sm=00000028.gif]  Steve
[sm=terms.gif]     Dean
Not really a serious proposal for this version, but there is always version 2.0

I think an Atlas is one heck of a good idea. Perhaps in PDf and therefore printable and usable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

and one last thought - "Divided bonuses by 3, 4, or 6 when combat factors are reduced in that manner" - is more clear.

'third, fourth, and sixth' are really confusing as verbs, much moreso than "halve"

(when are they ever quartered? I can only think of halved for rivers or invasion and thirded for forts or the combination thereof?)

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

the City Mods "can never be more than zero" is a little bit confusing; the newer version reads "City modifiers can never total more than zero" and is grasped more quickly.


the +1 for jungle qualified units could perhaps use an explanation that requiring 'elite' status can thus only apply to corps/army sized units but could be hard to add to the tightly fitted form as it is right now

but it gets confusing that blitz units get a +1 per DIV, as do paras, but jungle-fighters don't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

also, the original * results are underlined with no explanation

another alternative to the 'above the line' / 'below the line' distinction is to use three colors; black for all flip, red for half-flip, green for no-flip
(green being a bit more positive psychologically maybe?)

for the blitz/assault table choice, it is important to note that a defending AT GUN counts the same as an ARM Corps sized unit even though the gun is a Div sized unit. this is explained in the rules but not on the current paper table either

I think the whole table would look a lot better with spaces between the result characters and the + before the attacker number "+ 2 / 1" seems easier to digest than "+2/1" on a table full of numbers. and maybe a trailing + sign emphasizes the "extra loss" more as you've designed it anyway.


and although the current table doesn't mention that the defender only flips if they take more losses than the attacker, it would be nice to add it to this new table

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

How do you like this version? The D indicates defender becomes disorganized. On (D) the defender 's units become disorganized only if the attacker takes a loss.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ullern

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

How do you like this version? The D indicates defender becomes disorganized. On (D) the defender 's units become disorganized only if the attacker takes a loss.

On (D) the defender 's units become disorganized only if the attacker takes no loss.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I don't think a D on the actual table will ever work out, due to the variability of 'attacker extra loss in bad weather/terrain' results. I was just suggesting adding it to the text explanations.

The current 2d10 table doesn't explain the difference for jungle-fighting units either, so I wasn't suggesting any change, just that it be pointed out right there that divisions can never be 'elite', rather than in the only rules.

I guess too I'm suggesting how the table looks gets synched up somewhat with how the computer reports the combat results...

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

that page of text is one of the most used pages in the game, right up there with the 2 page double sided color chart. it's always been a little frustrating that it explains only _most_ of the mods and combat results, for me at least.

commenting on the table led me to consider what the combat results report might look like, which is unknown to me, but I'm sure you'll keep it all consistent.

for the disruption results, maybe add a column to the left of the numerical assault results for the attacker. -1 to 17 = D for attacker; 18 to 22 = 1/2 D; 23 = - or 'none' or something. with a similar column on the right for the blitz results. then no messy lines or colors are needed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
How do you like this version? The D indicates defender becomes disorganized. On (D) the defender 's units become disorganized only if the attacker takes a loss.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
How do you like this version? The D indicates defender becomes disorganized. On (D) the defender 's units become disorganized only if the attacker takes a loss.

I too prefered the asterisk, as the */2B is a WiF legend that you can't make disappear.

Also, the defender is only disrupted if he retreated, or if he took more losses than the attacker. Using the extra losses, this last condition will be conditionaly made only, so I'd suggest not writing (defender disrupted) this on the chart.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
How do you like this version? The D indicates defender becomes disorganized. On (D) the defender 's units become disorganized only if the attacker takes a loss.

I too prefered the asterisk, as the */2B is a WiF legend that you can't make disappear.

Also, the defender is only disrupted if he retreated, or if he took more losses than the attacker. Using the extra losses, this last condition will be conditionaly made only, so I'd suggest not writing (defender disrupted) this on the chart.

quote:

I changed my mind. At the risk of infuriating WIF FE traditionalists:

1 - O for all remain organized.
2 - o for 1/2 (rounding up) remain organized.

I always disliked the description as half-disrupted since the calculation is done such that half remain undisrupted. Using organized and disorganized opened up the new possibility of using O and o.

I find the asterisk confusing because it means multiply in most situations. That's especially true if we use + to indicate possible additional loss.

So, ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: abj9562

O0o are really close looking. Somebody somewhere will be unable to distinguish them. Vetererns will recognize what they are based on the location in the tables. I think new players will suffer a learning curve.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

seriously, try adding a column for the attacker disrupted results, with "D"; "D/2" or "half-D" or "1/2 D"; and "-" or "0" or "*" or "none"

trying to convey two types of results, the casualties and the amount of disruption, in the same column makes that column kind of busy.

a simple sentence right at the bottom of the chart - "Surviving defenders are disrupted if they retreat or take more casualties than the attacker", right next to where the attacker disruption is explained, seems easier than adding new "D" or "(D)" results to a table that has never had them before.

but also, as you mentioned in the Zone of Control tutorial discussion, wargamers aren't so thick-headed that they can't figure out to read what an "*" on the CRT means and if they are, they'll never make it to the first land combat anyway.

the land combat form looks real good and will be excellent for avoiding that 'forgotten' modifier when you are doing it in your head over the table. plus, it will probably be spelling out the disruption results with text, i.e. words, anyway, so people will get the hang of it quick, especially after their first 'half-flip' result creates a pop-up window for them to pick which half of the units to 'disrupt'. after that, or maybe after the 2nd or 3rd one, it will be like riding a bike.