RE: What kind of manual(s) should we ask for? (Full Version)

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



Message

lomyrin -> RE: What kind of manual(s) should we ask for? (1/4/2008 12:41:17 AM)

I will have to agree with Patrice on the 2D10 table representations.

The original tables are quite clear and with their colorcoding easy to get an overview for.

Could perhaps the original tables be supplied as a printable form for the players use if they so desire ?

Lars




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: What kind of manual(s) should we ask for? (1/4/2008 3:05:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Well, the original 2d10 CRT is perfectly clear, why bother changing it ?

Ah, I can't agree on that. The dagger and smudge (caduceus?) are hard to tell apart at a glance. Even the dagger and asterisk are not easy to distinguish from any distance. Now experienced players know there is no asterisk at the top of the table, and most have memorized the requisite numbers for achieving a result of "attacker not disorganized", so they do not even have to refer to the table. But that aside, the little symbols are not "perfectly clear".

If you compare the original black and white WIF FE printed version to the version shown above where I used blue and green, I think the question of whether the attacker's units become disorganized or not is much less obvious. Reducing the symbols from 3 to 1 (the one remaining is the +) returns to that status of the original land CRT which only had 1 symbol - the asterisk. [I have no problems at all with the depiction of the standard land CRT.]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: What kind of manual(s) should we ask for? (1/4/2008 3:09:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

I will have to agree with Patrice on the 2D10 table representations.

The original tables are quite clear and with their colorcoding easy to get an overview for.

Could perhaps the original tables be supplied as a printable form for the players use if they so desire ?

Lars

You have a color coded copy? I only have black & white (and gray).

The original charts and tables are available as PDF files from ADG and those files will be included in the released product.



lomyrin -> RE: What kind of manual(s) should we ask for? (1/4/2008 3:33:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

I will have to agree with Patrice on the 2D10 table representations.

The original tables are quite clear and with their colorcoding easy to get an overview for.

Could perhaps the original tables be supplied as a printable form for the players use if they so desire ?

Lars

You have a color coded copy? I only have black & white (and gray).

The original charts and tables are available as PDF files from ADG and those files will be included in the released product.


I have sent the color coded version of the 2D10 from 2002 in email. The 2003 version adds the city modifier limits and is in black and white.

Lars



Toed -> RE: What kind of manual(s) should we ask for? (1/4/2008 4:04:56 AM)

Just a thought.

In the '2 Die 10 Land Combat Results Table' there is the folowing statement.

2. ...
(a) Defender Assault or Blitz chooses if the terrain effects say so.

Sounds like something a certain Jedi Master might say. How about.

(a) The Defender chooses Assault or Blitz if the terrain effects say so.
or
(a) If the terrain effects says so then the Defender chooses Land CRT.

But I don't have english as my first language so if the original line sound ok to you english speakers then I stand corrected. Or you might have an even better alternative. And yes a simple - seems better than a 0 in the table.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: What kind of manual(s) should we ask for? (1/4/2008 5:05:48 AM)

Lars, thanks. This is much better. [The bottom is partially cropped.]

[image]local://upfiles/16701/4DE6BBC9E76A45BCAA265099708CDC59.jpg[/image]



brian brian -> RE: What kind of manual(s) should we ask for? (1/4/2008 5:17:46 AM)

WiF could use more Yoda-speak, it helps you grok the "WiFZen" of the playability trade-offs. But it is already written in Harry-speak, a distant linguistic cousin developed by a race of imprisoned lawyers exiled to a planet called "Terra" by the Imperial Star Fleet.


The way the table choice is defined in the rules is the best presentation of it. Trying to condense it on to the combat chart leads to problems, I think. I would suggest junking that section of the text on the 2d10 table and adding perhaps a pop-up window with the complete text from the rule-book to avoid all confusion here, but I don't know how that fits with the land combat form. Since we are not trying to fit it on to an 8.5x11 piece of paper there seems no reason to use a shortcut version. The computer could indicate how the table is picked as it offers a check box to the appropriate player - "Attacking a city hex requires the Assault table" (no check box offered); "The Defender has the choice of combat table in a mountain hex"; "In this combat the attacker has more ARM and may now choose the combat table"; etc., with an option to see just the table choice rules text, or a link to the combat tutorial or something. ? just thinking out loud. heck, half the time on defense I forget about my option to call blitz when there are no tanks in sight but I'm holding the high ground. on the attack I sometimes forget to switch to assault to protect a single MECH/ARM from being the 1st loss in a blitz. it takes a long time to learn to recall those for every combat. well, for me anyway.



Froonp -> RE: What kind of manual(s) should we ask for? (1/4/2008 9:35:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian
"Attacking a city hex requires the Assault table" (no check box offered); "The Defender has the choice of combat table in a mountain hex"; "In this combat the attacker has more ARM and may now choose the combat table"; etc., with an option to see just the table choice rules text, or a link to the combat tutorial or something. ?

The defender can call it a blitz even in a city hex.



Froonp -> RE: What kind of manual(s) should we ask for? (1/4/2008 9:47:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin
I have sent the color coded version of the 2D10 from 2002 in email. The 2003 version adds the city modifier limits and is in black and white.

Careful here.
You should only take the chart from this 2002 document.

The text on the color coded version of the 2d10 chart also have a minor differences with the latest 2003 chart :
- In the text describing how Fractional odds work with the 2d10 chart. There is the added reference to "odds of 1:1 and higher".
- The city modifiers are isolated in another module, so that we know that they globaly cap at 0.
- The penalty for factories is limited to printed factories in the latest chart.
- In the 2002 2d10 CRT, the white print SS are winterized while they are not in the latest 2003 2d10 CRT.
- The 2002 2d10 CRT don't have the exception for HQ support in the "halve attacking bonuses if attacking units are halved" rule.



brian brian -> RE: What kind of manual(s) should we ask for? (1/4/2008 3:31:33 PM)

sunk by a ghost of the past again, the language 'must be used' stuck in my head for some reason. yet another improvement MWiF will bring us - never forgetting to choose the table.



lomyrin -> RE: What kind of manual(s) should we ask for? (1/4/2008 5:47:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin
I have sent the color coded version of the 2D10 from 2002 in email. The 2003 version adds the city modifier limits and is in black and white.

Careful here.
You should only take the chart from this 2002 document.

The text on the color coded version of the 2d10 chart also have a minor differences with the latest 2003 chart :
- In the text describing how Fractional odds work with the 2d10 chart. There is the added reference to "odds of 1:1 and higher".
- The city modifiers are isolated in another module, so that we know that they globaly cap at 0.
- The penalty for factories is limited to printed factories in the latest chart.
- In the 2002 2d10 CRT, the white print SS are winterized while they are not in the latest 2003 2d10 CRT.
- The 2002 2d10 CRT don't have the exception for HQ support in the "halve attacking bonuses if attacking units are halved" rule.



Yes, as I noted the table is from 2002 and is not the latest but the changes, as you just listed, could easily be edited into the 2002 chart and then you have a nice color coded up to date table that does reflect the latest 2003 one.

And I do think the looks of this chart is far superior to the trial efforts earlier in this thread.

Lars





Anendrue -> RE: What kind of manual(s) should we ask for? (1/4/2008 6:14:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Well, the original 2d10 CRT is perfectly clear, why bother changing it ?


Respectfully, I absolutely disagree. The 2d10 table does not convey everything clearly to novices and beginners. As veterens we are used to what we see and know what to expect.



Froonp -> RE: What kind of manual(s) should we ask for? (1/4/2008 6:25:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin
Yes, as I noted the table is from 2002 and is not the latest but the changes, as you just listed, could easily be edited into the 2002 chart and then you have a nice color coded up to date table that does reflect the latest 2003 one.

And I do think the looks of this chart is far superior to the trial efforts earlier in this thread.

Lars

I agree on both points.
I was just giving a warning on the list of things that were different, not telling that the differences made this colored chart unsuitable.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: What kind of manual(s) should we ask for? (1/4/2008 7:15:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin
I have sent the color coded version of the 2D10 from 2002 in email. The 2003 version adds the city modifier limits and is in black and white.

Careful here.
You should only take the chart from this 2002 document.

The text on the color coded version of the 2d10 chart also have a minor differences with the latest 2003 chart :
- In the text describing how Fractional odds work with the 2d10 chart. There is the added reference to "odds of 1:1 and higher".
- The city modifiers are isolated in another module, so that we know that they globaly cap at 0.
- The penalty for factories is limited to printed factories in the latest chart.
- In the 2002 2d10 CRT, the white print SS are winterized while they are not in the latest 2003 2d10 CRT.
- The 2002 2d10 CRT don't have the exception for HQ support in the "halve attacking bonuses if attacking units are halved" rule.



Yes, as I noted the table is from 2002 and is not the latest but the changes, as you just listed, could easily be edited into the 2002 chart and then you have a nice color coded up to date table that does reflect the latest 2003 one.

And I do think the looks of this chart is far superior to the trial efforts earlier in this thread.

Lars

All I am looking for is the CRT image itself. The color version works well enough for that purpose.

I will redo the text (already started in some of the posts given above). Harry has some clarifications. The suggestion to make the notes associated with the chart complete so the body of the rules do not have to be referenced is an obvious improvement (in retrospect). Also, the grammar English correcting.[;)]



composer99 -> RE: What kind of manual(s) should we ask for? (1/4/2008 8:02:42 PM)

I was under the impression ADG had a copy of the latest 2d10 chart on its website for download, but I could not find it.

I myself find colour-coding superior to symbols in terms of expressing whether or not the attacker is wholly disorganized, half-organized, or wholly organized, especially on a plain-text style chart. The "+" symbol for the extra loss seems to me to be enough symbols on the chart.

As for whether the defender becomes disorganized or not, I think a sentence explaining what happens is superior to using symbols on the chart.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: What kind of manual(s) should we ask for? (1/5/2008 5:14:00 AM)

At the risk of annoying people (again), here is what I currently intend to use for the 2 Die 10 Land CRT.

- The text still needs to be reworked.
- The black dot indicates that half of the attacking units (rounding up) do not become disorganized. I want that redundancy for players who have trouble with colors. It also lets someone copy the page as black and white without loss of information.
- I really like the 4+ indicating 4 or 5 (rather than spelling it out each time).
- But that makes the hyphen (-) unattractive becomes someone might think it is a minus and has some comparable meaning to the plus.
- I split the attacker and defender results into two columns because I find it easier to read, and it removes any confusion about the slash meaning divide.


[image]local://upfiles/16701/DDF07FEC37F44480A19FC01CFB7DCC0D.jpg[/image]



brian brian -> RE: What kind of manual(s) should we ask for? (1/5/2008 6:08:07 AM)

The "+" is excellent. I do kind of like how "~" implies conditionality by it's similarity to "≈", but not everyone even knows what "≈" means anyway, so I think the "+" is better. Combining the "0" and the "*" is also very good.

I've actually never liked the colored 2d10 table, the 2-tone results on 19 & 22 assault and 20 blitz discombobulate me (sorry non-native English speakers, but I picked that 49 cent word on purpose). And having the information basically on there twice, with the original '~' and the special color at times left me with this nagging thought that I was forgetting something when I was learning the 2d10, again especially on 19, 20 & 22.

I'm still not real keen on "D" and especially "(D)"; these have to be explained anyway, probably right near where you have to explain that an "R" result includes a "D" which isn't on the table. But if you are going to use "D" maybe you could use "d" for half-flip...

I think though that "R", "S", and "B" are enough letters on there already. They are the same ones as the 1d10 chart, which won't have any changes?

I like something a little more interesting than "•" ... how about "◊" ? I never liked "†" for this use, myself, not a good graphical symbol for use in war. "◊" differentiates from "*" a little better and it's hollowness has a certain implication as not quite as good as a solid "*" too.

I sure hope those symbols look the same on y'all's screen...



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: What kind of manual(s) should we ask for? (1/5/2008 7:26:52 AM)

There's a typo: 13 Blitz should be 1 instead of 0 for the defender.



Anendrue -> RE: What kind of manual(s) should we ask for? (1/6/2008 6:28:50 AM)

I like the latest 2d10 chart posted by Steve.



bredsjomagnus -> RE: What kind of manual(s) should we ask for? (1/6/2008 9:46:33 AM)

I really like the latest chart instead of the prior ones but...

...one thing though; now when the chart is divided into attacker defender columns (that i also like) the text in paragraf 3, "All losses expressed as attacker/defender", should also be changed. What I mean is that the slash "/" should be removed from the text too.

Magnus






Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: What kind of manual(s) should we ask for? (1/6/2008 11:39:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bredsjomagnus

I really like the latest chart instead of the prior ones but...

...one thing though; now when the chart is divided into attacker defender columns (that i also like) the text in paragraf 3, "All losses expressed as attacker/defender", should also be changed. What I mean is that the slash "/" should be removed from the text too.

Magnus

I haven't rewritten the text to go with the revised chart - I just stuck in the new version. I'll redo all the text too, but I have to create the legend with the new symbols and colors first.



composer99 -> RE: What kind of manual(s) should we ask for? (1/7/2008 8:10:44 PM)

Looks much better. What I would suggest as a further improvement is that the half-flip results be in a single colour; the mixed colours had a meaning in the RAW 2d10 chart that is now no longer needed in the RAC chart.



JagWars -> RE: What kind of manual(s) should we ask for? (1/7/2008 8:50:23 PM)

quote:


Original: abj9562
I like the latest 2d10 chart posted by Steve.


I agree, I like the new charts by Steve as well.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: What kind of manual(s) should we ask for? (1/9/2008 11:36:20 AM)

Here is my current version for the text to accompany the land 2 Die 10 CRT. Actually, I keep tweaking the text, so this is out of date already. I have split item (i) into (i) and (j), separating the explanations of D from (D) results.

Rather than do yet another screen shot (and then find something else to adjust), I decided to post this and see what you guys think.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/4B4968787C794C58A5DA204F148539E1.jpg[/image]



Anendrue -> RE: What kind of manual(s) should we ask for? (1/10/2008 3:02:25 AM)

looking good and I am glad you split (i)



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: What kind of manual(s) should we ask for? (1/10/2008 3:41:36 AM)

Here is the text for the portions I modified since my post yesterday.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/A5E28B7185554596A5EDA11C1D687EDF.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: What kind of manual(s) should we ask for? (1/10/2008 3:46:04 AM)

Here is the current second page for the 2 Die 10 Land CRT.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/0C40A7929F1B496DA87D03C4D0115C9A.jpg[/image]



composer99 -> RE: What kind of manual(s) should we ask for? (1/10/2008 5:08:05 PM)

I would suggest either changing the colour code used for "extra loss" results or doing away with it altogether. The "+" symbol itself seems good enough to me, and the pale yellow used doesn't show up well except when paired with the rusty half-organized result.



brian brian -> RE: What kind of manual(s) should we ask for? (1/11/2008 3:10:44 AM)

lookin' good - a couple notes:

there is also the -1 for anti-tank assets

you might want to note which modifiers come into play by selecting an optional rule? (co-operation, at guns, territorials)

a general note on language for MWiF - WiF frequently uses imperative verbs and the table above supplies one example - "Destroy units that can't retreat." In the paper game, this language works good because you have to physically move the counter to the force pool. On the computer, it somewhat implies the player has to do something with the mouse, when actually they won't, so "Units that can't retreat are destroyed" might be more clear.



brian brian -> RE: What kind of manual(s) should we ask for? (1/11/2008 3:59:53 AM)

you might also want to note in the City Mods that it is -1 per factory, giving a potential value of -1 to -3

I never knew ENG factors could be doubled by terrain. put the Royal Engineers in Calcutta and it will perhaps never be taken. if the Italian TRS slip past the Rock in Sep '39, perhaps a good French build would be their Engineer to deploy in Toulouse. and maybe I should protect Leningrad with Engineers in the summer, switched out with a night air-lifted SKI div in the winter. and China's last-ditch defense should be the ENG for Kunming.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.609375