Noob question on Notional Units (RaW) (Full Version)

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



Message

Joseignacio -> Noob question on Notional Units (RaW) (3/19/2013 1:05:05 PM)

Hello, although I believe that (he) was wrong, I kind of remember a guy telling me (or writing on a Forum) that if you invade a hex and at the same time paradrop you have to fight "two notionals" (I guess totally wrong) or twice the notional (double value because of th two stances of the attack).

I am kind of ashamed to ask this, since I am almost positive this is not correct and it's a newbie question, but it could have relevance in yesterday's game session: Do you get any advantage of this kind when invasion and paradrop happen in the same hex at the same time?

Thx in advance.



Red Prince -> RE: Noob question on Notional Units (RaW) (3/19/2013 2:09:51 PM)

Pulled out my rules book, and I'm looking it up, but my gut instinct is that he is right -- Peter will know better than I do, but I'll try to find out for you.
-----
Edit: I can tell you before looking it up that each invading unit creates a notional unit you have to fight, so . . .



Joseignacio -> RE: Noob question on Notional Units (RaW) (3/19/2013 2:16:34 PM)

Invading does create a notional. Paradropping does too. The matter is: if you invade AND paradrop the same hex you get two notionals or one doubled or just a normal non modified notional?




Red Prince -> RE: Noob question on Notional Units (RaW) (3/19/2013 2:21:11 PM)

From RAW 11.14 Invasions
...
Each unit which invades counts as 1 land move. Each invasion counts as 1 land attack.
...
Each hex defends against an invasion with a notional land unit, in
addition to any actual land unit in the hex. The notional unit is the same
nationality as any major power or minor country with a real unit in the
hex (owner’s choice if more than one). If there are no real units, it is the
same nationality as the major power or minor country that controls the
hex.

From RAW 11.15 Paradrops
...
Each unit which paradrops counts as 1 air mission and 1 land move.
Each paradrop counts as 1 land combat.
...
Like invasions, each hex you paradrop into defends with a notional land
unit in addition to any actual land unit in the hex. The notional unit has 1
combat factor, modified like invasions (see 11.14). The rules applying to
notional units during invasions also apply to notional units in paradrops.
-----
I don't see anything that indicates that only one or the other applies, so both must. Since each unit that paradrops or invades counts as a single attack, each creates a single notional unit in the defending hex. Your friend is correct.

If you want, I can post the rules regarding how a notional is caculated.



Joseignacio -> RE: Noob question on Notional Units (RaW) (3/19/2013 2:27:25 PM)

NO, thx.. I knew those rules.

It's true the rules don't specify, the matter is the interpretation. Most in my group understand this as "since there is only one attack in the hex, you only get 1 notional with a paradrop, OR an invasion OR with both, but there is only ONE notional per hex.



michaelbaldur -> RE: Noob question on Notional Units (RaW) (3/19/2013 2:28:29 PM)


there is only 1 notional ...

but invading and para dropping units are part of the same combat



Joseignacio -> RE: Noob question on Notional Units (RaW) (3/19/2013 2:29:41 PM)

Yes, and this doesn't affect the value of the notional (like x2)?



michaelbaldur -> RE: Noob question on Notional Units (RaW) (3/19/2013 3:58:28 PM)


in the rules it is clear that there is only:

a notional land unit

and if the rules allowed for more. then there should be rules, so you could decline on or the other (as para drop notional is always smaller, but gives the same bonus.)



LiquidSky -> RE: Noob question on Notional Units (RaW) (3/19/2013 8:43:51 PM)

There is only ONE notional unit. What you are doing is calculating the value of that unit. For each invading/paratrooping unit, add one to THE NOTIONAL unit.

Edit: Note the defender has the option of not including the notional.



michaelbaldur -> RE: Noob question on Notional Units (RaW) (3/19/2013 9:06:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky

There is only ONE notional unit. What you are doing is calculating the value of that unit. For each invading/paratrooping unit, add one to THE NOTIONAL unit.

Edit: Note the defender has the option of not including the notional.


you are wrong. you only add anything for invading units, invading from low sections

quote:

For each invading/paratrooping unit, add one to THE NOTIONAL unit.


dont know were you have got this rule from



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Noob question on Notional Units (RaW) (3/19/2013 11:46:47 PM)

In MWIF there is at most one notional unit in a land attack. If the hex is being attacked by sea, air, and land, there is still only 1 notional unit. The value of that unit does not depend on whether there are paratroop units and units invading from the sea. Instead it depends on the hex characteristics and the present of friendly units in the hex or in adjacent hexes.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Noob question on Notional Units (RaW) (3/19/2013 11:58:40 PM)

Here's code for calculating the value of a notional unit. N is the ultimate value. There are rules for incrementing (Inc) it, decrementing it (Dec), and at the end doubling it for terrain.

---
// ****************************************************************************
function TMap.NotionalFactors(const Column, Row: Integer;
const AddingMovingStack: Boolean = False): Byte;
var
MapSta: TMapStack;
N: Smallint;
HS: THexsideRange;
Hex: TSmallPoint;
S: TUnitStack;
C: TGovernedArea;
HC: TMinorCountry;
MSIndx: Integer;
MSUni: TUnit;
MStckIndx: Integer;
MStckUni: TUnit;
F1stStUIndx: Integer;
F1stStUni: TUnit;
FoundStUni: TUnit;
F1stMapStkIndx: Integer;
F1stMapStk: TUnit;
FoundMapStk: TUnit;

function Found(var U: TUnit): Boolean;
begin
Result := (U is TLandUnit) and
(U.Side = HC.Side) and
(TLandUnit(U).Size > lsDivision) and
(U.UnitType <> utTerritorial) and
(((HS + 3) mod 6) in U.HasZOCInto);
end;

function NotSurprising(var U: TUnit): Boolean;
begin
Result := not (U.HomeCountry in HC.SurprisedBy);
end;

function IsEnemy(var U: TUnit): Boolean;
begin
Result := (not U.Flying) and
(not U.Invading) and
(U.Side <> HC.Side) and
((not (Game.Phase in [pInvasion, pParadrop])) or
(not U.OnTheMove));
end;

procedure DoAdd(var U: TUnit);
begin
S.Add(U);
end;

begin
// ****************************************************************************
// TMap.NotionalFactors.
// ****************************************************************************
if AddingMovingStack then
begin
S := TUnitStack.Create;
MapSta := MapStacks[Column, Row];
MapSta.CopyTo(S);

MSIndx := 0;

while MSIndx < MovingStack.Count do
begin
MSUni := TUnit(MovingStack.Item[MSIndx]);
DoAdd(MSUni);
Inc(MSIndx);
end;
end
else S := MapStacks[Column, Row];

try
HC := HexControl[Column, Row];
F1stStUIndx := 0;
FoundStUni := nil;

while F1stStUIndx < S.Count do
begin
F1stStUni := TUnit(S.Item[F1stStUIndx]);

if IsEnemy(F1stStUni) then
begin
FoundStUni := F1stStUni;
Break;
end;

Inc(F1stStUIndx);
end;

if FoundStUni <> nil then Result := 0
else
begin
N := 1;

if City[Column, Row] <> cyNone then Inc(N);

HC := NotionalCountry(Column, Row);
C := Self.HexHomeCountryOrTerritoryCommonwealth[Column, Row];

if (C is TMajorCountry) and (HC = C) then Inc(N);

if not NotionalInSupply(Column, Row) then Dec(N);

UFSide := HC.Side;

if not S.HasUnit(UFilterLandUnitSide) then
begin
for HS := 0 to 5 do
begin
if AdjacentHexLegal(Column, Row, HS, Hex) then
begin
F1stMapStkIndx := 0;
FoundMapStk := nil;

while F1stMapStkIndx < MapStacks[Hex.X, Hex.Y].Count do
begin
F1stMapStk := TUnit(MapStacks[Hex.X, Hex.Y].Item[F1stMapStkIndx]);

if Found(F1stMapStk) then
begin
FoundMapStk := F1stMapStk;
Break;
end;

Inc(F1stMapStkIndx);
end;

if FoundMapStk <> nil then
begin
Inc(N);
Break;
end;
end;
end; // End of HS loop.
end; // ENd of not S.HasUnit(UFilterLandUnitSide).

F1stStUIndx := 0;
FoundStUni := nil;

while F1stStUIndx < S.Count do
begin
F1stStUni := TUnit(S.Item[F1stStUIndx]);

if NotSurprising(F1stStUni) then
begin
FoundStUni := F1stStUni;
Break;
end;

Inc(F1stStUIndx);
end;

if (S.HasAllUnit(UFilterInvadingOrInMovingStack) and
(FoundStUni = nil)) or
S.SurprisedStack(S, HC.Side) then
Dec(N);

MStckIndx := 0;

while MStckIndx < S.Count do
begin
MStckUni := TUnit(S.Item[MStckIndx]);

if MStckUni.SeaInvading or
((Game.Phase = pInvasion) and
MStckUni.OnTheMove) then
Inc(N, ShoreBombardmentModifier[Self.HexWeather[Column, Row],
MStckUni.TransportingUnit.Section]);

Inc(MStckIndx);
end;

if Self.WeatherTerrain[Column, Row] in
[teSwamp, teMountain, teDesertMountain] then
N := N * 2;

Result := Max(0, N);
end;

finally
if AddingMovingStack then S.Free;
end;
end;



Joseignacio -> RE: Noob question on Notional Units (RaW) (3/20/2013 8:14:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

In MWIF there is at most one notional unit in a land attack. If the hex is being attacked by sea, air, and land, there is still only 1 notional unit. The value of that unit does not depend on whether there are paratroop units and units invading from the sea. Instead it depends on the hex characteristics and the present of friendly units in the hex or in adjacent hexes.


Thx, Steve.

We use to play it this way, but I heard Liquidsky view several times. IMO, the wording of the RAW looks more like what MichaelBaldur says, although it's not crystal clear.

I made this question later yesterday in the mail list and they told me it is intended to be in a new set of clarifications. It will state that there is only one notional of value 1 unmodified initially by sending PARA and MAR or both, later modified only by the factors in the table at RAW: position at sea, climate, zoc, city, ...



Extraneous -> RE: Noob question on Notional Units (RaW) (3/20/2013 2:20:03 PM)

For the record I agree with Joseignacio only one notional unit not two.


For those not having a copy of the rules here are the modifiers for notational units (see 11.14 Invasions).

quote:

The notional unit has 1 combat factor, modified by:
• +1 if it is a city hex;
• +1 if the hex is in the home country of the major power that controls the hex;
• +1 if it is not stacked with a land unit, but is in the ZOC of a friendly corps or army;
• + the shore bombardment modifier for each invading unit;
• -1 if it cannot trace a basic supply path of any length; and
• -1 if surprised (see 15.).



I believe the problem paragraph is the one that follows.


quote:

11.15 Paradrops

Paradropping units have no ZOC into the target hex until it is empty of enemy units (including notional units). They have no ZOC into adjacent hexes for the rest of the impulse. Thereafter, they have a normal ZOC.



After reviewing the rules I wanted to wait for Red Prince to contact Peter on this.




Edfactor -> RE: Noob question on Notional Units (RaW) (3/20/2013 4:33:41 PM)

Only 1 notional unit.
There is only 1 attack, not 2 - each hex attacked counts as an attack, they are all resolved during the same (and only) combat phase during that impulse.
Each hex invaded or para dropped on (or both) will defend with one notional unit.

Paras are nice for invasions because they give you a +1 DRM, and the notional is always considered flipped so you get a net +2 to the invasion that way.




Sewerlobster -> RE: Noob question on Notional Units (RaW) (3/20/2013 9:13:47 PM)

It is always wargaming interesting to see how the smallest thing or two makes confusion:

"Like invasions, each hex you paradrop into defends with a notional land
unit in addition to any actual land unit in the hex."

This certainly could be read to mean that there is a second notional unit. and when you pair it with "Paradropping... (including notional units)...", the word units adds weight to that point of view. It should probably say, "...(including a notional unit)..."



Jimm -> RE: Noob question on Notional Units (RaW) (3/20/2013 9:49:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish

It is always wargaming interesting to see how the smallest thing or two makes confusion:

"Like invasions, each hex you paradrop into defends with a notional land
unit in addition to any actual land unit in the hex."

This certainly could be read to mean that there is a second notional unit. and when you pair it with "Paradropping... (including notional units)...", the word units adds weight to that point of view. It should probably say, "...(including a notional unit)..."


That was how I read it too.

The moral of the story, either way, is that there is no shame in asking a rule question about this game. Whether or not you get a straight answer or not is another matter...




Centuur -> RE: Noob question on Notional Units (RaW) (3/21/2013 2:34:28 PM)

The nice thing about MWIF is, that you don't have to ask those questions anymore. It's all coded, so that's how it is... The rule lawyers will lose their jobs... [:D]



Joseignacio -> RE: Noob question on Notional Units (RaW) (3/21/2013 2:58:56 PM)

Yes, it's all ruled, according to the Supreme Judge Steve. [:)]



Extraneous -> RE: Noob question on Notional Units (RaW) (3/22/2013 1:16:34 PM)

[sm=terms.gif] If Steve gets it wrong then it's the Beta Test teams fault for not bringing it to his attention. [sm=terms.gif]




pzgndr -> RE: Noob question on Notional Units (RaW) (3/22/2013 8:51:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

The nice thing about MWIF is, that you don't have to ask those questions anymore. It's all coded, so that's how it is... The rule lawyers will lose their jobs... [:D]


Ah, but the Grammar Nazis will be on the sharp lookout for syntax errors in the code and supporting files. Plenty of work to go around! [:D]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Noob question on Notional Units (RaW) (3/22/2013 11:19:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

[sm=terms.gif] If Steve gets it wrong then it's the Beta Test teams fault for not bringing it to his attention. [sm=terms.gif]



Or me being too stubborn to accede to their point of view.[;)]



Joseignacio -> RE: Noob question on Notional Units (RaW) (3/25/2013 8:20:47 AM)

Don't take me wrong, I take that Steve was ab excellent interpreter of the rules even before he started this project, which made him analyze every single step of them, in order to code the game. [&o]

However, I have seen WIF gurues make mistakes...



Extraneous -> RE: Noob question on Notional Units (RaW) (3/25/2013 2:25:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

Don't take me wrong, I take that Steve was an excellent interpreter of the rules even before he started this project, which made him analyze every single step of them, in order to code the game. [&o]

However, I have seen WIF gurues make mistakes...


[:D] Don't get me wrong I thank Steve has done a good job with CWiF.

But there are two types of programmers:
Development Programmers who start from scrath and code the whole program or system.
Maintence Programmers who take existing programs or systems and make changes to them.

Steve is a Maintence Programmer. And there is nothing wrong with being a Maintence Programmer. [:D]


Therefore special thanks should be given to the people who helped Steve:
Captain for his leadership of CWiF.
Patrice for his tireless work on the maps.
All the people how helped with the write ups.



[:)] Joseignacio how can you judge Steve's abilities with CWiF prior to 2005 when the first Beta Test team was anounced [&:]




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Noob question on Notional Units (RaW) (3/25/2013 6:48:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

Don't take me wrong, I take that Steve was an excellent interpreter of the rules even before he started this project, which made him analyze every single step of them, in order to code the game. [&o]

However, I have seen WIF gurues make mistakes...


[:D] Don't get me wrong I thank Steve has done a good job with CWiF.

But there are two types of programmers:
Development Programmers who start from scrath and code the whole program or system.
Maintence Programmers who take existing programs or systems and make changes to them.

Steve is a Maintence Programmer. And there is nothing wrong with being a Maintence Programmer. [:D]


Therefore special thanks should be given to the people who helped Steve:
Captain for his leadership of CWiF.
Patrice for his tireless work on the maps.
All the people how helped with the write ups.



[:)] Joseignacio how can you judge Steve's abilities with CWiF prior to 2005 when the first Beta Test team was anounced [&:]



Although I know you will argue the point, you are wrong.[:-]

When the amount of code grows from 100,000 lines to over 400,000 lines, that is not maintenance. When all the graphics, for the maps, units, and forms are changed, that is not maintenance. When there are another dozen unit types added, a couple dozen optional rules, and the number of forms is doubled to over 150, that is not maintenance. Of the 100,000 lines of original code in CWIF, there is probably less than half still included in MWIF.

The analogy would be to say that someone who bought a new suit, shirt, tie, shoes, and socks, but kept his old underwear, had just updated his old wardrobe - instead of replacing it.

Now if you want to get technical, many of the fundamental routines in CWIF were written in Assembler, and I have replaced their functionality with code written in Delphi. Likewise, CWIF used a monolithic rectangle to encapsulate all the forms, which I replaced with an open design to let players place forms anywhere they want on multiple monitors. That decision requires changing the most basic compile option for programs written in Delphi.

I've also restructured the modules used to progress the sequence of play from less than 6 to over 60, changing the processing sequence to support NetPlay.

But, hey, if you want, you could argue that the IPhone 5 is just a maintenance improvement of the Apple II.[:D]



paulderynck -> RE: Noob question on Notional Units (RaW) (3/25/2013 10:24:48 PM)

There are a huge number of rules in WiF that have been argued over and over because of the imperfections within the English language and to some extent imperfections in clarity. We need to be cognizant that whether the MWiF interpretation is right or wrong, it may appear to differ from what the RAW says, even if the RAC document does not say there is a deviation.

Even once the game is published, it will be easier to change the RAC then the code. So once the game is published, there'll be little point in arguing what a rule means and whether it is enforced in MWiF.

There have been titanic efforts to get the code to align with the rules, but there are bound to be a few discrepancies...



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Noob question on Notional Units (RaW) (3/26/2013 2:28:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

There are a huge number of rules in WiF that have been argued over and over because of the imperfections within the English language and to some extent imperfections in clarity. We need to be cognizant that whether the MWiF interpretation is right or wrong, it may appear to differ from what the RAW says, even if the RAC document does not say there is a deviation.

Even once the game is published, it will be easier to change the RAC then the code. So once the game is published, there'll be little point in arguing what a rule means and whether it is enforced in MWiF.

There have been titanic efforts to get the code to align with the rules, but there are bound to be a few discrepancies...

Did you really need to use the word Titanic?[;)]



paulderynck -> RE: Noob question on Notional Units (RaW) (3/26/2013 4:48:27 AM)

Freudian berg, I guess.



Joseignacio -> RE: Noob question on Notional Units (RaW) (3/26/2013 8:27:33 AM)

Hello. Well, I didn't know Steve 8 years ago. That said, I started from the presumption that Steve did not learn and interprete all the RAW till the last detail, and then started to code but, according to the dynamics shown in the forum, he addressed the supply or the FTC and then lots of questions chich previously he was not supposed to have arose.

I presume this, because of the changes he had to do in the RAC as a result of comments of Beta Testers, some of which have been said to relate to rules coding or maybe I should say rules interpretation coding. All the same, I read that Steve has checked the Clarifications and I think I remember he is in contact with game experts.

To me, it's clear that testing a game can give a huge amount of situations (through the testing process) that bring unsuspected situations that can be (erroneously sometimes) obviated in a normal game. And the testing process equates to hundreds of WIF games.



Extraneous -> RE: Noob question on Notional Units (RaW) (3/26/2013 8:58:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Although I know you will argue the point, you are wrong. [:-]

When the amount of code grows from 100,000 lines to over 400,000 lines that is not maintenance. When all the graphics, for the maps, units, and forms are changed, that is not maintenance. When there are another dozen unit types added, a couple dozen optional rules, and the number of forms is doubled to over 150, that is not maintenance. Of the 100,000 lines of original code in CWIF, there is probably less than half still included in MWIF.

The analogy would be to say that someone who bought a new suit, shirt, tie, shoes, and socks, but kept his old underwear, had just updated his old wardrobe - instead of replacing it.

Now if you want to get technical, many of the fundamental routines in CWIF were written in Assembler, and I have replaced their functionality with code written in Delphi. Likewise, CWIF used a monolithic rectangle to encapsulate all the forms, which I replaced with an open design to let players place forms anywhere they want on multiple monitors. That decision requires changing the most basic compile option for programs written in Delphi.

I've also restructured the modules used to progress the sequence of play from less than 6 to over 60, changing the processing sequence to support NetPlay.

But, hey, if you want, you could argue that the IPhone 5 is just a maintenance improvement of the Apple II. [:D]



Lets look at the definition of development and maintenance programming,

program development - technical definition

May refer to the coding of an individual software program or to the creation on an entire information system and all related software. See programming and system development cycle.


Definition: Maintenance programming: Altering programs after they have been in use for a while. Maintenance programming may be performed to add features, correct bugs that escaped detection during testing, or update key variables (such as the inflation rate) that change over time.


In Assembly language each statement corresponds to a single machine code instruction. Where Delphi language is essentially object Pascal.

You chose to change the program language from Assembly language (there is a difference between Assembler language and Assembly language and CWiF was not written for a mainframe computer) to Delphi, which increased the amount of code.

To use your analogy you had a perfectly good suit and went out and chose to buy a new one. It sounds like you updated your wardrobe to me.




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.982422