RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR

RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (Full Version)

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

Message

joshuamnave -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/4/2014 5:46:26 PM)
Honestly, I don't think it's all that complex. I could teach someone the base rules in about twenty minutes and get them started playing. Most of the complexity lies in about 10% of the rules/situations, and the interaction between semi-conflicting rules. A lot of the game (but not the interface) is fairly intuitive. Things work in ways that make sense to anyone that has played wargames and/or has a basic understanding of WW2 history. A lot of the confusion comes from areas where WiF abstracts things in ways that are mechanically non intuitive, but produce results that make sense. People used to bandy about the term "WIF zen" to describe it. For example, action limits don't really make sense from a realism standpoint. My air force is flying so my navy is grounded? That's illogical. But the action limit system does a good job of forcing players to make the difficult (and interesting) decisions that end up leading to realistic results. WIF zen.

bo -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/4/2014 6:12:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dabrion Bo, why dont you lock yourself in that warm fuzzy place that is the beta-forum. You can exchange apologies with the others, test the new builds, and we can move on here without your moral lessons and pseudo-privilege ransoming. Btw.. talking bullshit all the time is my privilege! Stop at once!! As always appreciate your comments. Bo

Mike Parker -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/4/2014 7:26:13 PM)
So I almost hate to ask this... but... is there a work around for this? Is there any way currently to bring about peace between Japan and the USSR in this situation. I know a gentleman's agreement to not attack could be made, and the Japanese player could choose a combined every turn if not otherwise at war to simulate the peace, but I was wondering is there some control I don't know about where you can declare peace and have it reflected in game currently?

joshuamnave -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/4/2014 7:51:25 PM)
nope

bo -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/4/2014 8:02:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zartacla nope There is the perfect answer it cannot be construed in any other way and cannot cause post wars like last night [:D] Good answer Zar. Bo

brian brian -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/5/2014 2:50:48 AM)
I would say this rule is most important in a true multi-player game (which is a ways off anyway). There, this is important for players attempting to win a true individual victory, as the game is designed. Not all players will play that way though. In a 2 player game, the players should easily enough be able to agree to simulate the results of this rule, since there won't be any "deal" made, which is pointless in a 2 player game. In a solitaire game of WiF, one of the more challenging aspects is selecting Japan<>USSR policy. About the best you can do is to pick a strategy for each side in advance, and mash them together to see what happens. Or, set up a simple table of options for each and pick one randomly with a 6 sided dice or something.

paulderynck -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/5/2014 5:56:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zartacla quote: ORIGINAL: bo I wanted to but I cant let this go, you are one of the most informed knowledgeable posters here Zartaclca, No, I'm really not but thanks. I'm just one of the most prolific. I work at home and am minimally employed, so I have a lot of time on my hands. But I know far less about the game, both in terms of rules and strategy, than most of the regular posters here. quote: I trully respecte your opinion and whether you believe this or not I am mortified when something goes wrong, I did not hesitate when I saw your tech post to inform Steve what you had put in your post to do with the supply popups, It could have gone many more hours before Steve saw it. It is not my job nor my duty to report anything to Steve from the main forums. I did it out of concern for the game and to try and solve a respected posters question which I did and Steve acknowleged the problem and as he said ASAP. And he is, you will have a hot patch shortly. And I'm glad it was hotfixed so quickly. But you did it out of concern for the game, not for me. At least, I hope that's why you did it. If bugs are prioritized or not based on what the beta testers think about the person who reports the bug on a personal level, then we have much bigger issues at stake. And since the person who maintains the list of bugs so clearly holds me (and almost anyone that complains about problems in the game) in complete contempt, we have an even bigger problem. quote: With that said there is no reason to insult a respected beta tester like paul. Respected by whom? He lost mine a while ago. He has a long history of being nothing but condescending, rude, insulting, disrespectful toward me and many others on the boards. This has been going on almost since I started posting here. I'm tired of his patronizing attitude. I'm tired of him implying that any problem encountered in the game is because I (or whomever the original poster is in a given thread) am just too stupid to get it right. If calling him out on it means you don't respect me anymore then so be it. This isn't about the beta testers, it's not about Steve, it's about Paul being rude to me and to others. quote: If we cant act civil to each other to get this wonderful game fixed then this game aint worth it, shove it. Funny, that's how I feel every time I read one of Paul's responses to anyone's questions. quote: And if it goes on I will ask all the beta testers to not answer anymore questions legitmate or not [all questions are legitmate] because I will not take that kind of insult from anyone. You can sit there and stew over your questions. Whether they will listen to me or not I do not know, or if it is even legal with my NDA but right now I dont care what anyone thinks including Matrix. I am really surprised at you Zartacla that horsemanure was not neccessary. It really did not help things. You're surprised that I finally responded to a pattern of insulting and condescending behavior from one person? Then you really don't know me at all. Paul doesn't answer questions, legitimate or others. He just tells people they are wrong, or stupid, or comparable to Homer Simpson dumping toxic waste in the water. He tells us that it's our fault the game isn't working right, or that we should just RTFM, and then tells us that he's the keeper of the bug list and we should just trust him to know what's best. He might have excellent organization skills and be the perfect person to maintain a bug list - I have no way of knowing that. But he has terrible personal skills and degrades my trust in the process with nearly every post he makes. As for telling the beta testers not to answer anyone's questions - do what you gotta do. Just make sure you tell him first. We would all be better off then. Zartacla, The “apologist” comment caused me to lose my temper. I regret that I did. As far as you being insulting, people can read your posts here and in other threads and decide for themselves. Likewise for me being patronizing, they have their choice of literally hundreds of posts since November 7, in which I answered questions about the game, its configuration, the rules, the user interface and reported bugs/non-bugs. When responding to a first-time poster, a person does not necessarily know their level of experience with WiF so I thought it better to assume they were new to the game. I can see how that might come across. The Homer reference was an attempt at humor. I was never into the Simpsons, but did remember that episode, thought it was quite funny, and would make a humorous parable. Written communication is far from perfect compared to face-to-face, as it lacks two of three important components: inflection and expression. What is really mysterious is why you would assume a total stranger would show such a lack of integrity as to filter a bug list on the basis of personal enmity? The last spreadsheet I sent Steve prior to going on vacation on Feb 11, had 15 issues on it from you. When I “un-volunteered” for the job yesterday, I sent Steve links to 13 threads in Tech Support that I had viewed while away and had planned to add to the spreadsheet. At least 3 of them were yours.

Dabrion -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/5/2014 6:59:49 PM)
Perhaps that will bring Steve to the point to use a proper tool instead of a slave managing a list.. a webbased tool perhaps so people can participate..

Orm -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/5/2014 7:02:29 PM)
I do not care for you using the word slave in this way. I suppose you didn't really mean it or that I am misunderstanding something. [:(]

joshuamnave -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/5/2014 7:03:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: paulderynck What is really mysterious is why you would assume a total stranger would show such a lack of integrity as to filter a bug list on the basis of personal enmity? The last spreadsheet I sent Steve prior to going on vacation on Feb 11, had 15 issues on it from you. When I “un-volunteered” for the job yesterday, I sent Steve links to 13 threads in Tech Support that I had viewed while away and had planned to add to the spreadsheet. At least 3 of them were yours. I wouldn't. And that was in response to what Bo said, not to you. You quoted his comment and my response to his comment, so I'm not sure why you think that was directed to you. Rather than keep a flame war going, I'll refrain from responding to the rest of your post.

AxelNL -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/5/2014 7:03:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dabrion Perhaps that will bring Steve to the point to use a proper tool instead of a slave managing a list.. a webbased tool perhaps so people can participate.. Calling Paul a slave is uncalled for, Dabrion. How about you put in some slave labour and create such a webtool for the benefit of us all?

joshuamnave -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/5/2014 7:06:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Orm I do not care for you using the word slave in this way. I suppose you didn't really mean it or that I am misunderstanding something. [:(] He's using it in the sense of someone that works for free. Of course, that's also the definition of a volunteer. Slave carries with it additional meaning, one of which is the inability to quit, and so it was not accurate here. It's also an emotionally charged word, and it shouldn't come as a surprise that Dabrion would choose to be provocative in his choice of language.

bo -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/5/2014 11:53:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zartacla quote: ORIGINAL: Orm I do not care for you using the word slave in this way. I suppose you didn't really mean it or that I am misunderstanding something. [:(] He's using it in the sense of someone that works for free. Of course, that's also the definition of a volunteer. Slave carries with it additional meaning, one of which is the inability to quit, and so it was not accurate here. It's also an emotionally charged word, and it shouldn't come as a surprise that Dabrion would choose to be provocative in his choice of language. Hmm not only are you a very good finder of bugs and such, a compliment, you also know what Dabrion really means when he says something that could be construed by many as provacative. I'm impressed [:(] you two have not been conspiring in private, have you now [:-] Bo]

Zorachus99 -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/5/2014 11:54:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zartacla Honestly, I don't think it's all that complex. I could teach someone the base rules in about twenty minutes and get them started playing. Most of the complexity lies in about 10% of the rules/situations, and the interaction between semi-conflicting rules. A lot of the game (but not the interface) is fairly intuitive. Things work in ways that make sense to anyone that has played wargames and/or has a basic understanding of WW2 history. A lot of the confusion comes from areas where WiF abstracts things in ways that are mechanically non intuitive, but produce results that make sense. People used to bandy about the term "WIF zen" to describe it. For example, action limits don't really make sense from a realism standpoint. My air force is flying so my navy is grounded? That's illogical. But the action limit system does a good job of forcing players to make the difficult (and interesting) decisions that end up leading to realistic results. WIF zen. The answer is Offensive Chit for super-combined. Zen removed. [;)]

Centuur -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/6/2014 9:03:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zorachus99 quote: ORIGINAL: Zartacla Honestly, I don't think it's all that complex. I could teach someone the base rules in about twenty minutes and get them started playing. Most of the complexity lies in about 10% of the rules/situations, and the interaction between semi-conflicting rules. A lot of the game (but not the interface) is fairly intuitive. Things work in ways that make sense to anyone that has played wargames and/or has a basic understanding of WW2 history. A lot of the confusion comes from areas where WiF abstracts things in ways that are mechanically non intuitive, but produce results that make sense. People used to bandy about the term "WIF zen" to describe it. For example, action limits don't really make sense from a realism standpoint. My air force is flying so my navy is grounded? That's illogical. But the action limit system does a good job of forcing players to make the difficult (and interesting) decisions that end up leading to realistic results. WIF zen. The answer is Offensive Chit for super-combined. Zen removed. [;)] But action limits make sense out of a realism standpoint. It simulates the decisions the General Staff has to make. Is fuel going to the tanks, the navy or the airforce? How are the supplies divided? What ammo is produced and who gets it? In war, there are always shortages. Sure, you might have the necessary ships, the planes and the Panzer produced, but you surely don't have enough supplies to let them all fly, sail and ride at the same time. Your men have to rest, your planes, ships and vehicles needs maintenance... Even the US had major problems supplying all branches in the autumn of 1944, so units were stopped due to lack of supplies, planes were grounded due to lack of bombs... The action limits simulates this quite well. Now, in wargames every general wants to move everything and use all weapons. In reality, you couldn't do so...

Zorachus99 -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/7/2014 1:12:35 AM)
Which is why you see the US taking a super-combined every turn starting in about '44, if not a bit earlier.

Ur_Vile_WEdge -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/7/2014 1:55:28 AM)
One thing I've toyed with when looking over the game in solitaire, is a setup where everyone has certain "base" action limits, regardless of what they play unless they pass. An air, land, or naval action respectively don't give you unlimited moves in whatever field, but you do get a bunch, and a combined is more or less the same. Basically, the three focused types of impulses are more like combineds. In addition, every major power can spend BP in order to build up their action limits. Once spent, this increase is permanent, and you get an extra land move per action or air attack or whatever. The idea bieng that A) I want to encourage major powers to spend money and time and effort expanding their logistical capability, something which everyone did historically. B) I wanted to get rid of the "CW builds the army, U.S. builds the airforce" total hyperfocusing that WiF encourages and is frankly a bit stupid. Never got it to work, but I think the base idea has some merit, if you can get the details to line up.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.421875