Option 47 (Full Version)

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



Message

WarHunter -> Option 47 (6/11/2014 2:20:24 PM)

What is option 47?

Where is it found in the rules?

Why is it important?

Is it a house rule that became more?



Centuur -> RE: Option 47 (6/11/2014 2:26:41 PM)

From RAW:

Option 47: (Isolated reorganization) You can only turn a unit faceup
if it can trace a path to a primary supply source for that unit. You
trace the path in the same way as a basic supply path, including via
overseas supply paths (see 2.4.2) except that it can be of any length.

I think that if you've read this, you will agree that this is an option which is used by a lot of players, since it is historically right to assume that surrounded units can't be reoganised...

I think it's a pity that this optional rule isn't functional in MWIF at the moment, because it really is an important one.



Larry Smith -> RE: Option 47 (6/11/2014 5:51:53 PM)

It would be relatively easy to implement, too, since in a way, similar subroutines are already being used for the Oil rules. All you'd have to do is make all units oil dependent, but by such a small amount - say 0.01, or even 0.005, depending on how small of a oil fraction the game will keep track of - and that's that. if the smallest fraction is 0.05, then you'd have an issue, but my point is that the subroutine to do the checks is there, and works. It would just need to be adapted to suit the units that are not oil dependent.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Option 47 (6/12/2014 3:35:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Larry Smith

It would be relatively easy to implement, too, since in a way, similar subroutines are already being used for the Oil rules. All you'd have to do is make all units oil dependent, but by such a small amount - say 0.01, or even 0.005, depending on how small of a oil fraction the game will keep track of - and that's that. if the smallest fraction is 0.05, then you'd have an issue, but my point is that the subroutine to do the checks is there, and works. It would just need to be adapted to suit the units that are not oil dependent.

CPU cycles is my concern for implementing this rule. Trying to find a path of infinite length on the Asia map can take a long time - especially if there are a dozen or so units OOS but not isolated.



paulderynck -> RE: Option 47 (6/12/2014 6:44:20 AM)

How difficult would it be to include only the ability to disorganize a unit manually? (Somewhat of a debug functionality.) Make it available only during the final re-org phase and only able to be implemented by the owning player, so if both players agree to play Option 47, the effects can be implemented.

I do recall the issues with it in beta testing and why it slowed the game execution down tremendously trying to ensure units way off in the hinterlands truly had absolutely no path to a supply source.

A classic example of how the human brain is still superior to the computer for certain tasks.



Centuur -> RE: Option 47 (6/12/2014 6:25:46 PM)

For the oil reorganisation, the check in MWIF is made in that phase only. For isolation, Steve wanted to do this check after each supply calculation, so players could see if a unit was simply out of supply or isolated. This is of course the best way to do this, seeing on how players would like the information to be as good as possible, to prevent units from getting isolated...






CrusssDaddy -> RE: Option 47 (6/12/2014 9:20:21 PM)

In my experience, usually on the Asia map this involves bypassed ChiComm units trying to trace to Urumqi or Kashgar or far south, potentially dozens of hexes in any case. As a house rule, we would look suspiciously at giant supply lines that snaked through desert, mountains, etc. endlessly to establish supply improbably far, far away: when flipped, those guys would stay flipped until relived from the outside. This also alleviated littering the map with control markers.

Maybe as a compromise that retains the spirit of the rule without taking ages to compute, the computer could cut off its supply search after 15 or 20 hexes? That seems a reasonable distance to preserve some need to truly pocket bypassed forces.

Otherwise, it's inconceivable playing without 47.



warspite1 -> RE: Option 47 (6/12/2014 9:34:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

In my experience, usually on the Asia map this involves bypassed ChiComm units trying to trace to Urumqi or Kashgar or far south, potentially dozens of hexes in any case. As a house rule, we would look suspiciously at giant supply lines that snaked through desert, mountains, etc. endlessly to establish supply improbably far, far away: when flipped, those guys would stay flipped until relived from the outside. This also alleviated littering the map with control markers.

Maybe as a compromise that retains the spirit of the rule without taking ages to compute, the computer could cut off its supply search after 15 or 20 hexes? That seems a reasonable distance to preserve some need to truly pocket bypassed forces.

Otherwise, it's inconceivable playing without 47.
warspite1

Sounds sensible if it means a chance of this being coded.



AlbertN -> RE: Option 47 (6/12/2014 10:59:34 PM)

I agree this rule is quite important - even a "manual flip" of units could do, even if for a newb like me could come down harsh. Some pockets are quite evident in many cases even to someone like me.



AxelNL -> RE: Option 47 (6/13/2014 5:28:35 AM)

Good discussion guys. Crussdaddy has a reasonable proposal, I wonder how many others will support this?
Perhaps the maxx range of hexes could be user-defined?



brian brian -> RE: Option 47 (6/13/2014 11:32:23 AM)

I've never understood why this rule is an optional. I haven't played without it since my 2nd or 3rd game of World in Flames in about 1991, playing as a House Rule even before Final Edition came out.

The worst would be paying without the Oil Rule due to game issues and seeing an isolated enemy HQ become a Ghost Army Group HQ.

It seems to be a sad irony that WiF is a game that gives the players easy logistics in the interests of playability and now MWiF has to do the same?



rkr1958 -> RE: Option 47 (6/13/2014 1:43:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AxelNL

Good discussion guys. Crussdaddy has a reasonable proposal, I wonder how many others will support this?
Perhaps the maxx range of hexes could be user-defined?
If this rule is that critical and run times with an "infinite" range are prohibited then implementing this with a user defined (variable) range seems to be a good compromise. Though I'm not part of the beta, I could see this implemented in beta and someone run tests to derive lag time versus range and coming up with a value that allows for the intent of this rule without impacting run time. But having the range as variable would allow users with faster or slower computers to customize as necessary. And as computers get faster, in a decade or so, then an infinite range might be possible.



Viktor_Kormel_slith -> RE: Option 47 (6/13/2014 3:28:19 PM)

I donīt think that rule is so critical but I think limited supply range calculations could work to fix it and these way everybody will be happy![:'(]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Option 47 (6/16/2014 2:44:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

In my experience, usually on the Asia map this involves bypassed ChiComm units trying to trace to Urumqi or Kashgar or far south, potentially dozens of hexes in any case. As a house rule, we would look suspiciously at giant supply lines that snaked through desert, mountains, etc. endlessly to establish supply improbably far, far away: when flipped, those guys would stay flipped until relived from the outside. This also alleviated littering the map with control markers.

Maybe as a compromise that retains the spirit of the rule without taking ages to compute, the computer could cut off its supply search after 15 or 20 hexes? That seems a reasonable distance to preserve some need to truly pocket bypassed forces.

Otherwise, it's inconceivable playing without 47.

That is my intended solution. However it remains on my task list as a not 'super' high priority.



CrusssDaddy -> RE: Option 47 (6/16/2014 1:21:51 PM)

Does the boldface type indicate you are shouting? Should your customers on this thread deploy boldface type to prod you toward elevating that task in importance on your list? Or should they use the more traditional ALL CAPS AND SUPERFLUOUS PUNCTUATION!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!!?!?



warspite1 -> RE: Option 47 (6/16/2014 1:23:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

Does the boldface type indicate you are shouting? Should your customers on this thread deploy boldface type to prod you toward elevating that task in importance on your list? Or should they use the more traditional ALL CAPS AND SUPERFLUOUS PUNCTUATION!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!!?!?
warspite1

WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT STUPID POST ALL ABOUT???!!!????!!!



CrusssDaddy -> RE: Option 47 (6/16/2014 2:04:27 PM)

Hold on, I had it a bit wrong. It's supposed to be ALL CAPS AND SUPLERFUMOUS PUNTUATION AND MISPELLPIGNS??????!?!!!??!!$



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Option 47 (6/16/2014 9:37:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

Does the boldface type indicate you are shouting? Should your customers on this thread deploy boldface type to prod you toward elevating that task in importance on your list? Or should they use the more traditional ALL CAPS AND SUPERFLUOUS PUNCTUATION!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!!?!?

I quoted your entire post but made bold the portion to which I was replying. So the portion of my text in bold corresponds to the portion of your post in bold.

I sometimes do this by underlining the corresponding text portions - or by using color. I was lazy this time and just used bold.

Your response seems a little excessive.[8|]



CrusssDaddy -> RE: Option 47 (6/17/2014 6:15:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

Does the boldface type indicate you are shouting? Should your customers on this thread deploy boldface type to prod you toward elevating that task in importance on your list? Or should they use the more traditional ALL CAPS AND SUPERFLUOUS PUNCTUATION!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!!?!?

I quoted your entire post but made bold the portion to which I was replying. So the portion of my text in bold corresponds to the portion of your post in bold.

I sometimes do this by underlining the corresponding text portions - or by using color. I was lazy this time and just used bold.

Your response seems a little excessive.[8|]


You feel no urgency to accomplish the minor work required to fix this, is that what you are confirming?



wworld7 -> RE: Option 47 (6/17/2014 2:22:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

Does the boldface type indicate you are shouting? Should your customers on this thread deploy boldface type to prod you toward elevating that task in importance on your list? Or should they use the more traditional ALL CAPS AND SUPERFLUOUS PUNCTUATION!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!!?!?

I quoted your entire post but made bold the portion to which I was replying. So the portion of my text in bold corresponds to the portion of your post in bold.

I sometimes do this by underlining the corresponding text portions - or by using color. I was lazy this time and just used bold.

Your response seems a little excessive.[8|]


You feel no urgency to accomplish the minor work required to fix this, is that what you are confirming?



CrusssDaddy, Steve stated (ie: confirmed) this is ON his list, it just is not a "super" high priority.

I like that Steve takes a few minutes to answer questions here periodically. I would rather he spend his time working on the game
instead of expending his limited time repeating an answer because you don't like his answer and then try to warp whatever he says into a negative.





CrusssDaddy -> RE: Option 47 (6/17/2014 3:14:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish


quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

Does the boldface type indicate you are shouting? Should your customers on this thread deploy boldface type to prod you toward elevating that task in importance on your list? Or should they use the more traditional ALL CAPS AND SUPERFLUOUS PUNCTUATION!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!!?!?

I quoted your entire post but made bold the portion to which I was replying. So the portion of my text in bold corresponds to the portion of your post in bold.

I sometimes do this by underlining the corresponding text portions - or by using color. I was lazy this time and just used bold.

Your response seems a little excessive.[8|]


You feel no urgency to accomplish the minor work required to fix this, is that what you are confirming?



CrusssDaddy, Steve stated (ie: confirmed) this is ON his list, it just is not a "super" high priority.

I like that Steve takes a few minutes to answer questions here periodically. I would rather he spend his time working on the game
instead of expending his limited time repeating an answer because you don't like his answer and then try to warp whatever he says into a negative.



I'm more interested in your opinion on the thread -- do you think 47 is important and creating some sort of workaround should be a priority?



Centuur -> RE: Option 47 (6/17/2014 7:15:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish


quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

Does the boldface type indicate you are shouting? Should your customers on this thread deploy boldface type to prod you toward elevating that task in importance on your list? Or should they use the more traditional ALL CAPS AND SUPERFLUOUS PUNCTUATION!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!!?!?

I quoted your entire post but made bold the portion to which I was replying. So the portion of my text in bold corresponds to the portion of your post in bold.

I sometimes do this by underlining the corresponding text portions - or by using color. I was lazy this time and just used bold.

Your response seems a little excessive.[8|]


You feel no urgency to accomplish the minor work required to fix this, is that what you are confirming?



CrusssDaddy, Steve stated (ie: confirmed) this is ON his list, it just is not a "super" high priority.

I like that Steve takes a few minutes to answer questions here periodically. I would rather he spend his time working on the game
instead of expending his limited time repeating an answer because you don't like his answer and then try to warp whatever he says into a negative.



I'm more interested in your opinion on the thread -- do you think 47 is important and creating some sort of workaround should be a priority?



It's an important optional rule, that I agree on. But it's optional, so it comes behind the bug fixing of supply, production, naval and netplay. After that a new order of battle for MWIF will be decided on...



warspite1 -> RE: Option 47 (6/17/2014 7:43:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

Does the boldface type indicate you are shouting? Should your customers on this thread deploy boldface type to prod you toward elevating that task in importance on your list? Or should they use the more traditional ALL CAPS AND SUPERFLUOUS PUNCTUATION!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!!?!?

I quoted your entire post but made bold the portion to which I was replying. So the portion of my text in bold corresponds to the portion of your post in bold.

I sometimes do this by underlining the corresponding text portions - or by using color. I was lazy this time and just used bold.

Your response seems a little excessive.[8|]


You feel no urgency to accomplish the minor work required to fix this, is that what you are confirming?

warspite1

You just can't help yourself can you? You prove how you can be a positive contributor to this game - and then almost immediately revert to obnoxious, rude, twat territory [sm=nono.gif]. Well done.



CrusssDaddy -> RE: Option 47 (6/17/2014 9:01:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

Does the boldface type indicate you are shouting? Should your customers on this thread deploy boldface type to prod you toward elevating that task in importance on your list? Or should they use the more traditional ALL CAPS AND SUPERFLUOUS PUNCTUATION!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!!?!?

I quoted your entire post but made bold the portion to which I was replying. So the portion of my text in bold corresponds to the portion of your post in bold.

I sometimes do this by underlining the corresponding text portions - or by using color. I was lazy this time and just used bold.

Your response seems a little excessive.[8|]


You feel no urgency to accomplish the minor work required to fix this, is that what you are confirming?

warspite1

You just can't help yourself can you? You prove how you can be a positive contributor to this game - and then almost immediately revert to obnoxious, rude, twat territory [sm=nono.gif]. Well done.



This is such a minor fix, shouldn't you be more angry that Steve always has an excuse ready why the things that need doing can't get done? And that Matrix couldn't care less? I mean, those pictures and novel-length posts about the new sh!tter he's installing in his pad sure are entertaining, but couldn't that time be better spent?



warspite1 -> RE: Option 47 (6/18/2014 5:11:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

Does the boldface type indicate you are shouting? Should your customers on this thread deploy boldface type to prod you toward elevating that task in importance on your list? Or should they use the more traditional ALL CAPS AND SUPERFLUOUS PUNCTUATION!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!!?!?

I quoted your entire post but made bold the portion to which I was replying. So the portion of my text in bold corresponds to the portion of your post in bold.

I sometimes do this by underlining the corresponding text portions - or by using color. I was lazy this time and just used bold.

Your response seems a little excessive.[8|]


You feel no urgency to accomplish the minor work required to fix this, is that what you are confirming?

warspite1

You just can't help yourself can you? You prove how you can be a positive contributor to this game - and then almost immediately revert to obnoxious, rude, twat territory [sm=nono.gif]. Well done.



This is such a minor fix, shouldn't you be more angry that Steve always has an excuse ready why the things that need doing can't get done? And that Matrix couldn't care less? I mean, those pictures and novel-length posts about the new sh!tter he's installing in his pad sure are entertaining, but couldn't that time be better spent?

warspite1

I cannot comment for sure on whether any fix is minor or not - since I know nothing about programming. However, I suspect from other related posts/threads/beta testing, that nothing to do with supply is a simple fix - far from it.

That being the case, and considering a) this is an optional rule, b) there are still other actual supply bugs that need fixing, Steve is prioritising accordingly.

Matrix couldn't care less? This old chestnut again, really? Listen, the game is what it is, the economics of the situation and Matrix's role is what it is. You cannot change this - no matter how much bitching and moaning you do.








wworld7 -> RE: Option 47 (6/18/2014 5:30:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

I'm more interested in your opinion on the thread -- do you think 47 is important and creating some sort of workaround should be a priority?



I do think it is better playing with 47.

That said, I am in no position to start telling Steve how to order his priorities. He knows the big picture of this project and he stated that
this is on his list. Many people have different ideas on what should be the #1, 2, 3 etc. of priority to be fixed/programmed. This is totally up
to Steve and Matrix in reality (as it should be).

And I laugh anytime anyone (including myself) implies that ANY change to a software program is minor and or easy. There is always risk of unintended
consequences when dealing with software. But I believe you already know this.

Be well,





wworld7 -> RE: Option 47 (6/18/2014 5:39:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

This is such a minor fix, shouldn't you be more angry that Steve always has an excuse ready why the things that need doing can't get done? And that Matrix couldn't care less? I mean,
those pictures and novel-length posts about the new sh!tter he's installing in his pad sure are entertaining, but couldn't that time be better spent?



I wish I had seen this post before I replied to your other.

"Minor fix", you used it. ROFL!!!!

Your critique on what Steve does with his time is also a riot.

I doubt you would be happy even if Steve programmed 24/7 52 weeks a year (which the finances of this project could never support).

Thanks for the LAUGHS.



pzgndr -> RE: Option 47 (6/18/2014 11:47:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish
And I laugh anytime anyone implies that ANY change to a software program is minor and or easy. There is always risk of unintended
consequences when dealing with software.


+1

And for THIS game, with its many optional rules that players could pick and choose from in an almost infinite variety of combinations and permutations, to run on various platforms and O/S's and device drivers, any regression testing of software changes to ensure EVERYTHING works perfectly for EVERYBODY is a daunting task. I give Steve credit for doing what he can; others should too. For a game, for our entertainment, for fun. We'll get there eventually.



CrusssDaddy -> RE: Option 47 (6/18/2014 7:44:32 PM)

It's a wonder anyone else has made a working computer game in under 10 years.



warspite1 -> RE: Option 47 (6/18/2014 7:56:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

It's a wonder anyone else has made a working computer game in under 10 years.

warspite1

Why's that then?



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
9.75