Initial setup (Full Version)

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



Message

palad1n -> Initial setup (7/11/2014 3:33:28 PM)

Matrix WIF misses the point. Initial setup also INCLUDES the current year units - for major powers. For ex, Italy can "legally" remove all those 3 movement factor TRSs at the start of the Sep/Oct 39 game leaving them with one TRS (4/3) in the force pools. There is, however, one 1939 TRS that MWiF does not recognise as a valid setup unit (as an aside this is NOT the only instance). The rules are quite explicit - (and I quote) "If there are not enough units in the force pool to set up a unit, and you have not removed any of those units from the force pool, you may randomly select a unit of that type from those available in the NEXT year. The previous page in the scenario setup manual states to set aside units that have an availability date on their back that is later than the game's starting year (they will become available later). Note that both these RULES relate to later years NOT the current year. Thus, if the Italian player elects to scrap all the 3 factor TRSs (due to age) he/she should then be able to have the 1939 4/3 TRS. MWiF does not ALLOW this, presumably using the rules that apply to the minor countries. Ipsofacto, MWiF is WRONG. To support this hypothesis the following is from Harry Rowland - Yep that's right Don, current year units may be chosen. Feel free to drop matrix a line if that is not the case in computer wif.

regards
Harry
On 10/07/2014 1:26 PM, Don Harris wrote:
Chaps, (Harry, Ray – FYI & comment if you want)

The scenarios booklet states (on page 4 column 2 immediately underneath the grey options):

“If there are not enough units in the force pool to set up a unit, and you have not removed any of those units from the force pool, you may randomly select a unit of that type from those available in the next year.”

But, on page 3 the second dot point states; ‘set aside these units for now “units with an availability date on their back that is later than the game’s starting year. …”’

Both statements refer to later year(s), not the current year of the scenario start, so my interpretation is that 1939 units are a part of the initial setup forces for global war (and similar for other scenarios as well).

Does this mean that Matrix WIF has it wrong? Probably, but they may have consulted Harry and/or used the setup rules for minors, so who knows.

Italy is OK with selecting the 1939 TRS, AFAIC.

Have fun,



Centuur -> RE: Initial setup (7/11/2014 5:59:49 PM)

It's perhaps due to the fact that I'm a guy who isn't a native English speaker, but I don't understand what you've written here. What's the bug exactly? What is wrong? What rule isn't enforced? I can't follow your reasoning at all..



paulderynck -> RE: Initial setup (7/11/2014 6:24:09 PM)

I'm not sure of the issue either and I am a native English speaker. One problem may be that if you play the boardgame with all the units from AiF and PaTiF, you'll have more TRSs in the game than MWiF has. If you're used to playing without SiF, you'll have less.

At any rate, yes you do use the current year units for set-up (1939 for Global War) but you can only scrap units from 1935 or before since you are neutral to start (except Japan and China), and per the rules quote above - if you do "over-scrap", than you cannot take a unit from a future year to satisfy set-up requirements.

I don't think there's any problem with MWiFs unit counts.




palad1n -> RE: Initial setup (7/12/2014 2:28:08 PM)

Mayhap this is not exactly a bug, but more a basic programming error. AFAIC it is too many none players versus those that actually play the game being involved with the development of MWIF. The scenario setup rules are quite explicit, use the NEXT years units. For a game that is to start in S/O 39 this means that all 1939 units (for every MAJOR power) are included with the setup force pools. MWIF, as currently coded, does NOT take this into account. I also refer to the advice from the game's designer, Harry Roland, that this is correct. So do NOT impugn my character and proof validity. The results more then speak for themselves. To me it was an eye opener, I had never expected this to be the case. Yet Harry fully supported my decision. So what does this mean for MWIF- either a bug or basic programming error. And do not please bug me with I cannot understand this emails, it is more than self supporting.



paulderynck -> RE: Initial setup (7/12/2014 7:10:11 PM)

MWiF does include all the 1939 units for setting up. If you find otherwise, post a saved game that demonstrates your issue within it.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Initial setup (7/12/2014 7:11:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: palad1n

Mayhap this is not exactly a bug, but more a basic programming error. AFAIC it is too many none players versus those that actually play the game being involved with the development of MWIF. The scenario setup rules are quite explicit, use the NEXT years units. For a game that is to start in S/O 39 this means that all 1939 units (for every MAJOR power) are included with the setup force pools. MWIF, as currently coded, does NOT take this into account. I also refer to the advice from the game's designer, Harry Roland, that this is correct. So do NOT impugn my character and proof validity. The results more then speak for themselves. To me it was an eye opener, I had never expected this to be the case. Yet Harry fully supported my decision. So what does this mean for MWIF- either a bug or basic programming error. And do not please bug me with I cannot understand this emails, it is more than self supporting.

It would be easier to understand your point if you gave an example (just 1 would be fine) of the program doing something wrong. Quoting the rules without an example forces the reader to understand something in the abstract and generate his own sample cases to try to see what you mean. If the reader chooses sample cases that work, then the point you are trying to make is lost.

===

I looked at the Italian Naval Transports in the Global War scenario, which you mentioned, and I do not see anything wrong.

There are sufficient TRS units for Italy to set up its units - but only if it doesn't scrap any. The setup calls for 2 Italian TRS units. There are 4 available and 3 of them can be scrapped. There are also two more Italian TRS units due to arrive in the force pool in 1940. The Scrap form shown below shows these units. I have added the year under the unit depiction for those that are pre-1940.

If the player chooses to scrap only two of the TRS units, then the other two will be part of the setup. If the player scraps all 3 that can be scrapped, then he will only get 1 TRS for setup.

At no point will the 1940 units be available during setup.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/032BDC17FF734C209E6D58E53CF702D1.jpg[/image]



palad1n -> RE: Initial setup (7/20/2014 12:34:30 PM)

The problem is that MWIF does not include PatIF or AmericaIF units. In AIF there is a 1939 TRS for the Italians. SO it is not a bug nor a programming error, it is an error of omission in the first instance - an error that should not have been allowed in the first place as the assumption made (that the AIF and PatIF units only affected games post 1945) was invalid. Discussion ends.



warspite1 -> RE: Initial setup (7/20/2014 3:19:35 PM)

Deleted



Easo79 -> RE: Initial setup (7/20/2014 4:51:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: palad1n

So do NOT impugn my character and proof validity. The results more then speak for themselves. To me it was an eye opener, I had never expected this to be the case.


This section looks like a computer-generated random selection of topical pulp fiction sentences...or....

a greatly exaggerated response to a supposedly missing Italian 1939 Transport...what wasteful spending of....mmm... passion!



paulderynck -> RE: Initial setup (7/20/2014 6:23:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: palad1n

The problem is that MWIF does not include PatIF or AmericaIF units. In AIF there is a 1939 TRS for the Italians. SO it is not a bug nor a programming error, it is an error of omission in the first instance - an error that should not have been allowed in the first place as the assumption made (that the AIF and PatIF units only affected games post 1945) was invalid. Discussion ends.

Discussion should indeed end when an inability to read past page 3 of the Player's Manual is the cause of allegation.



[image]local://upfiles/24497/8245C0D297064CCF8B3113A7C8B74F37.jpg[/image]



composer99 -> RE: Initial setup (7/21/2014 1:58:27 PM)

In addition to the AiF/PatiF matter, it appears palad1n's misunderstanding also follows from neglecting the precise text of the very rule palad1n refers to:

quote:

If there are not enough units in the force-pool to set up a unit, and you have not removed any of those units from the force-pool, you may randomly select a unit of that type from those available in the next year. [Emphasis mine.]


You only add subsequent years' units if you didn't scrap any from this or previous years' units.



palad1n -> RE: Initial setup (7/24/2014 12:40:28 PM)

paulderynck, do not confuse me with an imbecile; I am more then aware that MWiF does NOT include aforementioned add-ons. Let me explain to all those people that do not have a certain level of intelligence. MWiF does not include AiF and PATiF, for very good reasons - these are essentially stand alone games in the WiF environment. What MWiF misses is that each of the add-ons introduce quite a number of units that CAN be part of either playable version of MWiF one chooses. For now let us call these vanilla WiF and expanded WiF. The former uses the naval forces from WiF and the latter the naval forces from SiF. Both AiF and PATiF introduce a number of units that ARE added to the force pools (IAW the rules for each add-on). What units are added does depend on what one is playing. Playing vanilla WiF would also include those CVs and SCSs (BBs, CAs, CLs) that are marked as force pool additions in AiF and PATif. Playing with SiF would exclude these naval units. However there are also a number of other naval, ground and air units that SHOULD be added to the force pools in accordance with the rules PERTAINING TO EACH add-on. However, if we exclude every heavy weapon unit (as stated for MWiF - even though I personally prefer to play with these units), there still remains quite a number of units that SHOULD be included with the force pools. These are aircraft (FTR, LND, NAV, STR) and naval (TRS, AMPH, SUB). Therefore, if MWiF had actually taken these force pool additions into account in the first instance my original post would have been a non event - that is (for those that still cannot comprehend) the 1939 TRS would have been there as a unit for placement on the map. I will post the amended units csv files in due course (to google drive). I would, however, appreciate advice as to the data format for the aircraft csv file - ie which column relates to which aircraft attribute (I suspect that the CVPs drive this).



palad1n -> RE: Initial setup (7/24/2014 1:26:20 PM)

Actually, an insight into the naval unit columns would be good too.



composer99 -> RE: Initial setup (7/24/2014 2:47:28 PM)

I can't speak for conventions outside of the US, but when I've been to the US WiFCon, the AiF/PatiF units (that is, the air & naval units available during the war years) are not included in the available kits. Tournament play is probably the closest one can get to "official" WiF, so on that precedent I don't believe it is appropriate to say that AiF/PatiF units ought or should be included in the MWiF counter mix as published by Matrix Games while those kits are not otherwise implemented in MWiF.

Home games are not tournament games, and I am sure we would all like to see our favourite options implemented where they aren't already, but it's a bit much IMO to proclaim an "ought/should" when none exists.



paulderynck -> RE: Initial setup (7/24/2014 3:01:31 PM)

Or... you can make a determination from the what the rules of the game say. From 19.4: "You only set up units from America in Flames or Patton in Flames if playing those games."

It's wonderful that people enjoy the boardgame to a greater extent if they use all the toys. But to demand that they be there in a computer version that is supposed to enforce the rules of the game seems somewhat arrogant. However, there may be a way to add them - check out the "Mods" threads.

And palad1n, I would never confuse you for an imbecile.



pzgndr -> RE: Initial setup (7/24/2014 3:12:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: palad1n
Let me explain to all those people that do not have a certain level of intelligence. MWiF does not include AiF and PATiF, for very good reasons - these are essentially stand alone games in the WiF environment. What MWiF misses is that each of the add-ons introduce quite a number of units that CAN be part of either playable version of MWiF one chooses.


Sure, of course there are more add-ins that CAN be included. BUT, the design decision was to not include them, for now. Maybe someday AFTER the as-described design of MWiF is finally completed (ie, bugs fixed, optional rules implemented, remaining scenarios implemented, NetPlay functioning, AI functioning, etc.), THEN other stuff could be considered. Let's stay the course for the time being and get MWiF running first.



Centuur -> RE: Initial setup (7/24/2014 7:36:53 PM)

Perhaps something for later, to include those extra units with an extra optional rule (if Steve still wants to make these kind of changes after years of hard labor...)



palad1n -> RE: Initial setup (7/25/2014 3:20:07 PM)

FYI, I have modified the naval and air MWiF csv files to include the AiF and PATiF air and naval (TRS, AMPH & SUB only) units. After a bit of an issue with lend lease ACFT (the names MUST match), everything works. In particular, scrapping all the Italian 3 movement factor TRSs will now allow the Italian player to have the two 4 factor TRSs for setup. Happy - yep. So now I have MWiF with all the force pool additions from AiF and PATiF for ACFT and the naval units. Yeehah. If any of you chaps would like a copy, drop me an email (which is provided through Matrix as I will not post it here).

Now, has anyone KiFed MWiF?

paulderynck, you yet again make a statement without the full context - 19.4 continued - In all cases you add these units to your force pools. Noting that 19.4 pertains to MINOR country setups, NOT major powers.



paulderynck -> RE: Initial setup (7/25/2014 3:22:26 PM)

Why not post those file in the Mods thread, like others have done with unit color and terrain mods?



palad1n -> RE: Initial setup (7/26/2014 5:21:59 AM)

Great idea and thanks. Did not think of that avenue. Done, although the first one is actually the air CSV, not the naval CSV (which is in the second post).



palad1n -> RE: Initial setup (7/26/2014 3:41:05 PM)

After looking at the mods folder and downloading the KiF mod, I come to realise that the new aircraft will probably not appear with a correct bmp image as each bmp image (in the pages bmps and associated text files) relates to the existing aircraft sequential numbers in the csv file. So, more work is required in that space. I have discovered that one cannot simply reference a previous number, as in a 981 Ju 87D Stuka is a single entity and a 982 Ju 87D Stuka, if changed to 981, does not work at all. At least the default solution by MWiF is to use the "flipped side" aircraft profile. I would be interested to hear why this singular approach was adopted in lieu of a one bmp image fits all instances of the same aircraft (type, model, etc) This would have saved some memory and somewhat future proofed MWiF. Notwithstanding, I'll be working to add to the unit bmp files so the AiF and PATiF aircraft units have the appropriate bmp image. I do hope (trust) that MWiF can accept pages 23+. For further details go to the mods thread. On a positive note, the naval side is OK as TRSs, AMPHs and SUBs have a generic "face up" bmp profile. I am also changing the whole air CSV file to have every instance of a particular aircraft type (model, etc) to be exactly the same. Further, and perhaps Shannon can answer this one, the 5th column (or col E if loaded as a spreadsheet) appears to be completely superfluous - only a few are populated with +name+name (for example). I have deleted all contents of this column and there appears to be no issues; could I assume that it had a potential purpose originally but was overtaken by future developments (similarly for same column for naval csv) - while on naval csv file, is there a purpose for columns 15 and 16 (spreadsheet columns O & P) repeating the same value (CV aircraft capacity)? As I said, further developments will be posted in the mods thread.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Initial setup (7/26/2014 8:18:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: palad1n

After looking at the mods folder and downloading the KiF mod, I come to realise that the new aircraft will probably not appear with a correct bmp image as each bmp image (in the pages bmps and associated text files) relates to the existing aircraft sequential numbers in the csv file. So, more work is required in that space. I have discovered that one cannot simply reference a previous number, as in a 981 Ju 87D Stuka is a single entity and a 982 Ju 87D Stuka, if changed to 981, does not work at all. At least the default solution by MWiF is to use the "flipped side" aircraft profile. I would be interested to hear why this singular approach was adopted in lieu of a one bmp image fits all instances of the same aircraft (type, model, etc) This would have saved some memory and somewhat future proofed MWiF. Notwithstanding, I'll be working to add to the unit bmp files so the AiF and PATiF aircraft units have the appropriate bmp image. I do hope (trust) that MWiF can accept pages 23+. For further details go to the mods thread. On a positive note, the naval side is OK as TRSs, AMPHs and SUBs have a generic "face up" bmp profile. I am also changing the whole air CSV file to have every instance of a particular aircraft type (model, etc) to be exactly the same. Further, and perhaps Shannon can answer this one, the 5th column (or col E if loaded as a spreadsheet) appears to be completely superfluous - only a few are populated with +name+name (for example). I have deleted all contents of this column and there appears to be no issues; could I assume that it had a potential purpose originally but was overtaken by future developments (similarly for same column for naval csv) - while on naval csv file, is there a purpose for columns 15 and 16 (spreadsheet columns O & P) repeating the same value (CV aircraft capacity)? As I said, further developments will be posted in the mods thread.

When I get a chance, I'll run through your questions and answer them. I have to leave home at the moment and there are some other items on my to-do list for this afternoon.

As a first warning: I ran into problems with storing bitmaps (a Windows imposed limitation) and had to do a lot of tricky coding to cram everything into available bitmap memory. So you won't be able to add bitmaps just willy-nilly. I'll look into it more closely later.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Initial setup (7/26/2014 11:16:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: palad1n

After looking at the mods folder and downloading the KiF mod, I come to realise that the new aircraft will probably not appear with a correct bmp image as each bmp image (in the pages bmps and associated text files) relates to the existing aircraft sequential numbers in the csv file. So, more work is required in that space. I have discovered that one cannot simply reference a previous number, as in a 981 Ju 87D Stuka is a single entity and a 982 Ju 87D Stuka, if changed to 981, does not work at all. At least the default solution by MWiF is to use the "flipped side" aircraft profile. I would be interested to hear why this singular approach was adopted in lieu of a one bmp image fits all instances of the same aircraft (type, model, etc) This would have saved some memory and somewhat future proofed MWiF. Notwithstanding, I'll be working to add to the unit bmp files so the AiF and PATiF aircraft units have the appropriate bmp image. I do hope (trust) that MWiF can accept pages 23+. For further details go to the mods thread. On a positive note, the naval side is OK as TRSs, AMPHs and SUBs have a generic "face up" bmp profile. I am also changing the whole air CSV file to have every instance of a particular aircraft type (model, etc) to be exactly the same. Further, and perhaps Shannon can answer this one, the 5th column (or col E if loaded as a spreadsheet) appears to be completely superfluous - only a few are populated with +name+name (for example). I have deleted all contents of this column and there appears to be no issues; could I assume that it had a potential purpose originally but was overtaken by future developments (similarly for same column for naval csv) - while on naval csv file, is there a purpose for columns 15 and 16 (spreadsheet columns O & P) repeating the same value (CV aircraft capacity)? As I said, further developments will be posted in the mods thread.

The abbreviated name field (column 5) for the Air Units is used for long names so the names do not run into/over the numeric factors. If the abbreviated name field is blank, then the program assumes there isn't going to be a problem. When the unit has an abbreviated name, then the name is split into two lines (top and bottom) and the vertical centering changes from 1 line to 2 lines. The placement of air unit names depends on the unit type and its nationality. The use of periods and commas in the names were different historically (e.g., German versus Italian). I know next to nothing about this and relied completely on Patrice Forno to tell me how these should be handled. The program parses the names based on the punctuation. If I were creating new units, I would look for an existing one of the same unit type and nationality, and mimic how the name for the existing one was encoded.

The naval units (carriers) probably have duplicate entries for Air Class and Air Capacity (columns 15 and 16). These files were originally generated from the CWIF binary data files. CWIF read in binary files that depended on Delphi Object definitions. I converted all the data to ASCII so they could be read using database/spreadsheet/text editor software. To do that, I wrote some code to generate the ASCII files after the CWIF code had read in the binary data. Later I modified to MWIF read in the ASCII data (and never used the CWIF data files again). At that time CWIF had the two data fields - it took me several months before I could convince myself that the data fields were identical. But notice that I still said 'probably' in the first sentence of this paragraph.[;)]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Initial setup (7/26/2014 11:33:38 PM)

About the air unit bitmaps. You should be able to add 21 more air unit bitmaps to the last page. Be sure to make the unit numbers so they append to the last air unit number. The last existing air unit number is 1345, so start with 1346. The next 'used' unit is for the land units and starts at 2001. So there is a lot of room as far as the numbering goes.

But for the bitmaps, I can only offer the 21 unused slots at the end of the 22nd page of bitmaps.

The program is hard coded for 22 pages. It would be easy enough to modify the code to accept/expect more, but the bitmap memory issue would probably be fatal. When the program runs out of bitmap memory, very strange things happen.

If you look at the coastal hex bitmaps, you'll notice that they are compacted as hexagons, instead of rectangles. Originally I had them as individual rectangles but ran out of bitmap memory to store them that way. By compacting them I was able to reduce the number of pixels stored in memory. Similarly, I originally read in all the unit bitmaps separately, but the program choked on that. By paginating them, 100 to a page, I was able to reduce the required bitmap memory. I don't really understand the internals of how Microsoft handles/limits bitmap memory. I just played around with it until I found a solution that ran without memory problems. As an aside, sometimes the operating system would generate a message saying that bitmap memory had been exceeded. Other times the program would just die in strange and mysterious ways.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Initial setup (7/26/2014 11:35:48 PM)

I just thought - you will probably have to add more text to the historical description files too. The program expects to find a writeup for every unit in one of those 3 text files. The air units have their own historical description text file. It shouldn't be too hard to figure out the format, given that there are over 1000 examples in the file.



rkr1958 -> RE: Initial setup (7/27/2014 2:09:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: palad1n
Let me explain to all those people that do not have a certain level of intelligence.
I think you might be confusing intelligence (or stupidity) with ignorance. I consider myself relatively intelligent; but I'm definitely ignorant when it comes to the advance mechanics of MWiF (WiF). I'm learning; but this game has a steep learning curve!



palad1n -> RE: Initial setup (7/27/2014 12:10:04 PM)

Thank you Shannon. Looks like adding another 358 aircraft may give players the other AiF and PATiF planes, but sans the pretty pictures. Oh well, this will be a players option. For me, the default profile image is OK. The planes will still fly, fight, drop bombs, etc.
As an aside, why use BMPs? JPGs (or even PNGs) would still fill the bill and take much less memory - mayhap even avoid the windows BMP problem altogether (just guessing here).
That and/or reusing image files for multiple planes would also reduce the memory requirements. Within each main plane class (say the B25) there is essentially one image across a number of models (A, B & C), expanded one can easily see the slight differences, but the image itself is more glitter than functional, thus one image for a range of planes is probably acceptable (although there are the purists). Even the naval units could probably benefit from multiple use of images. Of course, it is rather far to late for a change like this.

Again, thank you Shannon for your time.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
7.016113