RE: Yet to be coded Options (Full Version)

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



Message

brian brian -> RE: Yet to be coded Options (10/7/2014 2:02:08 PM)

"En-Route Interception" is an optional rule that allows fighters to intercept a bomber at every 4th hex along a route it might take to a target. One example of where I want it in a game is when the Germans fly Condors from Calais to the Faeroes Gap sea zone and all of Fighter Command in the southern UK can't figure out what to do about it, though the more common use is during Western Allied bombing attacks on Germany.

I put that one high on my list because we generally use the rule in a game, though it only usually happens a handful of times in each game. It could be handled on a computer by allowing the player with Fighters to set Standing Orders. Or, it's just part of the game when playing Hot-Seat, as with naval moves through multiple sea zones with enemy forces.


"Limited Interception" is a different optional rule that is rarely used. It means that a Fighter can't intercept a Bomber if the Bomber flew less hexes to the target than the Fighter. I understand Orm's point about the magic Black Widow appearing from ten hexes away to intercept. However no Air Mission in World in Flames is a single sortie, but rather a series of such attacks (perhaps excepting CV Port Strikes). When bombers appear a 2nd day, and a 3rd, the defenders would bring in Fighters even from far away. They might technically have to fly in Fighter cover on speculation that the enemy Bombers would appear again, which would technically be a form of Combat Air Patrol, but that would be an example of dragging strategic decisions into tactical ones. Maybe in a regimental level game played with one day turns it would be wise to suggest that the Stuka came from 50 km behind the lines so the Hurricane can't intercept from 100 km away, but not at the scale of World in Flames. Fighters intercepting at half range (with a CAP option to use full range) is a simple enough way to make basing decisions a part of the game and works well enough as it is.

Edit to add: Limited Interception would likely be quite simple to code. But I think it is already used so little that it won't be a part of future editions of the game.



Centuur -> RE: Yet to be coded Options (10/7/2014 6:01:56 PM)

I don't think En-route interception will be difficult to code. The basics are already there, being the air-to-air combat sequence. Add a question for interception every fourth hex the bomber moves into (and force the player to move the bomber no more than four hexes a time) if FTR's can intercept and you've got it...



Centuur -> RE: Yet to be coded Options (10/7/2014 6:02:39 PM)

Double...



AxelNL -> RE: Yet to be coded Options (10/20/2014 5:54:08 AM)

do we have enough input to make a summary?



joshuamnave -> RE: Yet to be coded Options (10/20/2014 9:08:22 AM)

I don't think en route interception will be difficult to code - I think it will be difficult to use. Having to fly every bombing mission in 4 hex increments will get old very fast. My point was that in a face to face game it's easy to handle optional interupts, but in a computerized implementation it quickly becomes a hassle. I know it's not an option, but I'd still much rather give fighters double intercept range against strat bombers. It accomplishes much the same thing with much less hassle.



AlbertN -> RE: Yet to be coded Options (10/20/2014 4:54:29 PM)

Meanwhile I agree it could turn into a hassle to move X bombers by 4 hexes each step - on the other hand to double interception range or simply not halve it for Strat-Bombing does not solve the problem in my opinion.
UK - pratically the only Allies with a serious risk of being Strat-Bombed can easily pack defences in few hexes; and USA fighters later on have amazing ranges because they also need to go at sea!

Germany on the other hand needs badly its upfront net of interceptors otherwise even if having more fighters than the Allies, due to their extreme scattering the Allies will always find targets to strat bomb.

So no - to not halve the interception range for Strat-Bombing is quite a palliative measure.



Centuur -> RE: Yet to be coded Options (10/20/2014 8:12:10 PM)

Personally, I think that first order should be to code:

Search and Seizure,

Neutrality pacts

and

Mutual Peace

Since those three are part of the main game and not an optional according to RAW. Especially the last one is going to be difficult, since the rules aren't specific enough...



brian brian -> RE: Yet to be coded Options (10/20/2014 10:44:56 PM)

Zartacia's idea is pretty good. Air units that fight at sea (entering the zone from anywhere) have so much greater flexibility than air over land.

Of course, the power of computing technology could be harnessed - no need to fly 4 hex routes on many, many air missions as there is no fighter in range, and the computer has to figure that out already to enforce the rules. And along with adding this one could come the first attempts at allowing standing orders for units, which would help even in live net play. So you could deploy a brand new Me-262 in the Ruhr at the reinforcement phase, but leave it on the ground the first time the Allies fly over it with all their brand new P-51s escorting the Liberators, because your real orders for the new jets are to regain air superiority over the slow-building Allied bridgehead south of the Loire. And tell MWiF what to do accordingly.

Think about live net play for a bit - do you really want to sit at your computer screen, waiting to click Yes or No on every possible interception and CAP possibility when you are the inactive player? You should have the option to do so, sure. But making the decision in advance would be nice as well.



Grotius -> RE: Yet to be coded Options (10/28/2014 8:35:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1Well I hope no one pays any attention to these lists - otherwise Convoys In Flames isn't going to get done [:(]


Pardon my newbish confusion, but isn't Convoys in Flames already in the game? Or maybe just parts of it are in the game? If so, what's in, and what's missing?



warspite1 -> RE: Yet to be coded Options (10/28/2014 8:39:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Grotius

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1Well I hope no one pays any attention to these lists - otherwise Convoys In Flames isn't going to get done [:(]


Pardon my newbish confusion, but isn't Convoys in Flames already in the game? Or maybe just parts of it are in the game? If so, what's in, and what's missing?

warspite1

No its not in the game. Convoys In Flames introduces all those gorgeous ASW counters that I'm gagging to get my hands on [:(]



Dabrion -> RE: Yet to be coded Options (10/28/2014 11:38:42 PM)

1. convoys
2. kif oil
...



Grotius -> RE: Yet to be coded Options (10/29/2014 2:10:02 AM)

[/quote]warspite1

No its not in the game. Convoys In Flames introduces all those gorgeous ASW counters that I'm gagging to get my hands on [:(]

[/quote]

Ah, okay. But there are a few ASW counters in the game now, aren't there? I gather those aren't part of Convoys in Flames? I've never played the boardgame series, so I don't know these things. Thanks.



Centuur -> RE: Yet to be coded Options (10/29/2014 1:51:33 PM)

Convoy in flames replaces the current ASW capabilities of ships and convoys with ASW units...



Dabrion -> RE: Yet to be coded Options (10/29/2014 2:37:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Convoy in flames replaces the current ASW capabilities of ships and convoys with ASW units...


No their ASW factors are additional to those already provided by CA/CL. They also have to go to the 0section and don't have to rtb at eot (like CP). This is balanced by roughly double the amount of subs available and the specialty subs (Milchkuh, supply subs).

Iff the other side has subs included, they can fight in a surface combat. In such a surface combat or a submarine combat they can either contribute normally or "prefire" vs the other sides subs. Result from "prefire" are inflicted on the other sides subs before the normal combat round (in which they don't participate if they prefire).



Grotius -> RE: Yet to be coded Options (10/29/2014 2:48:45 PM)

Ah OK, thanks for the clarification. Sounds like a pretty high priority for me, then.



Courtenay -> RE: Yet to be coded Options (10/29/2014 5:25:09 PM)

Actually, no. Convoys in Flames is by far the second most complicated optional rule to code (after the incredibly convoluted intelligence rule). It has a great many special units and special rules, including a major reworking of the naval combat sequence of play. Its complexity will ensure that it gets done well after most other options. Excluding en-route aircraft interception and intelligence, I would say that you could get any five other options coded for the same effort, and that is conservative; it might be any ten other options.



Dabrion -> RE: Yet to be coded Options (10/29/2014 6:00:44 PM)

How is this complex? It is the same complexity as bounce combat or anti air..



brian brian -> RE: Yet to be coded Options (10/30/2014 6:27:08 PM)

I really like Convoys in Flames. We've had some good games using it, with a simple House Rule - all ASW comes only from ASW counters from the kit. Every navy had ASW type assets available, so they each get their first one free, and to represent the ASW given to the UK/USA in the game rules (automatic ASW factors for Convoy Points later in the game), they get one free ASW counter from each year's force pool additions. We also give the UK Food in Flames production bonuses. The struggle with the U-Boats gets quite real - the Allies have to decide to give their four engine bombers to Coastal Command, or Bomber Command, a real life inter service cat fight that had to be resolved at no less a level than personally, by Roosevelt and Churchill - the players of the game, theoretically. We also make it a little harder to get at the Milchcows, so Germany can put them to some historical uses.

Coding would be some work. Not impossible work, but lots of new code to write. ASW pre-fire and the Sub-Hunter Aircraft pool would be two such new sections.



Extraneous -> RE: Yet to be coded Options (10/31/2014 3:26:48 PM)


9.5 Neutrality pacts

Option 50: (USSR-Japan compulsory peace)




tom730_slith -> RE: Yet to be coded Options (11/3/2014 1:26:20 AM)

Here are my thoughts -

Atomic Weapons - my early version of WIF allowed the Germans to develop the A-Bomb. Is this possible?
V-Weapons
Kamikazes
Partisan HQ's
City based Volunteers
USSR-Japan compulsory peace
Frogmen
Flying Bombs
The Ukraine
Naval Offensive Chit
Oil Tankers
Convoy's in Flames
Rough Seas
Recruitment Limits
Bounce Combat
Limited aircraft interception
En-route aircraft interception
Partisan HQ's

Any new options would be cool IMHO



paulderynck -> RE: Yet to be coded Options (11/3/2014 6:20:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tom730

Here are my thoughts -

Atomic Weapons - my early version of WIF allowed the Germans to develop the A-Bomb. Is this possible?


No.



ACMW -> RE: Yet to be coded Options (1/4/2015 8:58:36 PM)

Bit late to the party here, but ...

En-route aircraft interception is important...but only really for the Strat war (as Zartacla alludes to above), so why not just include it for that? Again as assessed above, the coding is likely less of an issue that the bothersomeness of having to declare multiple way-points for all missions. However, just for strats (probably including carpet bombing, if included) it is surely workable. And this kind of makes sense. Think Kammhuber, Chain Home etc. In fact, we play with a house rule to this effect. Soooo... not only would it be a more workable solution, but probably more realistic.

Cheers

ACMW



Numdydar -> RE: Yet to be coded Options (1/5/2015 3:50:11 AM)

Coding this would not be simple by any means. In ftf games you can do things that seem so easy and think 'this should be easy to add to the computer game'. Not so. Some of the simplest seeming things can be the most difficult to code. I have no idea where interception would fall on the scale, but I doubt it is on the Easy side of it [:(]



ACMW -> RE: Yet to be coded Options (1/5/2015 8:01:16 AM)

I understand the general point - that some aspects of the game that are trivial to manage f2f can be fiendish to code. This would clearly not be trivial (actually probably harder than most of the other optional rules discussed above); but, and accepting I write from a position of some ignorance here, it does not seem to be impossible. And for strat war it is extremely important. However, what I was more worried about is it being exluded for playability issues, which I actually think would be the right call if it were to be considered for all air missions.

So, if it was up to me, then:

Preferred choice: introduce for strat bombing.
Fall back, if it really was grim to code: Zartacla's extended range fix.

Cheers

ACMW



Dabrion -> RE: Yet to be coded Options (1/5/2015 8:33:50 AM)

We usually limit ERI to strat and para missions (those are the long range aircraft where it matters). I believe it is rather important for those or can lead to really strange events (esp. with the .

I agree that it is ill suited for PBEM/computer games since it involves a lot of back and forth decision making.

There is a "greedy" version/house rule though, where you only check if the A/C can trace a path "around the interception screen/bubbles" and still reach the mission hex with its range. Instead of the back and forth decision making of the RAW option, this basically is a generalization of a ZoC check, where the fighter interception range is treated as a ZoC of variable range. Arriving back at a (binary) criterion, assertable by means that should be implemented already, or at the least easily extended to cover this case.

Considering what else is wrong with this game (more of a chore really..), I don't think this proposal will land on top of the stack before ~2020..



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.71875