RE: language (Full Version)

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



Message

Froonp -> RE: language (8/23/2007 12:34:15 AM)

Well, indeed, those Trade Agreements between enemies can only be achieved through the signing of neutrality pacts (9.5 Other Major Powers + clarification from Harry quoted in post #374 as Q180-2 and 13.7.3 quoted in post #374 + clarification quoted in post #374 as Q180-1), and neutrality pacts can't be broken at will, so goes the trade agreement.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: language (8/23/2007 1:28:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Well, indeed, those Trade Agreements between enemies can only be achieved through the signing of neutrality pacts (9.5 Other Major Powers + clarification from Harry quoted in post #374 as Q180-2 and 13.7.3 quoted in post #374 + clarification quoted in post #374 as Q180-1), and neutrality pacts can't be broken at will, so goes the trade agreement.

I find this all to be very fuzzy thinking.

First sentence in 5.1: "Trade agreements are agreements automatically in place between countries at the start of each game. "

So, Trade agreements are not created during the course of game play.

Harry's 'clarification' goes completely against the primary definition of Trade Agreement. This clarification did not make it into RAW 2004 August, since the first sentence of section 5.1 is as I quoted it above.

I am willing to permit players on opposite sdes to make lending agreements with each other during the Lending Phase and insert the condition that they have a Neutrality Pact in existence prior to doing so. I am also willing to automatically renew those lending agreement every turn. However, I am reluctant to define these arrangements as Trade Agreements with political consequences such as they can only be broken by going to war. That is a leap with a very tenuous connection. For instance, if Harry had used the term "Lending Agreement" instead of "Trade Agreement" none of the associated items in 5.1 would have applied. And if you want to argue that they should apply, what about that first sentence?

As I see it, lending arrangements between major powers on opposite sides are the same as those for major powers on the same side. They are agreed to at the start of a turn, but can be cancelled at the start of the next turn.



lomyrin -> RE: language (8/23/2007 2:11:42 AM)

A Neutrality pact can be broken if the garrison numbers are sufficient to do so but there is no need to also go to war. One can remain at peace after a neutrality pact is broken.

Lars




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: language (8/23/2007 2:24:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

A Neutrality pact can be broken if the garrison numbers are sufficient to do so but there is no need to also go to war. One can remain at peace after a neutrality pact is broken.

Lars



Ah, Thanks.



paulderynck -> RE: language (8/23/2007 2:29:53 AM)

Such a TA cannot be modified or canceled but can include a time table of what is lent when. Come to think of it, the WiF term "on any terms mutually acceptable" is impossible to program.

Perhaps MWiF will have to pin something down instead of "any terms", or have a phase and facility to manually lend resources/oil/BPs to countries with whom a neutrality pact exists on each and every turn.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: language (8/23/2007 3:15:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Such a TA cannot be modified or canceled but can include a time table of what is lent when. Come to think of it, the WiF term "on any terms mutually acceptable" is impossible to program.

Perhaps MWiF will have to pin something down instead of "any terms", or have a phase and facility to manually lend resources/oil/BPs to countries with whom a neutrality pact exists on each and every turn.


Yes. And that is how it is set up for lending stuff to allies during the Lending Phase.

And you are right, "any terms" could include an exchange of money. I do not intend to set up a cash transfer capability between players in MWIF (though taking a percentage of each such transaction might make me change my mind).



composer99 -> RE: language (8/23/2007 5:30:31 PM)

Perhaps the opposing powers can, when defining a trade agreement that results from a neutrality pact, also define when it is up for re-negotiation: any number of turns, or not at all (i.e. the trade agreement goes only when the pact is broken). At each re-negotiation point, they can cancel the agreement or alter its terms.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: language (8/23/2007 8:09:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

Perhaps the opposing powers can, when defining a trade agreement that results from a neutrality pact, also define when it is up for re-negotiation: any number of turns, or not at all (i.e. the trade agreement goes only when the pact is broken). At each re-negotiation point, they can cancel the agreement or alter its terms.

My solution to this is going to be the easiest one to code. For such an unlikely event, I am not going to build an elaborate system.



Ullern -> RE: language (8/24/2007 1:02:27 AM)

Aha. So MWIF gives you the ability to define trade agreements for several turns between players.[:D] I find this a good thing. But it may also cause confusion:[:(]

In RAW the wording “trade agreement” always refers to arrangements between {countries on a side} and to or from {neutral countries or countries on the other side}. I am pretty sure that RAW never uses the wording Trade agreement for arrangement on the same side. (You can't say that Rumania is on the Axis side before it's actually aligned. Theoretically an Axis power may DOW Rumania.)

I agree with Patrice that a neutrality pact established by a trade agreement can’t be renegotiated before the pact is broken. (Which normally is a war declaration, but not necessarily so.)

House rule:
In my board game I would also allow two powers that both agree they no longer benefit from such a trade agreement to cancel it, but this is not strictly after RAW and must be labelled a house rule.

Grey area:
The trade agreements linked to a neutrality pact need not be completely fixed but may change when certain conditions are met, as long as the conditions are well defined. Is what I would say. But since the rules just says “any terms mutually agreeable” and does not give direction, this is of course up to the individual group in a board game.

What I would like for a start is a possibility to define trade agreements that run out of time. Example:
Japan and Russia agrees to a trade agreement of 1 BP from Japan to Russia, and 1 oil for Russia to Japan for 1 year.
Japan and Russia agrees to a trade agreement of 2 resources from Japan for 2 years.
And that the trade agreements are not changeable while the pact is in place. (And should also be automatically broken if pact is broken.)

I think this sounds something like what Steve already has in the code. And I think that such an arrangement alone is enough for the neutrality pact options really.
[8|]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: language (8/24/2007 3:14:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ullern

Aha. So MWIF gives you the ability to define trade agreements for several turns between players.[:D] I find this a good thing. But it may also cause confusion:[:(]

In RAW the wording “trade agreement” always refers to arrangements between {countries on a side} and to or from {neutral countries or countries on the other side}. I am pretty sure that RAW never uses the wording Trade agreement for arrangement on the same side. (You can't say that Rumania is on the Axis side before it's actually aligned. Theoretically an Axis power may DOW Rumania.)

I agree with Patrice that a neutrality pact established by a trade agreement can’t be renegotiated before the pact is broken. (Which normally is a war declaration, but not necessarily so.)

House rule:
In my board game I would also allow two powers that both agree they no longer benefit from such a trade agreement to cancel it, but this is not strictly after RAW and must be labelled a house rule.

Grey area:
The trade agreements linked to a neutrality pact need not be completely fixed but may change when certain conditions are met, as long as the conditions are well defined. Is what I would say. But since the rules just says “any terms mutually agreeable” and does not give direction, this is of course up to the individual group in a board game.

What I would like for a start is a possibility to define trade agreements that run out of time. Example:
Japan and Russia agrees to a trade agreement of 1 BP from Japan to Russia, and 1 oil for Russia to Japan for 1 year.
Japan and Russia agrees to a trade agreement of 2 resources from Japan for 2 years.
And that the trade agreements are not changeable while the pact is in place. (And should also be automatically broken if pact is broken.)

I think this sounds something like what Steve already has in the code. And I think that such an arrangement alone is enough for the neutrality pact options really.
[8|]


Your suggestions are good. And were the other made on this topic.

My position is that this is beyond RAW August 2004 and I do not need extra work. Therefore, anything I come up with in this area will fall into what I consider "Quick and Dirty". The possibility of this coming into play during a game and the effect it is likely to have on the game outcome are both very small.

By the way, Microsoft's DOS (prior to its purchase by Microsoft) was originally called QDOS for quick and dirty operating system. Bill thought DOS - Disk Operating System - might be a more acceptable name for IBM.



Darken -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (8/29/2007 6:43:10 PM)

Greetings,

most I'd like to see in WiF

a) optional Fog of War
b) Game-Editor
c) Good AI
d) in Hotseat and LAN-Games the options for every major power to choose between AI and human players.
Example:
Germany = Human A
Italy = AI easy
Japan = Human B
USA = Human C
UK = AI good
USSR = AI normal
China = Human C

My wish d) would be a nice feature as in real life Mussolini was no great help for his ally Hitler (as he attacked Africa and Greek and the Germans had to send troops) and with a "chaotic" AI you could simulate Mussolinis plans.

Thanks for Reading.



AstroBlues -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (8/30/2007 8:03:16 AM)

I would like to see a lot of tutorials showing how the game operates. And also a way to make production easy to calculate.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (8/30/2007 8:29:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ronster

I would like to see a lot of tutorials showing how the game operates. And also a way to make production easy to calculate.

Welcome to the MWIF forum.

We are still developing the tutorials and there are separate threads for most of them: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. The first tutorial is embedded in the main Tutorial thread and its somewhat difficult to find all its individual pages. But you should find it easy to browse the others. Let me know what you think.

I am posting all the tutorial pages, actively seeking comments, so I can make them better.

After I finish the 10 Introductory tutorials I'll start work on the 9 interactive ones.



AstroBlues -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (9/3/2007 7:54:14 AM)

Another suggestion, and I have not read every post concerning CWiF, except what about Victory conditions. I think it would be neat if the victory cities were marked differently somehow or when a victory is taken, maybe a video comes on or something saying such a city has been taken. Also, maybe a table you could look at and see how many each country has so a player can see how he is doing.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (9/3/2007 8:12:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ronster

Another suggestion, and I have not read every post concerning CWiF, except what about Victory conditions. I think it would be neat if the victory cities were marked differently somehow or when a victory is taken, maybe a video comes on or something saying such a city has been taken. Also, maybe a table you could look at and see how many each country has so a player can see how he is doing.

Yes to all.

Victory cities have their names in red.

Videos (optional) for capture of them is planned.

Information forms are available at anytime during play to review current status of victory (who's winning) and captured items (e.g., factories too).



Horaf -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (9/29/2007 12:49:50 AM)

Great to see this game progressing!  As a long time player of the Boardgame, i hope that you can put in some time saving devices.  We used to have a "phase" called "the Russian Observation Phase", during which, the Russian player would stare at the board following the german players impulse. This "phase" could last up to 30 minutes.... well, anyway, during this time, many of us, would start planning our production, even going so far as to put it on the spiral.  Will it be possible to "pre-plan" production, so when the phase actually occurs, you can just click on a submit box, or verify box.  I'd hate to have to wait thru many "Russian Observation Phases", only to follow it by a USA player, giddy with his new found production, saying, "Maybe I'll build Strat bombers....or maybe i should produce ahead a few carriers..." anyway, my point is i hope there are ways to shorten the actually time people have to spend. 

Also, i was thinking that a reminder button that you could set for a unit.  Many times, i have forgotten about the Sydney Militia, that face-to-face opponents will allow you to move AFTER the correct phase is over...but with a large map, on a small(ish) computer screen, it'll be easy to forget about that small militia sitting in Adelaide...but if i could mark it during the "Russian Observationn phase" i'd be happy!



paulderynck -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (10/8/2007 4:07:39 AM)

Another nice-to-have would be a continuous update of the Russo-German garrison values or at least a way to request the current values.

Our games see a lot of time wasted counting these up and the amazing occurrence of counting three times in a row and getting slightly different numbers.



Anendrue -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (10/8/2007 4:14:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Horaf

Great to see this game progressing!  As a long time player of the Boardgame, i hope that you can put in some time saving devices.  We used to have a "phase" called "the Russian Observation Phase", during which, the Russian player would stare at the board following the german players impulse. This "phase" could last up to 30 minutes.... well, anyway, during this time, many of us, would start planning our production, even going so far as to put it on the spiral.  Will it be possible to "pre-plan" production, so when the phase actually occurs, you can just click on a submit box, or verify box.  I'd hate to have to wait thru many "Russian Observation Phases", only to follow it by a USA player, giddy with his new found production, saying, "Maybe I'll build Strat bombers....or maybe i should produce ahead a few carriers..." anyway, my point is i hope there are ways to shorten the actually time people have to spend. 

Also, i was thinking that a reminder button that you could set for a unit.  Many times, i have forgotten about the Sydney Militia, that face-to-face opponents will allow you to move AFTER the correct phase is over...but with a large map, on a small(ish) computer screen, it'll be easy to forget about that small militia sitting in Adelaide...but if i could mark it during the "Russian Observationn phase" i'd be happy!


I agree.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (10/8/2007 5:55:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Another nice-to-have would be a continuous update of the Russo-German garrison values or at least a way to request the current values.

Our games see a lot of time wasted counting these up and the amazing occurrence of counting three times in a row and getting slightly different numbers.

I do not know what you mean by continuous. But if you go to the Neutrality Pact table, MWIF provides all those numbers, including whether the pact can be broken.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (10/8/2007 5:58:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: abj9562


quote:

ORIGINAL: Horaf

Great to see this game progressing!  As a long time player of the Boardgame, i hope that you can put in some time saving devices.  We used to have a "phase" called "the Russian Observation Phase", during which, the Russian player would stare at the board following the german players impulse. This "phase" could last up to 30 minutes.... well, anyway, during this time, many of us, would start planning our production, even going so far as to put it on the spiral.  Will it be possible to "pre-plan" production, so when the phase actually occurs, you can just click on a submit box, or verify box.  I'd hate to have to wait thru many "Russian Observation Phases", only to follow it by a USA player, giddy with his new found production, saying, "Maybe I'll build Strat bombers....or maybe i should produce ahead a few carriers..." anyway, my point is i hope there are ways to shorten the actually time people have to spend. 

Also, i was thinking that a reminder button that you could set for a unit.  Many times, i have forgotten about the Sydney Militia, that face-to-face opponents will allow you to move AFTER the correct phase is over...but with a large map, on a small(ish) computer screen, it'll be easy to forget about that small militia sitting in Adelaide...but if i could mark it during the "Russian Observationn phase" i'd be happy!


I agree.

MWIF lets you cycle through all the units that have not been moved in the current phase. Sort of as a complement to that is the ability to assign a unit the status of 'sentry', which merely means it is skipped when cycling through all the units. That takes some of the boredom out of cycling through all the units.



Anendrue -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (10/9/2007 1:21:30 AM)

That's way [8D]. Thanks!



paulderynck -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (10/10/2007 5:26:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Another nice-to-have would be a continuous update of the Russo-German garrison values or at least a way to request the current values.

Our games see a lot of time wasted counting these up and the amazing occurrence of counting three times in a row and getting slightly different numbers.

I do not know what you mean by continuous. But if you go to the Neutrality Pact table, MWIF provides all those numbers, including whether the pact can be broken.

If you can move a unit then go to the Neutrality Pact table to check the totals, then go back and move another unit - that would be continuous. Also what you describe would have to yield different numbers to the Axis verses the Russian player as a result of any chits hidden from each other.

Thank you.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (10/10/2007 8:29:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Another nice-to-have would be a continuous update of the Russo-German garrison values or at least a way to request the current values.

Our games see a lot of time wasted counting these up and the amazing occurrence of counting three times in a row and getting slightly different numbers.

I do not know what you mean by continuous. But if you go to the Neutrality Pact table, MWIF provides all those numbers, including whether the pact can be broken.

If you can move a unit then go to the Neutrality Pact table to check the totals, then go back and move another unit - that would be continuous. Also what you describe would have to yield different numbers to the Axis verses the Russian player as a result of any chits hidden from each other.

Thank you.



Yes, visibility of information depends on which major power is doing the looking.



Spetsnaz -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (2/8/2008 11:59:03 PM)

dunno about WiF, but i do know what id like in a GRAND STRATEGY game:
* turn based
* unit icons AND counters (preferably a lot of icons and good looking ones)
* LOTS of diplomacy options (pacts, alliances, war & peace declarations)
* Options to steer your research (best iv seen so far was in HoI 2 - liked that a lot)
* a grand choice in unit types: arty, tanks, AT, AA, Boats of all kinds, FLyers, etc etc

sorry if this post sounds a bit off in comparison to most others, but im just a guy that likes wargames, but i havent heared of WiF but i saw the label "Grand strategy" and that interests me (just bought Commander EaW - good gameplay, but lacking in field of research, Diplomacy options and it starts too late; otherwise fine)

gr

steven, Belgium



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (2/9/2008 2:12:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Spetsnaz

dunno about WiF, but i do know what id like in a GRAND STRATEGY game:
* turn based
* unit icons AND counters (preferably a lot of icons and good looking ones)
* LOTS of diplomacy options (pacts, alliances, war & peace declarations)
* Options to steer your research (best iv seen so far was in HoI 2 - liked that a lot)
* a grand choice in unit types: arty, tanks, AT, AA, Boats of all kinds, FLyers, etc etc

sorry if this post sounds a bit off in comparison to most others, but im just a guy that likes wargames, but i havent heared of WiF but i saw the label "Grand strategy" and that interests me (just bought Commander EaW - good gameplay, but lacking in field of research, Diplomacy options and it starts too late; otherwise fine)

gr

steven, Belgium

Welcome to the forum.

The threads listing other links at the top of the forum can give you an overview of the game. Now I need to warn you that this forum has received, and continues to receive, heavy use by me for comments and advice. So the forum threads tend to be somewhat messy as a learning tool. But if you take some time, (and maybe just skim through looking at the pretty pictures), you will find oodles of information on MWIF. For instance, try the tutorial thread.

By the way, I read everything posted, and I like to hear everyone's opinion.



mussey -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (2/10/2008 10:08:48 PM)

This all looks very good! I tried to play WiF but took up too much space and time sorting thru all the counters. I think, based on all the threads, replies, and comments that you have this well in hand. If it's not too late, I would like to make one philisophical (sp) comment: Do not be afraid to deviate from a 'board game' to a 'computer game'. I know many of the great fans of this game are very familiar to the board game and may want many of the same old things. But please try to incorporate as many computer pleasantries and advantages as possible. For example, is a ground unit just a counter that is removed if it takes casualties, or does it slowly wittle down? Anyway, I'm waiting anxiously for release!



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (2/10/2008 10:55:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mussey

This all looks very good! I tried to play WiF but took up too much space and time sorting thru all the counters. I think, based on all the threads, replies, and comments that you have this well in hand. If it's not too late, I would like to make one philisophical (sp) comment: Do not be afraid to deviate from a 'board game' to a 'computer game'. I know many of the great fans of this game are very familiar to the board game and may want many of the same old things. But please try to incorporate as many computer pleasantries and advantages as possible. For example, is a ground unit just a counter that is removed if it takes casualties, or does it slowly wittle down? Anyway, I'm waiting anxiously for release!

Welcome.

Comment on what you read in the forum, when you agree or disagree. Feedback from forum readers keeps me on track.

Casualties in WIF are taken by destroying an entire unit, rather than reducing it piecemeal. That is appropriate given the length of the turn (2 months). The use of optional divisions mitigates that somewhat. Also the game's design has units becoming disrupted and later reorganized, which reflects the depletion and restoration of units from and to full strength.



composer99 -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (2/11/2008 7:35:52 PM)

The initial release of MWiF is, aside from the big shift in map scale outside of Europe, expected to be an adaptation of the WiF board game to the computer.

Future expansions for MWiF 1 would probably be limited to future WiF modules and optional rules (as well as America in Flames, Patton in Flames, Politics in Flames and Days of Decision).

MWiF "2" or later versions, on the other hand... I would expect those might well take the game in new directions in a more idiomatic format for a computer game. [:D] But that is for the time being looking too far ahead.



ezzler -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (2/11/2008 8:36:16 PM)

Did I see a thread a while back for adding a picture to the armour units instead of the standard Nato symbol. This would be a counter similar in  look to the planes in flames counters. Just a generic type for the armour counter by year it goes into the force pool I guess.. Light tank MK VII, Matilda II, Crusader MK I,Churchill MK IV,Cromwell I, Sherman Firefly etc .

Anyway is this something envisaged ?



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game (2/11/2008 9:02:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ezz

Did I see a thread a while back for adding a picture to the armour units instead of the standard Nato symbol. This would be a counter similar in  look to the planes in flames counters. Just a generic type for the armour counter by year it goes into the force pool I guess.. Light tank MK VII, Matilda II, Crusader MK I,Churchill MK IV,Cromwell I, Sherman Firefly etc .

Anyway is this something envisaged ?


No.

There are individual bitmapped images for all the air units and the named naval units. Then there are generic bitmaps for each unnamed naval unit type (e.g., transports, convoys, subs). The last are by country since the bitmapped images are anti-aliased against the background color. So the Norwegian and Finnish units have different convoy bitmaps.

For the land units, there are no bitmapped images pe se. Instead there are bitmapped NATO symbols. When drawing land units, the program generates the 'counter' on the fly, each and every time.

All toll, there are over 2000 individual unit bitmaps, which has caused problems with the demand for Windows' bitmap resources. I do not want to add more bitmaps and cause those problems to reappear.



Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.28125