RE: Lend leased units

RE: Lend leased units (Full Version)

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

Message

Froonp -> RE: Lend leased units (7/10/2005 5:16:51 PM)
quote: (1) a data structure that captures the relevant facts and (2) a process that uses those facts to make judgments about what is and is not permitted. I'm not sure to understand everything fully (especially the data structure thing (I'm French)), but I think I may have got it, so I give it a try. (1) Data Structure : You mean the data about historical lend lease during WWII ?? If that is it, I suggest using the WiF FE countermix to get that data. The game was skillfully researched by the designers, and their research has make them creating this countermix and this list of lend leased planes, and to whom they were lend lease it. Why doing new research about lend lease, why not use what was decided by the WiF FE designers ? (2) The process that use those facts to make judgements about what is and is not permitted : It could be a field in the unit data for lend lease. For the allies : Field 1 : Is this plane lend leasable to Russian ? Y/N Field 2 : Is this plane lend leasable to Chinese ? Y/N Field 3 : Is this plane lend leasable to French ? Y/N Field 4 : Is this plane lend leasable to CW ? Y/N Field 5 : Is this plane lend leasable to USA ? Y/N Which could also be : Field 1 : Is this plane lend leasable to level 3 allies ? Y/N Field 2 : Is this plane lend leasable to level 2 allies ? Y/N Field 3 : Is this plane lend leasable to level 1 allies ? Y/N Field 4 : Is this plane lend leasable to level 0 allies ? Y/N The latest would be usable for the Axis too, and you just would have to set a level of "alliance" between powers. Anyway, one day or the other you'll have to define a level of alliance between powers if you intend to include DoD III into the game. It will be much easier if you already included this. This level of alliance could even be used to toy with MWiF and try What if scenarios. It could be defined by the player at the start of a scenario. The player could have the choice between historical alliances, or some other set of alliances. This lend lease field would be filled at the start of the scenario, as an option. For example, you could have an option named "Lend Lease" with a choice named "use historical lend lease", which would fill the fields with pre established values (those from the WiF FE countermix), and another choice named "use free lend lease" where the lend lease fields would all be set to "Yes", allowing to lend lease any plane to anyone, or any other choice set between both.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Lend leased units (7/10/2005 5:49:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: (1) a data structure that captures the relevant facts and (2) a process that uses those facts to make judgments about what is and is not permitted. (1) Data Structure : You mean the data about historical lend lease during WWII ?? If that is it, I suggest using the WiF FE countermix to get that data. The game was skillfully researched by the designers, and their research has make them creating this countermix and this list of lend leased planes, and to whom they were lend lease it. Why doing new research about lend lease, why not use what was decided by the WiF FE designers ? (2) The process that use those facts to make judgements about what is and is not permitted : It could be a field in the unit data for lend lease. For the allies : Field 1 : Is this plane lend leasable to Russian ? Y/N Field 2 : Is this plane lend leasable to Chinese ? Y/N Field 3 : Is this plane lend leasable to French ? Y/N Field 4 : Is this plane lend leasable to CW ? Y/N Field 5 : Is this plane lend leasable to USA ? Y/N Which could also be : Field 1 : Is this plane lend leasable to level 3 allies ? Y/N Field 2 : Is this plane lend leasable to level 2 allies ? Y/N Field 3 : Is this plane lend leasable to level 1 allies ? Y/N Field 4 : Is this plane lend leasable to level 0 allies ? Y/N The latest would be usable for the Axis too, and you just would have to set a level of "alliance" between powers. Anyway, one day or the other you'll have to define a level of alliance between powers if you intend to include DoD III into the game. It will be much easier if you already included this. This level of alliance could even be used to toy with MWiF and try What if scenarios. It could be defined by the player at the start of a scenario. The player could have the choice between historical alliances, or some other set of alliances. This lend lease field would be filled at the start of the scenario, as an option. For example, you could have an option named "Lend Lease" with a choice named "use historical lend lease", which would fill the fields with pre established values (those from the WiF FE countermix), and another choice named "use free lend lease" where the lend lease fields would all be set to "Yes", allowing to lend lease any plane to anyone, or any other choice set between both. This should work. I like the level of alliance approach. When I get the time [:D]. I'll see what CWIF is doing.

Greyshaft -> Political Cost of Lend Lease (7/11/2005 12:33:32 AM)
I completely agree that MWiF gives us an excellent opportunity to re-examining concepts such as lend-lease and I have no pro or con position on whether ally level should be included. I am aware that Lend-Lease was a difficult subject for Roosevelt and there were times that he actually took units from existing USA combat formations in order to supply the British (tanks for North Africa for example). If MWiF expands the scope of Lend-Lease to include units which weren't historically lent then I wonder if there should be an increased political cost for this activity. Maybe all political costs for US entry should be increased by a factor of ten and each plane lent would cost one additional Political Point. The whole Political scale would need to be re-examined.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Political Cost of Lend Lease (7/11/2005 1:27:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greyshaft I completely agree that MWiF gives us an excellent opportunity to re-examining concepts such as lend-lease and I have no pro or con position on whether ally level should be included. I am aware that Lend-Lease was a difficult subject for Roosevelt and there were times that he actually took units from existing USA combat formations in order to supply the British (tanks for North Africa for example). If MWiF expands the scope of Lend-Lease to include units which weren't historically lent then I wonder if there should be an increased political cost for this activity. Maybe all political costs for US entry should be increased by a factor of ten and each plane lent would cost one additional Political Point. The whole Political scale would need to be re-examined. I would like to keep "improvements" to a minimum, especially if they are going to require a lot of work. On the other hand ... we are in the world of computers and instead of a count on your fingers approach to US Entry we can use decimal numbers. Each plane lent could cost 0.1. This at least avoids having to change the numeric base that everyone is use to. It also keeps RAW 7 accurate for existng US Entry costs. There are a whole lot of "house rules" in use in the WiF world which I do not intend to accommodate in the first release of MWIF. It would simply be too difficult to do. Perhaps this issue of expanding the lend lease system to address the concerns raised here should be placed in the category of "house rules"? That is, delayed for a future version. The criterion for deciding this is the level of complexity that would be needed to do it right.

rotor911 -> RE: options to include (7/11/2005 10:36:44 AM)
Sorry for being late :) but I must make at least a plea for PIF (Patton in Flames) special rules and scenarios. Apart from the fact that I find the 1947 (46?) scenario very enjoyable, there's not many "cold war gone hot" simulations of this period around and this would imo add to the attractiveness of the game.

c92nichj -> RE: Units, Scenarios, Options, and Add-ons (7/11/2005 10:43:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greyshaft quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets On the topic of artistic rendering of the units, CWIF was very faithful to WiF. They look good to me. Does anyone want to see changes made to the units, or are the WiF unit depictions ok? I disagree strongly. Every screenshot you post with original CWiF counters will work against sales. Like it or not we live in an eye-candy universe and there is a minimum bar for graphics for which IMHO CWiF doesn't make the grade. If you do decide to stay with the old graphics then put in a Help key which displays a pop-up screen with better graphic and a brief actual history of the selected air/naval unit. I agree with greyshaft here, if at all possible you will need to get a certain level of eye-candy, playability is ofcourse key but, your customers will like to have something that is pleasing to the eye. I have been through many PBEM sessions of CWIF and that the map was even worse than the printed one was really bothering me.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Units, Scenarios, Options, and Add-ons (7/11/2005 11:09:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: c92nichj I agree with greyshaft here, if at all possible you will need to get a certain level of eye-candy, playability is ofcourse key but, your customers will like to have something that is pleasing to the eye. I have been through many PBEM sessions of CWIF and that the map was even worse than the printed one was really bothering me. Before reaching final agreement with the artist on how the map and units will be done. I expect to give this forum group the opportunity to view them both in a "nearly final" form. If you guys don't like them, then they will need more work. To repeat myself, I hope to receive all the criticism before the game is published. Even more to the point, before the artist spends a lot of time and effort and before I write a lot of code. A solid design document first! Later this week I will start 4 new threads on PBEM.

Froonp -> RE: Units, Scenarios, Options, and Add-ons (7/11/2005 12:07:01 PM)
quote: Before reaching final agreement with the artist on how the map and units will be done. I expect to give this forum group the opportunity to view them both in a "nearly final" form. If you guys don't like them, then they will need more work. Who is "the artist" ? I asked some questions about the team, and who is the team, and about Robert Crandall's involvement, without having answers. Is there a problem with this ?

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Units, Scenarios, Options, and Add-ons (7/11/2005 5:31:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: Before reaching final agreement with the artist on how the map and units will be done. I expect to give this forum group the opportunity to view them both in a "nearly final" form. If you guys don't like them, then they will need more work. Who is "the artist" ? I asked some questions about the team, and who is the team, and about Robert Crandall's involvement, without having answers. Is there a problem with this ? Putting "the team" together is a work in progress. I do not want to commit anyone before I have had a chance to "talk" with them first. So, rather than give you a partial answer, I just let the question hang until I could give you a full answer. But since you asked again ... The partial answer is that I will be doing all the coding. Chris is answering all my questions about CWIF as I pose them to him. I am trying not to deluge him with the zillions of little questions that come up as I read through his code. As to the rest of the team, I will hold off on names until we are further down the road. I might mention, that to me, the members of this forum are an integral part of the development process. In the project plan I put together this weekend I have the forum members scheduled to contribute to the design of every important aspect of MWIF. I will also be drawing most, if not all, of the play testers from the people herein.

Froonp -> RE: Units, Scenarios, Options, and Add-ons (7/12/2005 12:32:52 AM)
About Lend Lease, here are the lend lease authorized by the WiF FE countersheet mix. I can give this table to you in any other format too (it is Excel at start). TYPE : Type of Aircraft (ATR, LND, FTR...). UNIT : Name of the unit. YEAR : Year it appears in the force pool. KIT : Kit the counter comes from (remember you can play WiF FE adding AiF & PatiF counters to the countermix). CS : Precise countersheet where the counter comes from. FROM : Who is lend leasing this plane. China, Communist TYPE UNIT YEAR KIT CS From ATR Li-2 1941 PatiF 34 USSR LND Pe-2 1944 PatiF 34 USSR FTR Pe-21bis 1945 PatiF 34 USSR LND Il-10 1945 PatiF 34 USSR FTR MiG-7 1946 PatiF 34 USSR LND Pe-8 1946 PatiF 34 USSR FTR Yak-3 (VK107) 1947 PatiF 34 USSR NAV TBF-3 1947 PatiF 34 USSR FTR MiG-9 1948 PatiF 34 USSR FTR MiG-15 1950 PatiF 34 USSR China, Nationalist TYPE UNIT YEAR KIT CS From LND TB-3 1933 PiFG 7 USSR ATR C-47 1939 PiFG 7 USA ATR C-47 1940 WiFC 3 USA ATR C-47 1940 PatiF 34 USA FTR P-40C 1940 WiFC 3 USA FTR P-40C 1940 PiFG 7 USA FTR P-40E 1941 PiFG 7 USA LND A-20B 1941 WiFC 3 USA FTR P-40F 1942 PiFG 7 USA LND A-20G 1943 PiFG 7 USA LND B-24J 1943 WiFC 3 USA NAV A-25 1943 PatiF 34 USA LND A-20H 1944 PatiF 34 USA LND B-24J 1944 PiFG 7 USA FTR P-51D 1945 PatiF 34 USA LND B-24J 1945 PatiF 34 USA FTR P-80 1948 PatiF 34 USA Commonwealth, India TYPE UNIT YEAR KIT CS From FTR F2A 1939 PiFG 9 USA NAV A-31 1942 PiFG 9 USA Commonwealth, New Zealand TYPE UNIT YEAR KIT CS From FTR F4U-1 1943 WiFC 2 USA FTR F4U-1 1943 PatiF 35 USA FTR P-40N 1943 PiFG 9 USA Commonwealth, United Kingdom TYPE UNIT YEAR KIT CS From ATR C-47 1938 WiFC 2 USA ATR C-47 1938 PiFG 9 USA ATR C-47 1939 PatiF 35 USA FTR P-40 1939 PiFG 9 USA LND A-22 1939 PiFG 9 USA LND DB-7 1939 PiFG 9 USA FTR P-40C 1940 PiFG 9 USA FTR A-36 1941 PiFG 9 USA FTR P-40E 1941 PiFG 9 USA LND A-30 1941 PiFG 9 USA LND B-26B 1941 PiFG 9 USA FTR P-40F 1942 PiFG 9 USA LND B-25D 1942 PiFG 9 USA LND A-20G 1943 PiFG 9 USA LND B-17G 1943 PiFG 9 USA LND B-24H 1943 PiFG 9 USA LND B-24H 1943 CoiF 38 USA FTR P-47D 1944 PiFG 9 USA FTR P-51D 1944 PiFG 9 USA FTR P-51H 1945 PiFG 9 USA FTR P-51H 1946 AiF 28 USA FTR P-51H 1946 PatiF 35 USA France TYPE UNIT YEAR KIT CS From ATR C-47 1938 PiFG 9 USA FTR P-36A 1938 PiFG 9 USA LND A-22 1939 PiFG 9 USA LND DB-7 1939 PiFG 9 USA FTR P-40C 1940 PiFG 9 USA FTR A-36 1941 PiFG 9 USA FTR P-40E 1941 PiFG 9 USA LND A-20B 1941 WiFC 4 USA LND A-30 1941 PiFG 9 USA FTR P-40F 1942 PiFG 9 USA LND B-24G 1943 PiFG 9 USA FTR P-51D 1944 PiFG 9 USA FTR P-51D 1944 PatiF 35 USA FTR P-63C 1944 PiFG 9 USA LND B-24J 1944 LiF 25 USA LND B-24J 1944 CoiF 38 USA LND B-25H 1944 PatiF 35 USA FTR P-51D 1945 AiF 28 USA FTR P-51H 1945 LiF 25 USA FTR P-51H 1945 PatiF 35 USA LND A-20K 1945 PatiF 35 USA LND B-24J 1945 PatiF 35 USA FTR P-80 1946 PatiF 35 USA LND B-24K 1946 AiF 28 USA Italy TYPE UNIT YEAR KIT CS From FTR Bf-109E2 1940 PiFG 7 Germany LND Ju-88A1 1940 PiFG 7 Germany LND Ju-87D 1941 PiFG 7 Germany FTR FW-190D 1943 PiFG 7 Germany FTR Me-262A-1a 1948 AiF 26 Germany FTR Me-262A-1a 1948 PatiF 34 Germany USA TYPE UNIT YEAR KIT CS From FTR Spitfire IX 1943 PiFG 7 CW USSR TYPE UNIT YEAR KIT CS From FTR Hurricane IIA 1940 PiFG 8 CW FTR P-40C 1940 PiFG 8 USA FTR Hurricane IIC 1941 PiFG 8 CW FTR P-39I 1942 PiFG 8 USA FTR P-40F 1942 PiFG 8 USA FTR Spitfire VC 1942 PiFG 8 CW LND A-20C 1942 PiFG 8 USA LND B-25G 1942 PiFG 8 USA FTR P-39Q 1943 PiFG 8 USA FTR P-61 1943 PiFG 8 USA FTR P-61 1943 PoliF 30 USA FTR P-63A 1943 PiFG 8 USA FTR Spitfire IX 1943 PiFG 8 CW LND A-20G 1943 PiFG 8 USA FTR P-61 1944 PatiF 31 USA FTR P-63C 1944 PiFG 8 USA LND A-20H 1944 PatiF 31 USA LND B-24J 1944 PiFG 8 USA FTR F7F-3 1945 PoliF 30 USA FTR F7F-3 1945 PatiF 31 USA FTR P-82 1945 PoliF 30 USA LND B-24J 1945 PatiF 31 USA LND B-25H 1945 PatiF 31 USA NAV PBJ 1945 PatiF 31 USA NAV TBF-3 1945 PatiF 31 USA Note that some units (example P-40C or C-47, and others) many be potentialy leased to many countries, and the original owner may not have enough of them in their force pool to lend lease 1 unit to each.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Units, Scenarios, Options, and Add-ons (7/12/2005 6:23:13 AM)
Thanks for the Lend Lease list. I'll use it to proof read the same unit list in CWIF.

Smiffus64 -> RE: Units, Scenarios, Options, and Add-ons (7/12/2005 9:52:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets Why do you want to do a CRC check? To see if both (all) players are using the same data?

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Units, Scenarios, Options, and Add-ons (7/12/2005 10:35:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Smiffus64 quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets Why do you want to do a CRC check? To see if both (all) players are using the same data? Ok, Let me think this through. First, once a game is in progress, neither player should be able to change the units (for example) in play. MWIF will have the units in internal storage, and it would deny players the ability to load them afresh from a file. Any saved games would be encrypted and beyond the players' ability to change them. So the question narrows down to: for games with fog of war, could the person who starts the game use a different unit file and give himself an advantage (e.g., more 8-4 infantry for the Germans and fewer 6-4s). I guess the easiest way to make sure this doesn't happen is for MWIF to compare the unit files on the two team leaders' computers. When the second team leader joins the game, MWIF would check that the units already stored match the units on the second team leader's disk. The same process could be used for any other data read in at the start of a game (e.g. the map). I already assume that MWIF will be doing some sort of comparison of the "state of the game" between local saved games and the ones on other player's computers. I'm not sure how I want to do that. My paranoia is such that I would like to go into more detail than simple CRC. On the other hand, I don't want anything that would take too long. At this point how to do it is an open issue. That it needs to be done is pretty clear though. Thanks for making me aware of the potential problem.

Mziln -> RE: Units, Scenarios, Options, and Add-ons (7/17/2005 5:18:03 PM)
13.6.4 Lend lease ~ Foreign aircraft Some aircraft units have colored horizontal stripes matching another major power�s color. Don�t add these aircraft to your force pools when they enter the game. Put them into the lend-lease pool instead. During set up or this step, you can move a striped aircraft from the lend-lease pool to your force pool if: .....the source major power agrees; and .....an aircraft with the same designation is currently in either the source major power�s force pool or its reserve .....pool. Move that other aircraft from the force pool or reserve pool to the lend-lease pool. The source major power can reverse this process during this step if the striped aircraft is in the force pools or reserve pool. Move it back to the lend lease pool and move the matching aircraft to the source major power�s force pool. Example: At the start of 1943, the Commonwealth is eligible to receive an F4U-1. Because it is striped, the Commonwealth player must put it into the lend-lease pool. He asks the USA player if he can add it to the Commonwealth FTR force pool. The USA player, worried about German pressure, declines, arguing that he needs it himself. In Jul/Aug 1943, the USA player realizes that the Commonwealth probably needs this plane more than he does. Noting that the F4U-1 is still in his force pool, he tells the Commonwealth player he can have it if he still wants it. Eagerly, the Commonwealth player moves the Commonwealth F4U-1 from the lend-lease pool to his FTR force pool. The USA F4U-1 goes into the lend-lease pool.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Units, Scenarios, Options, and Add-ons (7/17/2005 6:40:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mziln 13.6.4 Lend lease ~ Foreign aircraft Some aircraft units have colored horizontal stripes matching another major power�s color. Don�t add these aircraft to your force pools when they enter the game. Put them into the lend-lease pool instead. During set up or this step, you can move a striped aircraft from the lend-lease pool to your force pool if: .....the source major power agrees; and .....an aircraft with the same designation is currently in either the source major power�s force pool or its reserve .....pool. Move that other aircraft from the force pool or reserve pool to the lend-lease pool. The source major power can reverse this process during this step if the striped aircraft is in the force pools or reserve pool. Move it back to the lend lease pool and move the matching aircraft to the source major power�s force pool. Example: At the start of 1943, the Commonwealth is eligible to receive an F4U-1. Because it is striped, the Commonwealth player must put it into the lend-lease pool. He asks the USA player if he can add it to the Commonwealth FTR force pool. The USA player, worried about German pressure, declines, arguing that he needs it himself. In Jul/Aug 1943, the USA player realizes that the Commonwealth probably needs this plane more than he does. Noting that the F4U-1 is still in his force pool, he tells the Commonwealth player he can have it if he still wants it. Eagerly, the Commonwealth player moves the Commonwealth F4U-1 from the lend-lease pool to his FTR force pool. The USA F4U-1 goes into the lend-lease pool. Yes, this how I always played the lend lease rules. I pictured it as one unit represented by several counters. The different colored stripes were merely a convenience for noting which units had come into your force pools via lend lease. Looking at the counters for air units for MWIF (large resolution) we can have the same horizontal stripes for lend lease planes. Or we can leave them off. What is everyone's preference?

Froonp -> RE: Units, Scenarios, Options, and Add-ons (7/18/2005 12:16:49 AM)
quote: Looking at the counters for air units for MWIF (large resolution) we can have the same horizontal stripes for lend lease planes. Or we can leave them off. What is everyone's preference? I much prefer with the horizontal bar. Patrice

wosung -> RE: Units, Scenarios, Options, and Add-ons (7/18/2005 12:12:21 PM)
There's a discussion going about maps (boxes or global), which in the end is a discussion about abstraction/playability and the adaptility of board games to the Pc. It is also a discussion about true belief (RAW) and heresy (potentials of the PC adaption). So what about units? When using global map (because PC makes this option possible and playable) why not making the game on the basis of division-sized land units instead of corps-sized units, or even maybe in MWIF II an additional layer with information about numbers of tanks, artillery. figthers, bombers, etc.? Sure, it's all about grand strategy. -But PC conversion of board games would make it possible. -The level of abstration in naval units is already lower in the board game: you can play around with capital ships (=regiment-sized units) -Sure, because it's all about grand strategy, there must be abstraction, otherwise the game is unplayable. So better to leave Land/air unit info at the level of the old Gary Grisby game War in Russia than of Kogers Operational Art of War (to detailed for grand strategy) There's already a project about WIF division-sized (boardgame) with adapted rules: Its German, but the (downloadable) rules are in English: "The master edition" www.gdg.de -no, this project can't be totally heretic: There's a link to it from the official a.g.d. website -and no, personally, I'm not part of it.

Caranorn -> RE: Units, Scenarios, Options, and Add-ons (7/18/2005 3:27:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets Looking at the counters for air units for MWIF (large resolution) we can have the same horizontal stripes for lend lease planes. Or we can leave them off. What is everyone's preference? I'd prefer to have the stripes just out of habit. Gameplay wise it would not be necessary though. Marc aka Caran...

Greyshaft -> RE: Units, Scenarios, Options, and Add-ons (7/18/2005 3:33:20 PM)
Stripes can be a setup option. Those who want it can check the box and have it. Personally I've never liked the stripes but I've never bothered thinking of an alternative.

Smiffus64 -> RE: Units, Scenarios, Options, and Add-ons (7/19/2005 9:07:19 AM)
For what it's worth, I'd like the art to be as much like the boardgame as possible.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Units, Scenarios, Options, and Add-ons (7/27/2005 8:24:00 PM)
I have been going over the optional rules in detail and thought I would let you see my current thinking. This is a work in progress and if you see any mistakes, please let me know. I apologize for how this looks. I can't seem to get the forum editor to take a table and retain the column structure. Optional Rules CWIF MWIF Option WIF FE Rules Reference NA NA 1. African & Scandinavian maps 2.1.1, 2.1.4, 2.4.2 Yes Yes 2. Divisions 2.2, 2.3.1, 9.5, 11.4.5, 11.14, 11.15, 11.16.1, 11.16.5, 22.4.1 Yes Yes 3. Artillery 2.2, 2.3.1, 11.2, 11.5.9, 11.5.10, 11.8, 11.9, 11.11.2, 11.16.4, 11.16.5, 16.1, 16.3, 22.4.2 NA NA 4. Pacific & Asian map ZOCs 2.2 Yes Yes 5. Fortifications 2.3.1, 4.2, 11.16.1, 22.4.9 Yes Yes 6. Supply units 2.3.1, 2.4.2, 11.11.2, 11.12, 22.4.10 Yes Yes 7. Engineers 2.3.1, 11.11.2, 22.2, 22.4.1 Yes Yes 8. Flying boats 2.3.1, 8.2.9 Yes Yes 9. Ships In Flames units 2.3.1, 4.1.4, 4.2, 11.3, 11.5.8, 13.3.2, 13.5.1, 13.6.1, 13.6.5, 14.4.1, 22.4.7 Yes Yes 10. Territorials 11.16.5, 2.4.2, 4.2, 17.3, 18.1, 19.4, 22.4.5 Yes Yes 11. Limited overseas supply 2.4.2, 22.4.11 Yes Yes 12. Limited supply across straits 2.4.2, 11.10, 13.6.1 Yes Yes 13. HQ supply and support 2.4.3, 11.16.3 Yes Yes 14. Synthetic oil plants 4.2, 13.5.1, 22.4.11 Yes Yes 15. Off-city reinforcement 4.2 No Yes 16. Recruitment limits 4.2 Yes Yes 17. HQ movement 11.11.2 Yes Yes 18. Bottomed ships 11.2 Yes Yes 19. In the presence of the enemy 11.4.2 No Yes 20. Surprised ZOCs 2.2 No ? 21. Task forces (hidden) 11.4.3 No Yes 22. Bounce combat 14.3.3 Partially Yes 23. V-weapons and Atomic bombs 11.7.1, 11.8 Partially Yes 24. Frogmen 22.4.3 Yes Yes 25. SCS transport 11.4.5, 11.14 Yes Yes 26. Amphibious rules 11.13, 11.14, 22.4.12 Yes Yes 27. Optional CV searching 11.5.5 Yes Yes 28. Pilots 4.2, 11.2, 11.5.8, 11.5.11, 13.6.5, 13.6.7, 13.7.1, 14.6, 19.1, 22.4.19 No Yes 29. Food in Flames 13.6.1 Yes Yes 30. Factory construction and destruction 11.7, 13.6.8, 22.2, 22.4.11 Yes Yes 31. Saving build points and resources 11.7, 13.1, 13.3.2, 13.5.1, 13.6.3, 13.6.8 Yes Yes 32. Carpet bombing 11.8, 14.6 Yes Yes 33. Tank busters 11.9, 11.16.4 Yes Yes 34. Motorized movement rates 11.11.2 Yes Yes 35. Bomber (& no paradrop) ATRs 11.12, 11.15, 11.18.1 Yes Yes 36. Large ATRs 11.12, 11.18.1, 11.18.4 Yes Yes 37. Railway movement bonus 11.11.2 Yes Yes 38. Defensive shore bombardment 11.16.2, 15.1 No Yes 39. Blitz Bonus 11.16.1, 11.16.5 Yes Yes 40. Chinese attack weakness 11.16.5 Yes + Yes + 41. Fractional odds 11.16.5 Yes Yes 42. Allied combat friction 11.16.5 Yes Yes 43. 2D10 Land CRT 11.16.6 Yes Yes 44. Extended aircraft rebasing 11.17 Yes Yes 45. Variable reorganization costs 13.6.3 Yes + Yes + 46. Partisans 13.1, 13.7.4 Yes Yes 47. Isolated reorganization limits 13.5 Yes Yes 48. Oil 5, 13.5.1, 21 No Yes 49. Hitler�s War () 13.3.2 No Yes 50. USSR-Japan compulsory peace 13.7.3 No ? 51. En-route aircraft interception 14.2.1 Yes Yes 52. Night missions 14.2.1, 14.2.3, 22.4.2 Yes Yes 53. Twin-engined fighters 14.3.2 Yes Yes 54. Fighter-bombers 14.3.2 Yes Yes 55. Outclassed fighters 14.3.2 Yes Yes 56. Carrier planes 4.2, 11.2, 11.5.2, 11.5.8, 11.5.11, 11.18.4, 13.5.1, 13.6.5, 14.3.2, 14.4, 14.4.1, 14.8, 16.2 No ? 57. Limited aircraft interception 14.2.1 No Yes 58. Internment 14.6.4, 19.1 Partially Yes 59. Flying bombs 14.6, 14.7 Partially Yes 60. Kamikazes 14.6, 14.8 Yes Yes 61. Offensive Chits 16, (16.1 - 16.5) No Yes 62. The Ukraine 19.12 No Yes 63. Intelligence 22.1 No Yes 64. Japanese command conflict 22.3 Yes Yes 65. Ski troops 22.4.1 Yes Yes 66. The Queens 22.4.4 Mostly Yes 67. City Based Volunteers 4.1.2, 22.4.8 Yes Yes 68. Siberians 22.4.7 Partially Yes 69. Naval supply units 22.4.13 Partially Yes 70. Guards Banner Armies 22.4.14 No Yes 71. Chinese Warlords 22.4.15 No ? 72. Partisan HQs 22.4.16 Partially ? 73. Heavy Weapons Units 22.4.17 Partially ? 74. Air Cav 22.4.18 No ? 75. Cruiser in Flames 13.5.1, 22.4.6 No ? 76. Convoys in Flames 19.4, 22.4.19 CWIF optional rules that are standard rules in WIF FE and will be standard rules in MWIF: Lend lease, CV strategic bombing, Japanese carrier range, Vlassov (replaced by city based volunteers), and Carrier plane fighters (needs updating to reflect changes). CWIF optional rules that were discontinued in WIF FE and will not be included in MWIF: Separate die rolls on land combat table, and Territorial conquest. CWIF optional rules that are not in WIF FE but will be kept in MWIF: Fog of war, Scrap units (play testers requested this be optional to simplify play), Limited view of opponent�s production, and Facility repair (separated from Option #7 at request of play testers). MWIF optional rules not in CWIF: Leaders MWIF will include the add-ons: Africa Aflame Asia Aflame Carrier Planes in Flames Leaders in Flames Mech in Flames Planes in Flames Ships in Flames MWIF will NOT include the add-ons: America in Flames Days of Decision Patton in Flames I am still undecided about (because I haven�t received copies of them yet) the add-ons: Cruisers in Flames Convoys in Flames Politics in Flames

Froonp -> RE: Units, Scenarios, Options, and Add-ons (7/27/2005 9:23:05 PM)
quote: Optional Rules CWIF MWIF Option WIF FE Rules Reference No Yes 64. Japanese command conflict 22.3 I thought it was included in CWiF, but I may be wrong. quote: No ? 72. Partisan HQs 22.4.16 Partially ? 73. Heavy Weapons Units 22.4.17 Partially ? 74. Air Cav 22.4.18 No ? 75. Cruiser in Flames 13.5.1, 22.4.6 No ? 76. Convoys in Flames 19.4, 22.4.19 Why is there a question Mark for those options ? If there is a problem creating the counters, I can help you if you want, otherwise its just "more units" and "more rules", and it definitely is part of WiF FE as it is at the present time since 2 years ago (issued in 2003). quote: CWIF optional rules that were discontinued in WIF FE and will not be included in MWIF: Territorial conquest. What's this ? I do not see what this option is. quote: CWIF optional rules that are not in WIF FE but will be kept in MWIF: Scrap units (play testers requested this be optional to simplify play), This definitely is in WiF FE. quote: MWIF will NOT include the add-ons: America in Flames Patton in Flames At least, include the counters for AiF & PatiF. If you need a helping hand entering them (typing them in the game), we can help you (there is also the Excel Spraedsheet at my website showing the counters statistics). quote: I am still undecided about (because I haven�t received copies of them yet) the add-ons: Cruisers in Flames Convoys in Flames Politics in Flames Boy, these are just "more counters" for the most of them, and for the rule, they are included in the RAW7 booklet that you have. Again, if you need help tying more counters in the game, we are here to help you. I personaly entered dozens of counters into CWiF to help Chris. I could understand that you do not add the rules for PoliF, but I could not understand that you don't add the extra counters there are in this countersheet (who need no more rules).

Greyshaft -> RE: Units, Scenarios, Options, and Add-ons (7/28/2005 12:54:54 AM)
quote: CWIF optional rules that are not in WIF FE but will be kept in MWIF: Scrap units (play testers requested this be optional to simplify play), How else do you get the old planes out of the mix? I can't imagine playing a game in 1946 where the CW still has the opportunity of Gloster randomly producing either a Gladiator or a Meteor When you say "CWIF optional rules that are not in WIF FE but will be kept in MWIF:" I am presuming that you mean they will still be optional in MWIF ie switched on/off by players at start of game? Could "Task Force Hidden" be a game option decided by players at start? quote: No ? 51. En-route aircraft interception 14.2.1 More trouble than its worth IMHO. It has the capacity to really slow down the asynchronous games

Mziln -> RE: Units, Scenarios, Options, and Add-ons (7/28/2005 3:36:16 AM)
quote: I am still undecided about (because I haven�t received copies of them yet) the add-ons: Cruisers in Flames Convoys in Flames Politics in Flames In the RaW [:D] Cruisers in Flames: CL's, ASW rule changes, Rough Seas Option 75, and naval unit cost changes. Convoys in Flames: ASW rules, SUB-hunting aircraft, German Auxiliary Cruisers, Tankers, Milchcow SUBs, Schnorkel SUBs, Walther SUBs, Flying SUBs, Supply SUBs, and SUBs with Missiles. Politics in Flames: Rumania goes 4 levels (modified by barriers as necessary) towards the other side. Divisional units, Chinese warlords, Partisan HQs, Heavy weapons units, and Air Cavalry Option.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Units, Scenarios, Options, and Add-ons (7/28/2005 4:23:45 AM)
I was a little simplistic in staing some of the 'options'. I knew that at the time but didn't want to be super precise about all 76 of the options. To clarify: My definition of an optional rule is one that the players can turn on or off at the start of a game. Some CWIF play testers found having to go thru the scrap units phase tedious (say, for the Barbarossa scenario) and wanted the whole issue of scrapping units optional. Please note, if you want the abiltiy to scrap units, you simply turn the option on. No big deal. I ran this list by Chris twice so my statement that Japanese command conflict was not implemented in CWIF is based on his reply. Territorial conquest was an option once upon a time but it was never implemented in CWIF. Since it is not in WIF Final Edition, I see no reason to implement it now. Options 72 through 76 were introduced in recent (vis-a-vis circa CWIF) add-ons. I do not currently have copies of Cruisers in Flames, Convoys in Flames, Politics in Flames, America in Flames, and Patton in Flames (they are suppose to be on their way to me). Until I do, I do not want to commit myself to doing something about which I know next to nothing. Once I have an opportunity to reveiw them personally, and thoroughyl, I will be able to make an informed decision. Until that time though, I have them down as ?. Your desire for additional units to be included presents me with no problems. If you then say you want them to have capabilities that are different from the existing 60+ unit types, then I have a problem. I do not intend to include America in Flames, Patton in Flames, or Days of Decision in MWIF (Version 1). Some of the other add-ons (see the list above) I still have on the 'maybe' list. As to the general process of adding new units, the players will have the ability to edit the comma separated values files for the units (air, land, naval, and other are in 4 different files) and change them howsoever they think is best. Adding new unit types means adding more code to support their unique capabilities. There has to be a line drawn somewhere or I'll end up coding in all the rules for Flashpoint Germany. I will draw a line! And if I do it right there will an equal number of people mad at me for (1) not including features they want, and (2) wasting time writing code for features they do not want and thereby delaying the publication of the game. I knew this would be the case when I signed on for the project. I won't lose any sleep over it. I will lose sleep if the project falls behind schedule. The thing about hidden task forces is that MWIF (like CWIF) has the fog of war option which lets you know the number and types of units in a stack of naval units but not the specific units. This isn't the same as hidden task forces but it is close. I'm undecided about including hidden task forces becasue (1) I'm not sure it adds that much more given the fog of war option, and (2) it deviates from a fundamental principle of the MWIF design. That is, every unit has a location. It may be on the map, in a force pool, in construction, dead and buried, whereever. Nonetheless all 3100+ units are somewhere and the program knows exactly where. In the fog of war option MWIF simply withholds unit details from the opposing player. Hidden task forces are different. They report to the opposing player about a group of naval units (a task force) rather than about a stack of naval units (where each naval unit has a type). This might seem to be a minor distinction but from the programming point of view it is a big headache that affects such fundamental routines as displaying the units on the map.

Froonp -> RE: Units, Scenarios, Options, and Add-ons (7/28/2005 11:42:24 AM)
quote: quote: No ? 51. En-route aircraft interception 14.2.1 More trouble than its worth IMHO. It has the capacity to really slow down the asynchronous games Strange that in the real game it is a lot less trouble than it is worth, because it is worth an enormous lot, and is only really used one or twice during a game. The rest of the time, it only obliges the players to choose flying paths for their bombers that are not in range of would-be interceptors (avoid the interceptors). MWiF could emulate this behavior by, when you fly a mission : - Highlight the map hexes where enemy fighters can intercept, so that you are able to avoid those areas. - Allow the mission player to define way points (this is already in CWiF) for the mission. - Optionaly trace a colored line on the map, when the mission is completely defined, showing the complete bombers' path. This colored line could be immediately drawn on the map between the bomber's base hex & the target hex when the target hex is defined (because you have to define the target hex before defining the flying path), and then this line would be broken in several segments when you click the waypoint hexes, for finaly showing the complete flying path when you are finished.

Froonp -> RE: Units, Scenarios, Options, and Add-ons (7/28/2005 11:45:05 AM)
quote: Some CWIF play testers found having to go thru the scrap units phase tedious (say, for the Barbarossa scenario) and wanted the whole issue of scrapping units optional. Please note, if you want the abiltiy to scrap units, you simply turn the option on. No big deal. What I remember from the playtest process is that what was tedious was to redo the scrapping process each time, and Chris provided an Automated Scrapping process, he did not remove scrapping. Scrapping was always part of CWiF.

Froonp -> RE: Units, Scenarios, Options, and Add-ons (7/28/2005 11:47:29 AM)
quote: Options 72 through 76 were introduced in recent (vis-a-vis circa CWIF) add-ons. I do not currently have copies of Cruisers in Flames, Convoys in Flames, Politics in Flames, America in Flames, and Patton in Flames (they are suppose to be on their way to me). Until I do, I do not want to commit myself to doing something about which I know next to nothing. Once I have an opportunity to reveiw them personally, and thoroughyl, I will be able to make an informed decision. Until that time though, I have them down as ?. If you have RAW7, you already have all the rules for CoiF & CLiF, there is nothing more in the kits you'll receive. You only miss the countersheets. You can see reduced copies of those countersheets at my website. Regards Patrice

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Units, Scenarios, Options, and Add-ons (7/28/2005 4:22:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: quote: No ? 51. En-route aircraft interception 14.2.1 More trouble than its worth IMHO. It has the capacity to really slow down the asynchronous games Strange that in the real game it is a lot less trouble than it is worth, because it is worth an enormous lot, and is only really used one or twice during a game. The rest of the time, it only obliges the players to choose flying paths for their bombers that are not in range of would-be interceptors (avoid the interceptors). MWiF could emulate this behavior by, when you fly a mission : - Highlight the map hexes where enemy fighters can intercept, so that you are able to avoid those areas. - Allow the mission player to define way points (this is already in CWiF) for the mission. - Optionaly trace a colored line on the map, when the mission is completely defined, showing the complete bombers' path. This colored line could be immediately drawn on the map between the bomber's base hex & the target hex when the target hex is defined (because you have to define the target hex before defining the flying path), and then this line would be broken in several segments when you click the waypoint hexes, for finaly showing the complete flying path when you are finished. When I put down a question mark for options #51 and #57, my thoughts were similar to those expressed by Greyshaft in the first box above. After reading your reply, Froonp, I am coming around to your point of view. To summarize your comments, the interface design could reduce the amount of trouble from the player's point of view. I agree. Let's put options #51 and #57 on the list as part of the interface design thread, which I hope to start this week. However, I would strongly recommend that this option not be turned on as part of PBEM, and to also be turned off when playing Fog of War (in the latter case flying long bombing missions could be used as a sort of recon mission to learn the ranges of the opponent's fighters).

Mziln -> RE: Units, Scenarios, Options, and Add-ons (7/28/2005 4:27:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets My definition of an optional rule is one that the players can turn on or off at the start of a game. 22.4 Optional Rules and Units X.X.1 Divisions Option 2 Each division type goes into a new force pool. ARM and MECH divisions count against Armour gearing limits. CAV divisions count against cavalry gearing limits. Other divisions count against infantry gearing limits. Divisions are not restricted from being built ahead (see 13.6.5 Building units) if their equivalent corps type is still available in the force pools, and vice versa. X.X.2 Artillery Option 3 If you are playing with this rule, there is a new gearing limit class - artillery. X.X.3 Fortification Units Option 5 Fortification units are a new gearing limit class. X.X.4 Supply units Option 6 Supply units are a new gearing limit class. X.X.5 Engineer Divisions Option 7 Some engineer divisions (ENGs) are motorized and receive the benefits of being motorized. Some other engineers have the same special abilities as MAR units. You can play engineers as combat and/or construction engineers. X.X.6 Territorials Option 10 Some major powers and minor countries have one or more territorial units available in the force pools from the start of the game. X.X.7 Synthetic oil plants Option 14 The synthetic oil units represent plants designed to turn coal into fuel oil. Such plants were built extensively by Germany during the war but also to some extent by Japan. X.X.8 Frogmen Option 24 The Italian frogmen and Japanese and Commonwealth mini-sub units are the same unit type for all purposes. We call them all �frogmen�. X.X.9 Amphibious Units Option 26 Amphibious units (AMPH) form a new force pool. They count against ship gearing limits. X.X.10 Japanese Command Conflict Option 64 Throughout the war, the Imperial Japanese navy fought a series of bloody disputes with the Imperial Japanese army. They fought over everything from resource allocation to the strategic direction of the war. You would need 2 Japanese players to reflect that result but this rule will complicate the Japanese player�s life a little. X.X.11 Ski Troop Divisions Option 65 X.X.12 The Queens Option 66 (Rule 22.4.4 The Queens Option 66 (SiF)) This unit represents two converted passenger liners (Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth) that were justly famous for their speed. You use it like a faster than usual TRS except that it cannot transport HQ-A, ARM, MECH, artillery or aircraft units. The Queens can replace a TRS unit from the start of a scenario. X.X.13 City Based Volunteers� Option 67 There are several units with the name of a city printed on their back in AfA, AiF, LiF and PoliF. These counters represent volunteers who fought or potentially would have fought for the major power whose background color the counters share. As examples, Vlassov was a successful Soviet general who defected to the Germans after his capture, the SS recruited personnel from the occupied areas and Japan used some Chinese and potentially would have used some Indians or Siberians as well. X.X.14 Siberians Option 68 (Rule 22.4.7 Siberians Option 68 (AfA)) Each Siberian unit can replace a Soviet INF unit from the start of a scenario. In 1939 games, they must start on the Asian or Pacific map. In other games, they can start anywhere. You decide after set up which units, if any, you wish to replace. Put any Siberians you don�t start on the map into the INF force pool. X.X.15 Naval Supply Units Option 69 Naval supply units Upgrade and downgrade minor ports. X.X.16 Guards Banner Armies Option 70 The 8 Russian armies included in LiF are Guards Banner Armies. These are kept as reserves, but do not arrive when other reserves do. X.X.17 Chinese Warlords Option 71 The Chinese warlord units represent forces loyal to one particular Warlord in China rather than the central Government X.X.18 Partisan HQs Option 72 Tito and Zoya K. are treated the same as any other HQI except that you cannot purchase them. X.X.19 Heavy weapons units Option 73 During the war, most countries upgraded their units with heavier weapons in an attempt to gain an advantage over their opponents. X.X.20 Air Cavalry Option 74 Air Cav (ACV) units are a new unit type. X.X.21 Light Cruisers & Rough Seas Option 75 The light cruisers in CliF replace those provided in World in Flames and depict every CL and CAA of WWII. X.X.22 Convoys in Flames Option 76 This SiF option introduces several units that represent in greater detail the naval battles conducted against merchant marine shipping, especially battles by and against submarines. Yes, I left out A-bombs and V weapons.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.9082031