RE: Proper Place? (Full Version)

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



Message


Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Proper Place? (7/10/2013 10:12:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman

Er ...

Windows XP end of lifecycle is April 2014.

https://www.google.com/search?q=windows+xp+expiration+date&oq=windows+xp+expir&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l3.13142j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

I vividly remember a long delay caused by migration from one version of the Delphi ? software language to another.

Modern tablets have way more than 1024 x 768. I read a couple of days ago that the next gen Kindle Fire HD will be 2560 x 1800 (ish).


The issue isn't whether Microsoft will continue support Win XP; it's whether Win XP applications will be able to run on future operating systems. Also known as backwards compatibility.

Unless I'm mistaken, I can still run DOS programs on my Win 7 computer - although it requires a bit more work. There is at least one DOS utility program that I run from time to time.




wworld7 -> RE: Proper Place? (7/11/2013 7:21:05 PM)

With Windows 7 you can still run DOS programs without too much difficulty. I have no need yet to go to Windows 8 so I have not tried it.

Stay healthy.




Easo79 -> RE: Proper Place? (7/12/2013 4:25:38 PM)

I have read with interest some of the threads at this site. I have never played the original game, but I am interested in it because I am interested in WWII. I will probably never have the time to play this game via e-mail or Internet direct connection, and therefore I will be happy to play against myself.

I have some basic novice questions.

a) I think that the game rules are the same (or essentialy the same) as those from the original table board game, that can be downloaded from the WEB. Is that correct?

b) I know that the game will be released when "it is ready". But, what is "to be ready"? No bugs? No game-breaker bugs? It seems that the game is already playable at some level, and that some bugs happen only very few times, in a extremely restricted set of circumstances. I think I could play even if some minor Polinesian island aligns incorrectly when Italy invades France after the CW has been defeated, or some similar oddity

c) It seems that this project is basically a one-man project. I hate to ask this....but..errr....what happens if a plane crashes on Shannon V. OKeets' home. Will the project perish with him? [8|]. Will it be released posthumously?

d) I see that there are some threads with strategic advice, but many of the are interspersed with nasty fights among forum member. Is there somewhere in the Internet some General Strategy Tutorial, or something similar?




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Proper Place? (7/12/2013 7:00:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Easo79

I have read with interest some of the threads at this site. I have never played the original game, but I am interested in it because I am interested in WWII. I will probably never have the time to play this game via e-mail or Internet direct connection, and therefore I will be happy to play against myself.

I have some basic novice questions.

a) I think that the game rules are the same (or essentialy the same) as those from the original table board game, that can be downloaded from the WEB. Is that correct?

b) I know that the game will be released when "it is ready". But, what is "to be ready"? No bugs? No game-breaker bugs? It seems that the game is already playable at some level, and that some bugs happen only very few times, in a extremely restricted set of circumstances. I think I could play even if some minor Polinesian island aligns incorrectly when Italy invades France after the CW has been defeated, or some similar oddity

c) It seems that this project is basically a one-man project. I hate to ask this....but..errr....what happens if a plane crashes on Shannon V. OKeets' home. Will the project perish with him? [8|]. Will it be released posthumously?

d) I see that there are some threads with strategic advice, but many of the are interspersed with nasty fights among forum member. Is there somewhere in the Internet some General Strategy Tutorial, or something similar?

Welcome to the forum.[:)]

The rules for World in Flames have been quite dynamic over the past 28 years since it was originally released. A lot of the changes have to do with the inclusion/exclusion of optional rules. For example, MWIF has 80 optional rules. But the generally accepted standard for WIF rules is Rules as Written (RAW), which can be downloaded from the web.

Less than 1% of the players likely to encounter the 'bug' within the first 3 months of ownership is the loose guideline with which I am working. The expectation is that within those 3 months, I can fix the problem as a patch.

I always travel with my own personal parachute.[8D] Actually I asked a couple of very experienced programmers whom I've known for over 30 years about this and they were both appalled at the idea.

The Players Manual will have a lot on this (56 pages) and the Scenario Booklet that is the companion piece to RAW has even more, which is scenario and major power specific.




brian brian -> RE: Proper Place? (7/13/2013 1:58:10 AM)

an issue with tablets is only partially whether older Microsoft OS will run on tablets. Their RT tablet doesn't seem to be doing well, the techie headlines tell me, though I don't keep up on such things. iOS and Android are dominating tablet OS from what I can tell. (don't have one yet, no plans any time soon. but eventually...)

the issue with tablets is how many potential customers will be left by the time this is ready to publish. which makes me say, just publish it with a few of those 1% bugs (up the tolerance level for them) and bring in some money to pay for getting it to run on tablets. every day that goes by, another household converts to tablets and dumps their PC.

a very good thing is the work put in to make the map zoom at 8 levels, that will be key on a tablet. the solid base design will also help with running the program on a server that tablets connect to, which is how I see the future of gaming. Matrix has just a few tablet games out and one does look interesting, from the one time I surfed around on this subject. I doubt Matrix is that keen on launching any brand new game design projects only on a PC platform, currently, though I could be wrong on that. There is a great base of PCs installed across the globe. But it won't be getting bigger, that is for sure, only smaller.

I do not work in the tech industry, nor follow it all that closely. I know what I know just from Google News headlines, and using an iOS smartphone and iPods pretty heavily, and owning PCs since 1982 and trying to play wargames on them since 1984 (Atari Eastern Front). everywhere I travel, I see more and more people on tablets, because all they want from a "computer" is for it to deliver interactive online content to them, and maybe a little light use of basic level applications like word processing mainly, and tablets can supply all that in a quick-to-pick-up, plug-and-play style. PCs in the home are done, going forward.




Centuur -> RE: Proper Place? (7/13/2013 10:09:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Easo79

I have read with interest some of the threads at this site. I have never played the original game, but I am interested in it because I am interested in WWII. I will probably never have the time to play this game via e-mail or Internet direct connection, and therefore I will be happy to play against myself.

I have some basic novice questions.

d) I see that there are some threads with strategic advice, but many of the are interspersed with nasty fights among forum member. Is there somewhere in the Internet some General Strategy Tutorial, or something similar?


That is why WiF is such a great game. Opinions differ on what is good strategical play and what's not. I have known players who really want to have a USSR-Japan war and players who don't want to get into that kind of action. It has everything to do with the grand strategy the Axis is going to pursue at start (since the Allies have to react on it). Only the USSR has at start the possibility to act or not act against the Japanese at start (at a penalty for the US).

Also, the original rulebook of WiF hasn't been written in a good fashion. There are quite some parts in it, which needed further explanation and that is also giving a lot of discussion (not only here, but also on the Yahoo Forum for the rules.

WiF is a great game. As a beta tester I think it is also good looking and will be a challenge to any strategic player who wants to recreate WW II.




Klydon -> RE: Proper Place? (7/14/2013 2:50:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

an issue with tablets is only partially whether older Microsoft OS will run on tablets. Their RT tablet doesn't seem to be doing well, the techie headlines tell me, though I don't keep up on such things. iOS and Android are dominating tablet OS from what I can tell. (don't have one yet, no plans any time soon. but eventually...)

the issue with tablets is how many potential customers will be left by the time this is ready to publish. which makes me say, just publish it with a few of those 1% bugs (up the tolerance level for them) and bring in some money to pay for getting it to run on tablets. every day that goes by, another household converts to tablets and dumps their PC.

a very good thing is the work put in to make the map zoom at 8 levels, that will be key on a tablet. the solid base design will also help with running the program on a server that tablets connect to, which is how I see the future of gaming. Matrix has just a few tablet games out and one does look interesting, from the one time I surfed around on this subject. I doubt Matrix is that keen on launching any brand new game design projects only on a PC platform, currently, though I could be wrong on that. There is a great base of PCs installed across the globe. But it won't be getting bigger, that is for sure, only smaller.

I do not work in the tech industry, nor follow it all that closely. I know what I know just from Google News headlines, and using an iOS smartphone and iPods pretty heavily, and owning PCs since 1982 and trying to play wargames on them since 1984 (Atari Eastern Front). everywhere I travel, I see more and more people on tablets, because all they want from a "computer" is for it to deliver interactive online content to them, and maybe a little light use of basic level applications like word processing mainly, and tablets can supply all that in a quick-to-pick-up, plug-and-play style. PCs in the home are done, going forward.


Some interesting points here and I would like to give my own opinion on them. Most of my circle of friends are in the IT business in one form or another (2 are programmers, another is a IT manager for a large school district, etc).

Microsoft is in big trouble in the tablet market. They don't really have a piece of it and they have been very unsuccessful in trying to get into it. They realize PC sales are down, etc. I look for them to probably "buy" their way in before it is too late. If they don't, they will take a massive hit as far as domination of computer OS as we know it today. They won't go away simply because they have all their server stuff to fall back on, but they won't be the player they are now.

Most of the word out is that PC's are dead and even laptops are toast as well. Sales figures would support that as well. You can get PC and lap tops dirt cheap these days compared to what they used to be simply because demand isn't very strong for them. You also have some manufacturers stuck in the past like Dell and HP that produce predominately PC and lap top products. They are trying to get into the tablet business, but are late to the party. Younger people have grown up with laptops and tablets. They are the primary buyers of such equipment.

For the market that plays war games like this one, the demographic is much older in general. This generation is used to playing on PC's and especially these days on PC's with big screens. Games are designed with bigger monitors in mind with the idea that you can display more information and a bigger picture of the board. By and large, this is not a younger generation project because they typically don't play board games and/or are not war gamers. While some in this generation have bought tablets, it may be used with a PC for their gaming needs, but the PC is still the primary game machine for board games and will remain that way for this generation of gamers.

I can't even imagine trying to play a game like this or say WITE on a 9 inch screen.

Something else is that Windows 8 is an absolute disaster as a touchscreen-tablet system. In true MS fashion, the next OS should be pretty good as they seem to go every other OS is pretty good while you have garbage in between. (Win 95, barf, Win 98, good, Millenium, ugh, XP really good, Vista, garbage, 7, very good, 8, bad).




Lingering Frey -> RE: Proper Place? (7/25/2013 5:04:43 PM)

It's good to know that MWiF should be playable on Windows 9 or 10. Thanks, Steve.

I'm mid-40s, so yes, my main game-playing device is my desktop PC. That is where I will want to play MWiF most often. However, I can easily imagine playing a game like MWiF on a high-res 9 inch screen with good zoom functions. In fact, zooming in on a section of front and manipulating counters by touch-screen I can imagine being the best recreation of how I spent most of my time playing the board game: hunkered over a section of front with a pair of pliers or tweezers. As long as you could move easily around the map and make decisions in pop-up boxes, I think it would work great. Just look at the huge line of games that Slitherine is bringing over the next year to iOS devices (many ports of PC wargames and new original games.)

The key will be if Microsoft has a compatible OS on tablets for sale within reasonable time after MWiF launches. Sure, Windows 8 tablets aren't very good according to tech review sites. But value for money would go up radically for me if it would play MWiF and my iPad won't. In addition, how good will the Windows 10 tablets be? (remember, they apparently have switched to a rapid OS turnover to keep more current with the rapidly evolving hardware environment)

As regards Microsoft's future and the future of its OS, consider Microsoft's game hardware history. The game console industry was competitive before Microsoft got into it in 2001. When launched, it was an American company saying "Me Too!" next to the powerhouses of Sega, Nintendo, and Sony. Now it has a huge number of XBox owners alongside Sony and Nintendo. It's amazing what billions in cash lying around can accomplish. Microsoft's corporate problems aren't anything what like Kodak was like during the digital camera revolution, so I don't see them ending up in the same position.




abuspud -> RE: Proper Place? (7/30/2013 3:25:39 AM)


[/quote]


I just wondering, where is all the rest of the wif players. why are they not here demanding a change in pace.

[/quote]

I snarked a few years ago. Didn't see much point in continuing to do so. I was really excited that CWIF was going to be published before my 1999 move to Egypt, so I'd be able to play WiF with my old gaming group while I was abroad. I've since returned, retired from my previous career, earned another degree, started a new career. Life goes on. I wanted the program to play against my gaming buddies that were too far away to see face to face. There aren't enough of those gaming buddies to do anything with now even if the game came out. I check in here every month or twelve to see what's up, but it long ago stopped actually mattering to me. If it ever gets finished, and it's not priced in 3 digits, I'll probably pick up a copy, if only from nostalgia.





Le Grand Condé -> RE: Proper Place? (7/30/2013 4:13:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: abuspud
I snarked a few years ago. Didn't see much point in continuing to do so. I was really excited that CWIF was going to be published before my 1999 move to Egypt, so I'd be able to play WiF with my old gaming group while I was abroad. I've since returned, retired from my previous career, earned another degree, started a new career. Life goes on. I wanted the program to play against my gaming buddies that were too far away to see face to face. There aren't enough of those gaming buddies to do anything with now even if the game came out. I check in here every month or twelve to see what's up, but it long ago stopped actually mattering to me. If it ever gets finished, and it's not priced in 3 digits, I'll probably pick up a copy, if only from nostalgia.

Well, thanks for writing those few lines, I just have to duplicate them to express my feelings about MWiF [:D]

-> If it ever releases, I'll buy a copy -whatever the price-, just because I won't be able to resist the appeal of the game.
Howver ,since I last played in '96 (when I was a single, 20-years-old, young man) and since my former gaming group has completely broken up, chances are slim I will ever play with this copy ! (maybe solitaire when I am old and retired [;)])




Tonqeen -> RE: Proper Place? (7/30/2013 10:59:13 PM)

Play with me? I havent played since '95 so we in the same kloak :)




gw15 -> RE: Proper Place? (8/1/2013 9:10:08 PM)

There are games going on all the time via VASSAL. We use Skype and play live.
Big problem with VASSAL is no checking if you are following rules. No supply check. No production calculations. Its just like playing FtF. MWIF will have all the goodies like FtF but with the power of the computer to handle all of the messy details.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Proper Place? (8/2/2013 5:57:07 PM)

August 1, 2013 Status Report for Matrix Games’ MWIF Forum

Overview
Roughly speaking, on January 1st of this year the game was 98% done. Sometime in the spring, it reached 99% (when the code for Supply completed alpha testing and went into beta testing). Since then I’ve been working on the first decimal place, and as I write this I believe the game is 99.9% done. That is, I’m working on the second decimal place. Given that there are ~420,000 lines of code, 0.1% translates as 420 lines of code. That doesn’t convert directly to a specific number of bugs, but the current bug count under 100 seems about right. Now I just need to grind away at the remaining bugs.

As a footnote, this is the 8th anniversary of my monthly status reports on MWIF. By another accounting, I am starting my ~99th month of work on the game.

Accomplishments of July 2013

Hardware and Software
The open items for Theme Engine remain the same: minimizing the game generates a Mad Except error, trying to display detailed listings of file directories (i.e., the dates and stuff) when opening or saving a file does the same, and “rolling up a form” does too (the last occurs sporadically under Windows XP). Rolling up a form minimizes the form to the size of the form’s top bar.

Beta Testing
In July I released 5 new versions to the beta testers: 10.05.01 (26 fixes), 10.05.03 (11 fixes), 10.05.04 (22 fixes), 10.05.05 (10 fixes), and 11.00.00 (13 fixes). Version 10.05.02 was not given to the beta testers - I used it in alpha testing. The number of new versions and fixes (82) are about my average for this year.

Release 10.05.01 fixed all but 2 of the Naval Combat bugs, which need saved games for me to recreate them. The beta testers then found some more bugs in naval combat, which is par for the course. I’ve now developed a theory for complex phases of the game that when I cut the number of bugs in half, the beta testers bump it back up by half, and the cycle repeats: 32 => 16 =>24 => 12 => 18 => 9 ... The bugs in naval movement, naval combat, Vichy France creation, supply, and production planning were all like that.

Releases 10.05.02 and 10.05.04 fixed all but 3 Supply bugs, which were minor. As above, the beta testers have since found more for me to fix. It wasn’t until the 20th of the month that I managed to devote my time and effort exclusively to fixing NetPlay bugs. The NetPlay bugs remaining aren’t a big concern; half of them are new within the past few days and I’ve done a lot of work on 4 of the older ones (see the NetPlay section below for more details).

Here is a summary of my Master Task List (MTL) as of August 1st. My task list count stands at 95, up from 93 at the start of the month. At one point I had the bug count down to 72 - sigh. Recently I’ve been torn between finishing debugging NetPlay and knocking the bug count in the sequence of play back down below 40. Many of these bugs are recent (high numbers) - which means I haven’t really looked into fixing them.

NetPlay [9] {1594, 1859}, 1785, 1826, 1827, 2056, 2099, 2100, 2101, 2107

Sequence of Play [65]
Supply [11]: 1070, 1982, 1988, 2061, 2064, 2078, 2083, 2086, 2088, 2089, 2106
Setup Phases [1]: 2093
DOW [1]: 2094
Air Missions [8]: 1611, 1890, 1925, 1996, 2052, 2103, 2105, 2082
Naval Movement [1]: 1990
Naval Combat [4]: 1599, 1724, 874, 2104
Land Combat Declaration [1]: 1995
Reorganization [3]: 1855, 1856, 1896
Use Oil [2]: 2042, 2091
Production Planning [16]: 1107, {847, 961, 1347}, 326, 1644, 1671, 1825, 1862, 1863, 1864, 1893, 1895, 1973, 2006, 2014, 2020, 2084
Search Seizure [1]: 409
Conquest [2]: 1047, 2050
Vichy [5]: 1803, 1811, 2017, 2028, 2063
Surrender [2]: 2009, 2073
Liberation [3]: 891, 1919, 1980
Victory [1]: 2090
Overstacked Digression [2]: 1931, 2074
Final Reorganization [1]: 1733

Non-sequence of Play [21]
Detailed Map [7]: 1188, 142, 769,140, 1501, 2036, 1956
Player Interface [5]: 1901, 1920, 1922, 2048, 2077
Interactive Tutorial [1]: 2043
Game Save/Restore [5]: 695, 110, 118, 1778, 1907
Theme Engine [3]: {1050, 568}, {1513, 1467, 966, 1455, 1573, 1655}, 1928


Saved Games
Done, except for the bugs listed above.

Map, Units, and Scenarios
As I get additional unit writeups I add them to the collection.

Optional Rules
The optional rule Off-city Reinforcements appears to be bug-free at this point; a couple of months ago I wasn’t sure if it would be ready for the game’s initial release. There are 6 optional rules that are partially coded and which I doubt will be ready for the game’s initial release. But when they are finished, they will be sent to purchasers of the game as patches: City-Based Volunteers, Kamikazes, Naval Supply Units, Guards Banner Armies, Rough Seas, and the uncoded rules for special unit types in Convoys in Flames (i.e., German auxiliary cruisers, sub-hunters, specialized submarine types, tankers).

Game Engine
Other than fixing supply bugs, nothing has really changed regarding the game engine. I have no tasks related to this remaining.

Player Interface
Done, except for the bugs listed above. Like for the game engine, I have no tasks related to this remaining.

Internet - NetPlay
I spent a lot of July on NetPlay. As before, many of my corrections do not show up as bug fixes. In July the classic case of that was the end-of-turn phases. MWIF has 35 phases prior to the end of turn and 28 phases thereafter. This past month I was able to run a NetPlay game through all the end-of-turn phases, although that was with some optional rules turned off (e.g. Use Oil) and some of those phases are not planned for the game’s initial release (e.g., Intelligence, Ukraine). But still, all those phases completed and moved smoothly to the next phase in the sequence of play on both computers. I also debugged the start of new turn phases that are skipped for the first turn: Reinforcements, Lending, and Initiative/Moving First. This required a lot of work, with half the 60+ phases having some small problem that needed to be identified and corrected. On my task list this shows up as one bug ‘fixed’. Testing that code is now in the hands of the beta testers.

Somewhat annoying is that messing around with the code to implement NetPlay occasionally causes bugs to appear in the sequence of play for Solitaire mode, in phases/subphases that have been stable for months, sometimes years. These aren’t difficult to fix, but it feels like a blindside tackle at times.

I still have some combat bugs to fix for NetPlay in air-to-air, naval, and land combat. In all these cases the problems arise when assigning combat losses or other effects. Letting both players choose which units to destroy/damage/abort/shatter and presenting those choices to the decision player is what’s difficult. Sometimes one player chooses (e.g., naval surface combat), sometimes alternating players (e.g., naval air combat), and sometimes both (e.g., land combat where both sides take losses but fewer than they have units engaged in the combat). The combat phases have multiple subphases and the sequence of play loops back for either additional combats and/or additional rounds in the same combat. It’s just very complicated logic to keep both computers synchronized as these subphases are executed and the decision makers switch back and forth. If the code’s not perfect, it’s wrong.

Most of the phases with long subphase sequences have been or are close to being debugged for NetPlay. The only one not tested so far is the creation of Vichy France. Once I get the combat stuff working, I’ll start testing that.

PBEM
Nothing new.

Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Nothing new. But Peter S. is anxious to get back to work on this - as am I.

Player’s Manual and Rules as Coded (RAC)
Work continued in July (by others, with proofreading by me) on completing the final layouts for the Players Manual and Rules as Coded. Those are pretty much done at this point. There are some ad hoc details remaining, concerning artwork and finishing a professional index for the Players Manual. Did you know (I didn’t) that there are people who are professional indexers? Usually they are given a fixed number of pages for the index and develop one to satisfy that requirement. For MWIF I created a list of 400-500 key words for the Indexer to work from.

I still intend to post a few sample pages of the Players Manual to the World in Flames forum once it is ready for printing.

Tutorials and Training Videos
Nothing new on completing the training videos. I listened to a couple of them this past month and haven’t changed my mind about which are okay as is and which need to be re-recorded.

Historical Video, Music, and Sound Effects
Nothing new.

Web Site
Nothing new.

Marketing
Nothing new.




Easo79 -> RE: Proper Place? (8/2/2013 11:38:09 PM)

If there can be "popular requests" about which part of the manual is going to be shown as sample, I would like (from my egoistic point of view [8|]) the explanation about USA entry in the war. I do not understand it from the rules: tension pool, entry pool, entry options, entry levels...I don`t get it....[&:]




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Proper Place? (8/3/2013 1:32:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Easo79

If there can be "popular requests" about which part of the manual is going to be shown as sample, I would like (from my egoistic point of view [8|]) the explanation about USA entry in the war. I do not understand it from the rules: tension pool, entry pool, entry options, entry levels...I don`t get it....[&:]

Here's a previously posted (over 2 years ago) section from the Players
Manual.

---

3.4.10 US Entry
The US Entry rules are quite diverse, with decisions made by all players affecting when the US enters the war. The participation of the US will make or break the Allied war effort, not just by how early or late it enters the war, but also by which US Entry Options are chosen and which US Entry Actions are played. These choices alter the range of possibilities for how much assistance the Allies can expect from the Americans.

This section contains advice on US entry strategies that can help prevent catastrophic mistakes (such as never having the ability to declare war on the Axis), as well as ideas that can help you develop your own strategies, whether playing as the United States, its allies, or its enemies. Although focusing primarily on the Global War scenario, the concepts herein can be used for many of the other scenarios too. The difference is that later scenarios start with a fixed number of entry markers assigned to each entry pool, and some options and actions already taken.

3.4.10.1 US Entry Marker Allocation
Over the course of a turn, several US Entry Actions may result in a marker being added to or removed from one of the entry pools: Germany/Italy or Japanese. When this happens, the marker is always added to or removed from the pool associated with a specific major power (usually the one that triggered the action). However, at the start of each scenario, and at the end of each turn, the US player must choose which pool, and those decisions are fundamental to the American war strategy.

During the first few turns of the game, you will want to make sure that both entry pools have at least two or three markers. If you have no markers in a pool when you are required by the rules to remove one, you can never declare war on that major power!

Initial Entry Marker Allocation
At the start of the Global War scenario, the US player has three entry markers to distribute between the entry pools (in all other scenarios the US takes part in, entry marker distribution is either fixed or the US is in the war). It is customary to allocate 2 or 3 of these to the Germany/Italy (Ge/It) entry pool, because of the high Allied activity in Europe early in the war. Germany must declare war on Poland to open the game, and the Commonwealth and France must follow by declaring war on Germany. Typically, these actions will cancel out each other's marker draws. What tips the balance is that, barring misfortune or poor play on the part of the German player, the USSR is usually obliged to occupy East Poland on the first turn as well, which results in a marker loss from the Germany/Italy pool 70% of the time.

Other common entry-related activities in the Germany/Italy theatre on the first turn of the game are:
• German invasion of Denmark,
• Axis aggression in the Balkans,
• Italian declaration of war (DOW) against the Commonwealth and/or France (or vice-versa),
• USSR occupation of the Baltic states,
• USSR land claims vs. Rumania and/or Finland (although if Germany accepts a claim, then there is no US entry effect),
• Allied aggression in the Middle East, and
• Axis aggression in the Low Countries - the Netherlands and Belgium - in the case of very aggressive Axis play or prolonged good weather.

Since the marker losses for aggressive Allied (especially USSR) behavior are more significant than marker gains for aggressive Axis behavior, having more markers allocated to the Germany/Italy entry pool means that the US can cope with the higher activity in that theater during the early turns of the game.

By contrast, unless the Allies have planned to be aggressive against Japan early in the war, all the entry actions affecting the Japanese (Ja) entry pool are aggressive actions by Japan. Furthermore, that activity in the early game is relatively slow-paced. An initial allotment of 0 or 1 markers in the Japanese entry pool means the US will usually have 1 or 2 markers there by the time the first US entry phase rolls around.

US Entry Phase Marker Allocation
Markers generated by other powers' US entry actions are allocated at the time they take place and must be allocated to a specified entry pool. Conversely, during US Entry phase at the end of each turn, the US player draws one or more markers and usually is able to allocate them to whichever pool he prefers. There are exceptions though. For example, once Japan declares war on the Commonwealth, one extra marker per turn is automatically drawn and allocated to the Japan entry pool.

When you have discretion to choose the pool to which a marker is allocated, you’ll want to bolster either the pool: (a) with fewer markers or with a lower entry total, or (b) in support of a key option you wish to pass. For example, Option 30 (Lend-Lease to USSR) or Option 36 (Commonwealth reinforces Pacific) may be your goal. The former may use a marker from the Germany/Italy pool while the latter may use one from the Japanese pool.

3.4.10.2 US Entry Options
Each of the US Entry Options is tailored to do one of two things: either to hurt the enemy position or to improve your own position (or that of your allies). Additionally, each option has a fixed chance of increasing the tension level versus its associated Axis major power. This means that you must understand both the benefits of each option, and the relationship between the Entry Level and the Tension Level. The latter determines the US chances for a successful Declaration of War, and may require quite a balancing act.

The rules define a key sequence of events which you have to understand fully for the rest of this section to make any sense:
1. The US player chooses a US entry option against either the Germany/Italy or Japanese pool. To do so, there must be a sufficient entry level in the pool (or pools) to meet the requirements for the chosen option, and any other prerequisites must be satisfied.
2. A die is rolled to see if “tension is generated”.
3. If the die roll generates tension, a marker is moved from the entry pool to the tension pool. This increases the tension level and simultaneously decreases the entry pool level.
4. If the die roll does not generate tension, then a second entry option can be chosen from the same pool.

The only way to increase tension is by choosing US entry options!


Managing Tension
Looking at the It's War Chart (figure 3-4-10-2), you can see the relationship between Entry Level (across the top) and Tension Level (on the left). If your entry level versus a major power is less than 25, or if your tension level is less than 5, you can't declare war. By cross referencing the entry level and the tension level versus a major power, you find the war number. You have to roll this number or less in order to declare war. All of the modifiers listed at the bottom of the chart are applied to the die roll, not the war number. The best time to DOW is when the entry level is 61+ and the tension is 41-50. Then it is guaranteed to succeed.

As you can see from the chart, having too much tension can actually reduce your chances of being successful when you declare war. But that is not usually a problem; just be aware of the possibility.

When to Play US Entry Options - in General
Early in the game choose entry options with the intent of generating tension, until you have enough tension to meet the requirements for Gear Up Production and Pass War Appropriations. Given the opportunity to pick any of several options, you will usually want to pick the one with the highest chance of generating tension. Once you have the tension level high enough to pick the option you are currently working on, focus on building up the entry levels until you can choose it. During the latter stage, try to choose options with a low risk of generating tension, or don’t choose any options at all. To restate this point: first choose options that are likely to generate tension, then choose options that aren’t.

If you pick an option against a particular major power group (Germany/Italy or Japan) and do not generate tension, you can pick a second option against that major power group. It is useful, knowing this, to identify in advance two options you’ll be eligible to pick. Then, when the US entry phase comes around, pick the higher-entry option first (the higher entry level requirement, not the higher risk of generating tension). This ensures that if you do generate tension (thereby reducing the entry level of the pool), you will still be able to select the lower-entry option in a subsequent turn.

When selecting US Entry Options, the trick is to judiciously choose a few critical options to play as early as possible (e.g. 9, 15, 16, 19, 22, and 26; see RAC 13.3.2). Even then, these should be chosen in 1940 when the average marker values are lower. All other anti-Japanese options should only be chosen when your fleet is in Pearl Harbor. That will allow you to manipulate US entry to either ratchet up the tension or let it seep away as required. This is also a good time to choose options 13 and 23, to start putting pressure on the Japanese player.

From then on, tailor the options you choose to the game’s circumstances. Except for the above options, choose fewer rather than more options, to maximize your flexibility later in the game. Once an option is chosen, it can never be chosen again and too little tension can be a bigger problem than having too much, so stay alert and keep your tension levels synchronized with your entry levels.

Recommended US Entry Option Choices
All of the US Entry Options have a purpose in the game. Depending on the current conditions, almost any option can feel like the most important one to pick next. Early in the game though, there are several that you should be aware of, either because they should be picked early, or because they should be set as goals to reach as soon as the need arises. These combine with situation-specific entry options to guide your choices throughout the game, with the final goal of entering the war before it's too late to do any good.

Option 7: Occupy Greenland & Iceland (Ge/It) (9)
Convoys need to be protected. You can use your navy to do this job, but the best protection is provided by having land-based aircraft nearby to back up your fleet when the enemy begins hunting you. The US begins the game with more available resources and oil than any other major power. Most experienced players try to send of much as they can (within the rules) to overseas allies who are already active. Early on, the North Atlantic sea area can be used as part of your convoy route from the United States to Europe, because the Axis can't easily attack that far from home, and your escort fleet can probably handle whatever they send out. By the mid-game however, the Axis usually is in a much better position to threaten your convoy pipelines.

Choosing to occupy Greenland and Iceland allows you to use the longer northern route through the Canadian Coast and Denmark Strait, and to offer air cover along the entire route using this territory as a base for your bombers. You don't need to select this option real early; only when Germany starts to consistently put 2 to 3 build points per turn into submarines do you need to begin worrying about selecting this option.

Option 13: Embargo on strategic materials (Ja) (5),
Option 23: Freeze Japanese assets (Ja) (7), and
Option 31: Oil Embargo (Ja) (9)
These three US Entry Options act as economic sanctions against Japan. The first two reduce the resources you need to send to Japan each turn by 1 each, and the Oil Embargo eliminates the need to send any resources to Japan. Additionally, once Oil Embargo is chosen, the Netherlands East Indies oil resources stop being shipped to the Japanese. Something to keep in mind with these three, is that they must be chosen in order, and that as soon as you choose the first one, Embargo on strategic materials, you no longer get the build point that Japan is required to send from the start of the game. A good strategy is to wait until you are sure you can choose these options on consecutive turns before selecting the first one. This reduces the overall impact on US production and squeezes the Japanese economy all at once, leaving little time to recover from the sudden resource shortage.

Option 26: Relocate fleet to Pearl Harbor (Ja) (6)
One of the most interesting entry options is Option 26. Not only does this allow you to base naval combat units in Pearl Harbour, but as long as your fleet based there meets the requirements outlined in RAC 13.3 you can adjust the probability of generating tension when picking US entry options which are Japan-specific. Given the typically lower tension probabilities of the Japan specific options, it is not unheard of for US players to build up entry to relocate the fleet before picking many Japan specific options, although it is hardly obligatory given the discretion the US has in choosing tension when picking generic options. If your fleet is not at Pearl Harbor, you also suffer a +2 die roll modifier when attempting a Declaration of War.

Option 22: Gear up Production (All) (9) and
Option 34: Pass War Appropriations Bill (All) (13)
As a general rule, the two most important US entry options are Option 22 (Gear up Production) and Option 34 (Pass War Appropriations Bill), which improve US production. As you will recall, both options are generic options, meaning you must have entry totals for both the Europe and the Japan pools equal to the entry option number, and tension totals in both pools equal to one-half the entry option number.

Given how entry and tension are calculated in each pool (see RAC 9.4), the simplest means of meeting the requirements for Option 22 is to have markers whose individual values sum up to 11 in each entry pool and 5.5 in each tension pool. Since markers have whole number values only, this typically means a split of 5 to 6 in marker values. Likewise, the simplest means of meeting the requirements for Option 34 is to have markers whose individual values sum up to 17 in each entry pool and 8.5 in each tension pool (a split of 8 to 9 in marker values). You must also, of course, have chosen Option 22 in a previous turn.

3.4.10.3 US Entry Actions
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. That's not entirely true for MWiF, but it isn't entirely false either. US Entry Actions, as discussed a above, can increase or decrease US Entry Levels. For every aggressive action made by an Axis player, there is an associated risk of adding a marker to one of the entry pools. For every aggressive action made by an Allied player, there is an associated risk of removing a marker from one of the entry pools. Since the entry and tension levels determine the chance of a successful US declaration of war, the risks need to be weighed before taking any action that can alter those chances.

The 'Saddle' Shape of Entry Marker Distribution
The distribution of the entry markers has a curious saddle shape (see section 10.5, 13.2 Entry markers). The absolute average value of the markers is 2.33 in 1939, dropping to 1.79 in 1940, and increasing to 2.60 in 1941. This means that all US Entry Options and US Entry Actions have an exaggerated effect in 1939. Hopefully, this will limit Nazi aggression. Unfortunately, it is likely to have the same effect on the Allies. In 1940, the Axis is more likely to engage in much more aggressive tactics, since the probabilities favor lower marker values being added to the entry pools.

MWiF does not use a finite pool from which markers are randomly drawn. This means that every time a marker is drawn, it has exactly the same potential value as any previous marker draws. It also means that drawing several markers in a row, each with a value of '4', does not alter the average value of the markers that 'remain' in the pool of available entry markers. That pool is best thought of as a set of probabilities; until a marker is drawn it does not actually exist, and so the pool is never reduced in size.

Playing as the US
While only the US player is eligible to view the US entry and tension markers, other players may be able to estimate the entry and tension levels by paying attention to the information reported as US entry options are selected. The US player can also communicate real or deceptive signals about his or her entry values. If you can bluff the enemy into a premature declaration of war, through talk and good play, you can end up with production points that would never have been possible before.

Due to the 'saddle' shape of entry marker distribution, all actions taken in 1939 are magnified, while those taken in 1940 impact US Entry to a much lesser degree. Use this to form strategies with your allies. If you have 10 markers in the Ge/It Entry Pool, for example, but 7 of them have a value of 0 or 1, you can tell the USSR player that it's as safe a time as any for him to gather up the Persian oil fields. If you want, you can even tell him there's a 70% chance that it will have little to no effect on things, though that isn't really necessary. The idea is just to keep your allies informed, so they know when to hold back and when to press the attack.

Because the US player also controls China in MWiF, pay attention to the situation overseas. If China cannot be saved from defeat, it is often prudent to surrender unless Japan is at war with another allied major power. Don't let the Japanese sit there at the last factory, waiting for the real war to deliver the knock-out. You won't get the 3 or 4 markers or the extra marker per turn that you would get if China is conquered by Japan, but you won't get those anyway if Japan refuses to finish the job. What you do get is a 10% increase in your chance to declare war on all Axis powers. Also, Japan becomes a neutral major power again, limiting their Action choices to Combined or Pass actions. This practically forces Japan to declare war on somebody else whether they are in the position to do so or not. That immediately adds markers to the Japanese entry pool, and probably gives you an extra marker per turn, too.

Axis Players
The Axis should generally not allow US Entry considerations to affect their overall strategy or aggressive behavior too much. If the specter of the Americans entering into the war is too great a deterrent against Axis aggression, the Axis might find they have not expanded their economies and defensive perimeters enough, or that they haven't sufficiently weakened the other Allies early enough in the game. As a result, the Axis powers might find themselves in a much weaker position once the US does join the war than if they had aggressively pursued a better position - even if that brings the Americans into the war a few turns sooner. It also could create the opportunity for the Commonwealth, France, and the USSR to build up their forces.

However, the Axis cannot simply ignore US Entry. Just as delaying the US ability to Gear Up Production, Pass the War Appropriations Bill, or enter into the war imposes significant penalties on US production, unusual acceleration of these significantly increases the overall Allied production advantage. If the US enters the war too quickly, even if the Axis powers have made substantial gains up until that point, they may find themselves unable to consolidate their positions. The subsequent landslide of American military power then has the potential to crush the unprepared Axis defenses.

Assuming the US player does not provide any hints through communication with the enemy, the Axis players must estimate US entry and tension levels by keeping track of the US Entry Options that are chosen.

The game mechanics of MWiF are slightly different from WiF FE. Instead of showing specific entry markers every time an option is chosen or a war declaration is attempted, the other players are only informed of the die roll and whether it succeeded or not. When a DOW succeeds, the other players are told what the sum of the marker values are in all 4 pools. No other information is provided.

By paying attention to the US Entry Options that are chosen, you can respond to the threat each represents. The Japanese player, for example, must usually begin preparations for the wider Pacific War as soon as (or even before) the US player chooses Option 26 (Relocate Fleet to Pearl Harbor), and (particularly when playing with the optional rules for oil) must be ready to begin the Pacific War shortly after Option 36 (Oil Embargo) is chosen. All of the Axis players must be prepared to either declare war on the US, or to expect an attempted declaration of war made by the US once Option 34 (Pass War Appropriations Bill) is chosen. Timing of the declaration depends on the temperaments of the Axis players, and on the American player's tolerance of risk (namely, the risk of failing at an attempt to declare war).

Allied Players
In some respects, the Allies must take US entry into account to a greater extent than the Axis when planning overall strategy and specific acts of aggression. This is largely because the Allies want the Americans to enter the war sooner rather than later. Or, at the very least, they want as many lent resources and build points as the Americans can send (the more, the better). If the Allies act in an overly aggressive manner early on in the war, it can hinder the US ability to make these things happen by constantly draining markers from the US Entry pools.

When the Allies intend to engage in aggressive behavior, they and the US player should agree on when it will occur so the US player can be prepared for it. For example, if the Allies intend to engage in an anti-Japan campaign early on, perhaps even including a Soviet declaration of war on Japan, the American player would make an exception to the typical initial marker distribution. Instead of placing all three in the Ge/It pool, two might be placed in the Ja pool (although this, along with an Allied set-up intended to pursue an anti-Japan strategy, tends to telegraph the Allied intent).

The penalties for Allied aggression, which tend to be stiffer than those for similar Axis aggression, and the resulting delays in gearing up production and entrance into the war, mean that the Allies must be able to justify their aggressive acts beyond any reasonable doubt. A few examples:
• If the USSR wants to make a land claim, they should arrange it so that denying the claim is very unappealing to the German player.
• If the Allies want to knock over a minor country, such as Portugal or Persia, they must be sure it can be done swiftly and completely, before Axis intervention can gum up the works.
• If the Commonwealth player wants to declare war on Italy, in all likelihood delaying US entry, then the benefits of the surprise impulse and getting the jump on the Italians should outweigh by a substantial margin the risks of being surprised by an Italian declaration of war, which will probably hasten US entry into the war.

This is not to say that the Allies should never engage in aggressive behavior, for often there is much to be gained by it. However, too much aggression very early in the game, without considering the consequences to the overall war effort, can lead to disaster. In 1939, it is better to play on the timid side, at least until the entry pools are built up a bit, so that when you absolutely must do something aggressive, it won't prevent the Americans from ever entering the war. Once you have that safety net, do not let US Entry concerns lead to major mistakes. If a Commonwealth Declaration of War on Italy needs to happen, it needs to happen. In particular, if Italy declared war only on the French, and are getting the Germans involved to help in the Mediterranean while they are swallowing up all of the French colonies, then it is time to act.





Dangun -> "I believe the game is 99.9% done." (8/3/2013 4:13:51 AM)

"Roughly speaking, on January 1st of this year the game was 98% done. Sometime in the spring, it reached 99% (when the code for Supply completed alpha testing and went into beta testing). Since then I’ve been working on the first decimal place, and as I write this I believe the game is 99.9% done."

That is pretty encouraging. No?




Dr. Foo -> RE: "I believe the game is 99.9% done." (8/3/2013 5:37:07 AM)

I'm looking forward to this game. Looks like there is a high learning curve but well worth it. Thanks for all your hard work!




kyle8 -> RE: "I believe the game is 99.9% done." (8/3/2013 8:36:37 PM)

WOW ! 99.9 % finished. That means we only have to wait another two years ! Just kidding




Easo79 -> RE: Proper Place? (8/3/2013 10:56:50 PM)

Thanks, Steve.

Now it seems crystal clear to me.




dan_hnnng -> RE: Proper Place? (8/4/2013 3:53:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

With Windows 7 you can still run DOS programs without too much difficulty. I have no need yet to go to Windows 8 so I have not tried it.

Stay healthy.


I purchased Windows 7 pro for the XP mode. It did not run my software (games)
So I reinstalled XP on a separate partition and now have an option to boot into either one.




bighinvegas -> RE: Proper Place? (8/4/2013 10:15:32 PM)

If the game is 99.9% done does Santa put it under the tree this year?




michaelbaldur -> RE: Proper Place? (8/5/2013 6:19:03 AM)

the war is always over next Christmas.

we just need a market garden




Easo79 -> RE: Proper Place? (8/5/2013 4:58:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bighinvegas

If the game is 99.9% done does Santa put it under the tree this year?


I hope that for September, 1st, 2014 (75 years after...) I can begin my task of converting WiF into a Real-Time Strategy game. 2 months per turn seem OK. If the war goes as scheduled, we might have MacArthur speaking words of wisdom in Tokyo Bay by September 2020...




Neilster -> RE: Proper Place? (8/5/2013 7:00:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Easo79

quote:

ORIGINAL: bighinvegas

If the game is 99.9% done does Santa put it under the tree this year?


I hope that for September, 1st, 2014 (75 years after...) I can begin my task of converting WiF into a Real-Time Strategy game. 2 months per turn seem OK. If the war goes as scheduled, we might have MacArthur speaking words of wisdom in Tokyo Bay by September 2020...

My friend and I had a Global War game set up in a spare room but we had so little time to play it that it was becoming a real-time wargame. Eventually my girlfriend put her foot down and forced an armistice.

"Yes dear" [;)]

Cheers, Neilster

[image]local://upfiles/10515/BC6EE50DF56643E9A1AF002F6EAB1A01.jpg[/image]




VManteuffel -> RE: Proper Place? (8/10/2013 10:44:11 PM)

I hope to see this game for Christmas. I wait for so long now [:)]
Thx for your great job man. We're proud of you !




Von Roon -> RE: Proper Place? (8/13/2013 4:43:19 AM)

quote:

As a footnote, this is the 8th anniversary of my monthly status reports on MWIF. By another accounting, I am starting my ~99th month of work on the game.


I've been reading the status reports on and off for about 4 years. I really appreciate all this hard work you're doing. I've always wanted to play this game but the space and $$ were never right. I owned a copy in the 1980s and put off all my friends by bugging them to try it out! When you're done, I can finally play it. I just hope you're not too tired to go ahead with the AI module! Thanks again.




Old_Warrior -> RE: Proper Place? (8/15/2013 2:32:57 PM)

The lesson I got from this game is this: If you plan on doing your own computer game you had better get it done so that it fits into the existing MS operating system OR the one that comes just after it.

Has this game been tested on Windows 8? Some of us would like to hear about that.

The other lesson is: if you put together a team and the game is not out within three years or less you had better have guys waiting in the wings to help out. I am not sure if folks have dropped that were key personnel on this project but to ask someone to stick with it as long as this one has been on the burner (8 years based on this thread) you had either have to have been mentally unbalanced or smoking pot! [:D]




Neilster -> RE: Proper Place? (8/15/2013 2:50:01 PM)

The project is being done by Steve, with help on specific things by a few others. Others have been playtesting.

Cheers, Neilster




Numdydar -> RE: Proper Place? (8/15/2013 3:47:46 PM)

If that is really your girlfriend, why are you spending time posting here [:)]




Neilster -> RE: Proper Place? (8/15/2013 5:33:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

If that is really your girlfriend, why are you spending time posting here [:)]

She was my girlfriend back when I was playing cardboard WiF in the early 90s. Maybe I would have gotten more WiF done if she wasn't [;)]

Lovely girl...we're still friends and she doesn't look much different. She took after Aunty Bronnie, and not her Mum, as it turns out [:D]

She's a doctor in Sydney now. I really screwed that one up eh? [8|]

Mind you; there have been a few unofficial...err...reunions [;)]

Cheers, Neilster




Page: <<   < prev  109 110 [111] 112 113   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.84375