quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Not a lot of progress on the land units this past month.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

"Air unit writeups are done! Not a lot of progress on the naval and land units this past month."

Steve

Just to let you know - there has been lots of progress on the CW naval units over the last few weeks. I have decided though not to send them piecemeal as I have found that as soon as I send a "final" write-up to you, I find a new piece of info that I should have included - or worse still a typo or bad grammar [:@]. This waste`s your time and loses me what little credibility I had in the first place [:(]

Where possible, there is a slightly more detailed description of famous battles and operations within each write up. That should make (I hope!) for a more interesting read.  

I have therefore been continuing the process of finalising the draft write-ups - but will only send them over when all are done. I can then move onto the Submarines, ASW, Transports and Amphs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

With version 9.01 I presented my solution to the problem of the Start New Game screen being too complex. That form has 5 sections, of irregular sizes, pieced together to fill out the entire screen. Each section has a different color/theme, taken from the major power themes used in the program. While this demarcates the separate sections, it does mean that the overall screen is rather complex at first viewing. To improve that first impression, and to provide better structure for the order in which the sections are to be completed, I thought of a clever solution. Instead of numbering the sections, which I had done previously, I simply add them to the blank screen one at a time.

This means that the player only sees section 1 when the Start New Game screen is first shown. After he completes section 1, section 2 appears. After he completes section 2, section 3 appears, and so on. The previous sections remain displayed on the screen so the player can see his previous decisions and he has the option of going back and changing them if he wants to. By filling out the screen one section at a time, the player is forced to complete them in order, can easily see what he is suppose to do next, and gets a better understanding of the process. Meanwhile, he has immediate access to information on the decisions he has already made and can modify them freely. I really prefer this design to the alternative of having a series of forms/screens which the player navigates to set up a new game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

With version 9.01 I presented my solution to the problem of the Start New Game screen being too complex. That form has 5 sections, of irregular sizes, pieced together to fill out the entire screen. Each section has a different color/theme, taken from the major power themes used in the program. While this demarcates the separate sections, it does mean that the overall screen is rather complex at first viewing. To improve that first impression, and to provide better structure for the order in which the sections are to be completed, I thought of a clever solution. Instead of numbering the sections, which I had done previously, I simply add them to the blank screen one at a time.

This means that the player only sees section 1 when the Start New Game screen is first shown. After he completes section 1, section 2 appears. After he completes section 2, section 3 appears, and so on. The previous sections remain displayed on the screen so the player can see his previous decisions and he has the option of going back and changing them if he wants to. By filling out the screen one section at a time, the player is forced to complete them in order, can easily see what he is suppose to do next, and gets a better understanding of the process. Meanwhile, he has immediate access to information on the decisions he has already made and can modify them freely. I really prefer this design to the alternative of having a series of forms/screens which the player navigates to set up a new game.

Brilliant!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gendarme

Again, I tip my hat to the game designer, it's truly amazing how much work is going into this project.  I'm not overly anxious for the game to be released because from what it sounds like, it's going to be a phenomenal game to play on computer, so much richer than any other strategy game currently out there for PC.  And that is what's sustaining us players waiting out here. 

However, I am still suffering from tunnel vision with regards to printed maps (which is not my fault, since they look so damn good).  Would it help Matrix along if they could get a prospective list of buyers for paper maps, that way they can gauge how many they will be sure of selling?  Maybe post something over at the wif list on yahoo also?

I realize there are more pressing issues in developing MWif, but there are those of us who would shell out some $$$ now for the maps before the game is even released.

Anthony DeChristopher

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gendarme

Again, I tip my hat to the game designer, it's truly amazing how much work is going into this project.  I'm not overly anxious for the game to be released because from what it sounds like, it's going to be a phenomenal game to play on computer, so much richer than any other strategy game currently out there for PC.  And that is what's sustaining us players waiting out here. 

However, I am still suffering from tunnel vision with regards to printed maps (which is not my fault, since they look so damn good).  Would it help Matrix along if they could get a prospective list of buyers for paper maps, that way they can gauge how many they will be sure of selling?  Maybe post something over at the wif list on yahoo also?

I realize there are more pressing issues in developing MWif, but there are those of us who would shell out some $$$ now for the maps before the game is even released.

Anthony DeChristopher

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ohio Jones

Sorry, I'm sure this is available somewhere in the maps thread, but what are the dimensions on the full map sheets?  I have a few printer contacts, I can see if I can get a couple of production estimates, along with cost breaks based on numbers printed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I am looking at 6 map segments: 3 north and 3 south, with each north segment directly over a south segment. Each segment is the same size: 123 hexes wide by 100 high. The full map is 360 wide by 195 high so this allows for a full hex border at the top and bottom and 3 hexes of overlap for each north & south pair. There is a 3 hex overlap for the east-west connections, even if you wrap them around a cylinder. The top and bottom border allows for the necessary half hex of interlocking and a half hex of black edging.

The WIFFE printed maps are .6 inches in height, which measures the nested height, not the full height of a hex. They are 11/16 of an inch wide (no interlocking east-west).

I assume we want the hexes a comparable size to that of the printed version so the game can be played thereon.

Therefore, each segment is 5 feet high by 7 feet wide (60 inches by 84.56 inches).

We want the material to be able to withstand modest use yet be thin enough that magnetic counters can be used if the map is mounted on a metallic background (e.g., sheet metal on a wall). Lamination has been mentioned as one possibility, a mylar equivalent as another. Actually, my only serious concern is that the material not be textured since the level of detail in each hex is going to be just under 200 pixels per inch. Some of the textured material I have seen would mess up the image details.

quote:

ORIGINAL: panzers

I have the complete 5th edition and I can always refer to my boxed game and when it is computer related

quote:

ORIGINAL: panzers

I have a question about the manual. I am a big fan of paper manuals, But what about some of us that have the boxed copy wirth all the rules. Are we going to be required to pay for the cost of the manual when we can just look at the pdf files.
I have the complete 5th edition and I can always refer to my boxed game and when it is computer related, I can just go to the file. It sounds awfully expensive to ship such a game with all that weight on it.
Just curious. It's certainly not gonna stop me from buying the game, but I am quite certain, many of us have the copy of the game and will just be following the sequence of event's on our boxed copy

quote:

ORIGINAL: panzers

I have a question about the manual. I am a big fan of paper manuals, But what about some of us that have the boxed copy wirth all the rules. Are we going to be required to pay for the cost of the manual when we can just look at the pdf files.
I have the complete 5th edition and I can always refer to my boxed game and when it is computer related, I can just go to the file. It sounds awfully expensive to ship such a game with all that weight on it.
Just curious. It's certainly not gonna stop me from buying the game, but I am quite certain, many of us have the copy of the game and will just be following the sequence of event's on our boxed copy

quote:

ORIGINAL: panzers

Is the FE the one with America sflame? because I never played the america aflame version. Someone mentioned earlier that after 5th edition, it started to get out of control with all the added extra bells and whistles. I, myself began ro see that when they released the FE, the one with America aflame, at least I think it's the one with America aflame. So now I'm worried I am nt going to just pick up from what I have previously known.
because I had heard that there were numerous changes in that edition(I saw rhe rules update manual. It looks from the naked eye, like a completely different game).

quote:

ORIGINAL: panzers

Is the FE the one with America sflame? because I never played the america aflame version. Someone mentioned earlier that after 5th edition, it started to get out of control with all the added extra bells and whistles. I, myself began ro see that when they released the FE, the one with America aflame, at least I think it's the one with America aflame. So now I'm worried I am nt going to just pick up from what I have previously known.
because I had heard that there were numerous changes in that edition(I saw rhe rules update manual. It looks from the naked eye, like a completely different game).

quote:

ORIGINAL:  Shannon V. OKeets
Most of the ADG add-ons are optional rules in MWIF: 80 optional rules (I just eliminated one of them yesterday).  There is a separate thread about the optional rules - with gruesome details if you are interested.[>:]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edfactor

quote:

ORIGINAL:  Shannon V. OKeets
Most of the ADG add-ons are optional rules in MWIF: 80 optional rules (I just eliminated one of them yesterday).  There is a separate thread about the optional rules - with gruesome details if you are interested.[>:]

Hmm i couldnt find it - but i would be interested in looking at it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


MWIF: 80 optional rules (I just eliminated one of them yesterday).  There is a separate thread about the optional rules - with gruesome details if you are interested.[>:]

The thread is on page four of the list of threads in MWIF, near the bottom, called "optional rules".

quote:

ORIGINAL: peskpesk

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


MWIF: 80 optional rules (I just eliminated one of them yesterday).  There is a separate thread about the optional rules - with gruesome details if you are interested.[>:]

The thread is on page four of the list of threads in MWIF, near the bottom, called "optional rules".

Which optional rule was eliminated?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Unrestricted Setup. It was something I inherited from CWIF, but was never a part of RAW.

There were many problems during beta testing where this optional rule conflicted with other standard RAW rules. How to resolve them became too complex. And in the final analysis, what this rule might add to the value of the game was questionable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: peskpesk

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


MWIF: 80 optional rules (I just eliminated one of them yesterday).  There is a separate thread about the optional rules - with gruesome details if you are interested.[>:]

The thread is on page four of the list of threads in MWIF, near the bottom, called "optional rules".

Which optional rule was eliminated?

Unrestricted Setup. It was something I inherited from CWIF, but was never a part of RAW.

There were many problems during beta testing where this optional rule conflicted with other standard RAW rules. How to resolve them became too complex. And in the final analysis, what this rule might add to the value of the game was questionable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: peskpesk
Option 80 Addition – Landbased carrier planes
A carrier plan which was not based on a CV or CVL at the start of the mission, has all it ratings reduced by one.

Ex a CW TBF-3(1946) 6-5-2-1 becomes a 5-4-1-*.

Reason: These units it's much smaller than all regular size. They get their relatively high values due to the mobility of the CV and surprising appearance of cv planes. Also it's so very doubt full to see all Japanese carries planes land based in China and see the navy striped of all planes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: peskpesk
Option 80 Addition – Unescorted bombers
All bombers which are unescorted by any fighter has its Air to Air rating halved rounded up when it shots back at the intercepting fighter. It does not affect the rating when the fighter shots at the bomber. To count as unescorted the bomber must have been unescorted all the way to the target.
Ex It CR-42 Falco(1939) 4-*-*-* intercepts the CW MK IV (Blenhem(1939) 3-1-2-1. When the Italian fighter attacks it rolls on the +1 table, but then the CW bomber attacks back it rolls on –2 table, not the –1 table.
Reason :I fell that many WIF player gambles to easy with the bombers sending them on missions where they are thinking like this "Hay! I don't need to build so many fighters now, I got at lease 30%+ chance to get through and my bomber is almost as likely to shoot down his fighter as he is to shoot down me. Besides if he does not intercept I get +1 one on my attack roll". Historically very few missions were taken without adequate fighter protection.

quote:

ORIGINAL: peskpesk

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: peskpesk

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


MWIF: 80 optional rules (I just eliminated one of them yesterday).  There is a separate thread about the optional rules - with gruesome details if you are interested.[>:]

The thread is on page four of the list of threads in MWIF, near the bottom, called "optional rules".

Which optional rule was eliminated?

Unrestricted Setup. It was something I inherited from CWIF, but was never a part of RAW.

There were many problems during beta testing where this optional rule conflicted with other standard RAW rules. How to resolve them became too complex. And in the final analysis, what this rule might add to the value of the game was questionable.

Ahh so this means we have a ompening in the optional rules list [;)] [:D]

Well I like to promote mine! [:D]

Option 80 Addition – Unescorted bombers
All bombers which are unescorted by any fighter has its Air to Air rating halved rounded up when it shots back at the intercepting fighter. It does not affect the rating when the fighter shots at the bomber. To count as unescorted the bomber must have been unescorted all the way to the target.
Ex It CR-42 Falco(1939) 4-*-*-* intercepts the CW MK IV (Blenhem(1939) 3-1-2-1. When the Italian fighter attacks it rolls on the +1 table, but then the CW bomber attacks back it rolls on –2 table, not the –1 table.
Reason :I fell that many WIF player gambles to easy with the bombers sending them on missions where they are thinking like this "Hay! I don't need to build so many fighters now, I got at lease 30%+ chance to get through and my bomber is almost as likely to shoot down his fighter as he is to shoot down me. Besides if he does not intercept I get +1 one on my attack roll". Historically very few missions were taken without adequate fighter protection.

Option 80 Addition – Landbased carrier planes
A carrier plan which was not based on a CV or CVL at the start of the mission, has all it ratings reduced by one.

Ex a CW TBF-3(1946) 6-5-2-1 becomes a 5-4-1-*.

Reason: These units it's much smaller than all regular size. They get their relatively high values due to the mobility of the CV and surprising appearance of cv planes. Also it's so very doubt full to see all Japanese carries planes land based in China and see the navy striped of all planes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shadowdale1

Hi Shannon

I have being playing WIF since 1991 and I would like to know when computer will be release.
The group I'm in have game going.

Wayne
From Australia