RE: When? (Full Version)

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



Message


yvesp -> RE: When? (10/1/2009 9:45:23 AM)

Forum,i,n :place

NEUTRAL

SINGULAR
forum
forum
forum
fori
foro
foro

PLURAL
fora
fora
fora
fororum
foris
foris





Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: When? (10/1/2009 9:52:04 AM)

October 1, 2009 Status Report for Matrix Games’ MWIF Forum

I. Project Management
I still don’t know how long it will take me to fix all the bugs. The beta testers discover bugs, report them to me (oftentimes with saved games so I can reproduce them), I recreate the problem, fault isolate the bug, fix the code, and then recreate the situation to make sure the bug is actually fixed.

In September I focused 90% of my time on fixing bugs, and that’s what I’ll be doing in October too.

Communications
I had a long conversation with David Heath and Erik Rutins. All of us want MWIF to be bug-free (to the best of our knowledge) before release.

Nothing new from Mike (Players Manual), Jim (sound effects), and Dave (music).

I monitored all the threads in the MWIF World in Flames forum daily and uploaded versions 2.01.00, 2.01.01, 2.01.02, and 2.01.04 for the beta testers. Version 2.01.03 was used by me and the beta testers never saw it.

Orm continued to post his after-action-reports on Barbarossa.

Patrice continued converting text from the Players Manual into context sensitive help for the forms.

Alain (Caquineur) continued his quest to find all the things that I have done wrong. Regrettably what he finds is wrong and needs to be corrected. This past month he read through the picture and text tutorials (125 pages) and found several dozen typos and the like.

Greg has started reading through the draft of Section 8 of the Players Manual and found several errors I have fixed (he’s on page 40 of 150).

Rob Jenkins continues to do new naval unit writeups every week.

Alain sent me an updated version of the Land Unit writeups, which contained new contributions from Adam and David Hughes.

Peter Skoglund wrapped up the convoy setups for all the major powers for the Global War scenario.

No communications with Harry Rowland or Chris Marinacci.

Hardware and Software Development Tools
I have not installed ThemeEngine July/2007.

II. Sequence of Play
Beta Testing
I uploaded four new versions for the beta testers this month, which met my goal of one a week.

Version 2.01.00 (26 changes): added 6 more slots for context sensitive help, fixed a bug where some reinforcements specified in the setup data arrived 1 year late, added a dozen checks in various places for invalid indices (e.g., no unit selected), fixed bugs in restoring games, Flyouts, foreign troop commitment, using oil (when none is available), and improved the main form so the current phase of the game stands out from all the other information shown there.

Version 2.01.01 (29 changes) was mostly to: fix bugs in naval combat, ground support interception, claiming the Baltic States, and Chinese air missions, enable saving games during anti-aircraft fire, improve the information in the partisan table to more clearly explain what is in each column, add help buttons to the MapViews and Screen Layouts lists (the beta testers had many questions about these forms so context sensitive help is important), add help messages to the sequence of play form so clicking on any of the 152 phase/subphase/et al labels displays context sensitive help for that phase/et al. I improved the air-to-air combat process so it is smoother and less confusing to both new and experienced players, and added an MWIF form to display the air-to-air combat results table. I eliminated the ‘phase’ pDestroyUnits from the code. In it place is the New Owner form which appears during conquest when naval units need to be assigned to a new major power. I also fixed a bug so French Indo-China and Madagascar can be aligned by Japan.

Version 2.01.02 (23 changes) added new code so major ports can now be captured (which damages them and makes them minor ports until repaired). This version fixed bugs in naval combat declaration, producing units where the unit type has units with different costs (e.g., repairing ships), overrunning naval units that had nowhere to rebase (e.g., when iced-in), anti-aircraft fire by naval units at sea, several problems with the New Owner form, and forced rebase digressions. Most visible were the changes to the Victory form which now shows the status of all 67 objective hexes - at any time during play.

Version 2.01.03 was never released to the beta testers and just used by me.

Version 2.01.04 (21 changes) enabled sorting the objective hexes in the victory form, added 3 more combat results table forms (naval, anti-aircraft, and ASW), improved the land combat CRT so it matches all the others, and added a new form for restoring games from within an existing game (the opening screen provided information on the saved game prior to restoring it - which I cloned for the new form). There were also several other changes related to the optional rules Convoys in Flames, Amphibious Units, and SCS transport. Some of the bug fixes were to land combat resolution (units both shattered & destroyed), saving games during land combat resolution, and several cosmetic bugs in the Scrap Units form. The major changes with this version were the addition of new code for the Surrender phase (CWIF did not include that phase) and the Liberation phase (where the rules had changed since the CWIF code was written).

Test Script/Plan
One of the beta testers started using the scripts. I am not sure how that is working out.

Game Engine Redesign
Nothing new on rewriting the supply routines.

Units, Map, and Scenarios
Rob continues to generate new naval unit writeups and send me periodic updates of the master file. Alain sent me his current master copy of the land unit writeups, including some new ones from Adam and David Hughes. David is new to the team and is writing very informed descriptions of the Commonwealth units (ask him about his book).

Optional Rules
I checked the code for SCS Transport and Amphibious Units, which now looks ok (there were some changes to the rules since CWIF was coded). I also worked on ASW escorts, ASW carriers, and the special subs (e.g., snorkel).

Saved Games
There are some places in the sequence of play where the player is permitted to save a game but the saved game can not be restored. And sometime the reverse is true, where the program prohibits saving a save, although if it were saved, it could be restored. I’ll go through all this systematically someday, but with 150+ forms and 150+ phases/subphase/et al, nailing this down perfectly is more than a few minutes work. Most of this relates to die rolls, where I do not want the player to just keep cycling through die rolls until he gets one he likes.

III. Player Interface
The New Owner form had a dozen or so bugs, which is about par for the course. As mentioned above, I added 4 new forms for combat results: air-to-air, anti-aircraft, ASW, and naval combat. There was also a new form for restoring saved games from within an existing game. I spent some time running the various combat phases looking for ways to improve how they functioned. Some needed major improvements but they are looking much better now.

I made a serious effort to transform the Victory form from a simple summary into a source of information on where the objective hexes are and who controls what. For new players this will be essential since not everyone knows where Diego Suarez and Taihoku are. It seemed silly for a game of this complexity to not have a decent presentation of the victory conditions.

I have been focusing on fixing the combat processes: some bugs, but equally important is the smoothness of the player interface and providing feedback to the player on what is happening. These all go hand-in-hand. A spiffier form, with carefully chosen wording and presentation of prompts and warnings, plus close attention to the use of keystrokes and mouse clicks to input decisions, makes for less confusion. Just in case, there is immediate access to context sensitive help on every form.

As of today there are 156 slots for context sensitive help for forms, and ~120 of them have completed text messages. There is a different set of help messages for all the 150+ phases et al - all of the help messages are written for these. That’s over 300 context sensitive help messages.

IV. NetPlay
Nothing new.

V. PBEM
Nothing new.

VI. AI Opponent
Peter finished creating and posting alternate convoy setups for each of the major powers.

Ian Wilson (PhD in AI) strongly recommended creating an abstract layer to the MWIF geography, so planning and decision making do not have to be done at the hex level. I had expected to do something along those lines but after Ian’s suggestion, and having worked with Peter on setting up units in Spain and France, my ideas kind of jelled. The result is a 4 level breakdown of the world map: (1) global, (2) theater of operations, (3) area of operations, and (4) sea area groups/land regions. These are hierarchical (1 down to 4), mutually exclusive and exhaustive for all 70,200 hexes.

Patrice has started work on the first cut at this and I spent a day or so digging down into the details too. Each geographical component will have one or more decision makers assigned by the AI Opponent. Now many of these ‘areas’ will be irrelevant to most, if not all, of the major powers. For example, who cares about the Southern Ocean or Hudson Bay (in MWIF)? And Italy’s interest in the Pacific is comparable to China’s interest in the Atlantic - none whatsoever for both.

The benefit for the AIO design is that when a decision needs to be made, (e.g., which naval units to include in a moving stack?), then the AIO has a well define frame of reference for making that decision. On land, this enables the creation of fall-back positions in Russia and China that include a group of hexes. Another gain is that sea area pipelines will be composed of a series SAGs.

VII. Documentation
I got an email from Mike about him returning to editing the Players Manual, but I heard nothing more after my reply.

I made many changes to the Players Manual Section 8. In particular, I reviewed and revised all the screen shots and their accompanying text. In the process of going through these I came upon several instances where the form was outdated in terms of ‘style’. I brought those up-to-date. Right now I have 10 forms which need coding changes, 14 that need screen shots, and 11 which need revised text.

Nothing new on Section 6, PBEM and NetPlay forms.

VIII. Learning Aids (tutorials, training video, embedded help text)
Nothing new on the 2 remaining chapters of the training video: naval movement/combat and production.

IX. Glitz (historical video, sound effects, music, historical unit write-ups)
To the best of my knowledge, the currently active authors for the unit writeups are Robert, Alain, Adam, and David. I am waiting on the sound effects from Jim and the music from Dave.

I did some work on printing out the map. Mostly this was motivated by my need to have something I can examine while figuring out strategic, operational, and tactical decision making for the AIO. Along the way I generated a printed copy that had hexes large enough to hold the counters from WIF FE. To do that I increased the zoom level to maximum (8), took a screen shot, and then increased the magnification of the captured image by 50%. The quality of the output looked great on my not-very-expensive printer, but you would need a lot of paper for the full map. I was taking the screen shots using 300 dpi TIF.

X. Marketing
Andy Johnson says he will transfer ownership of the MWIF fan site he started to set up before his new job prohibited him from working on it. If anyone is interested, just send me an email or Personal Message (PM).

Remaining Tasks

I Tasks requiring a small number of hours

1. Historical video
Integrate these into the program (randomizing when they are shown).

2. Sound effects
Awaiting Jim’s complete set of sound effects, after which I will integrate them into the program.

3. Music
Awaiting Dave’s complete set of music, after which I will integrate them into the program.

4. Unit writeups
I simply replace old master files with new ones when Rob and Alain send me updates.

5. Players Manual
9 of 11 sections are done.

6. Context sensitive help
I need to write a few lines for ~50 minor forms that pop up during play. For example, there is a special form for choosing which of a group of bombers to clear through during air-to-air combat. I also need to write text for the new form I created last month.

7. Auxiliary files
These are starter sets for new players so they can jump right into playing the game without having to make a lot of preparatory decisions. I need to round out my collection.

8. Tutorials and training video
The Training Video is 80% done. There are still some lingering bugs in naval combat which need to be fixed before I can record the training video on that topic. The same is true of production.

9. Player Interface
With the exception of the Standing Order forms for PBEM, I have finished the forms.

II Tasks requiring a medium number of hours

10. Optional Rules
For the optional rules that I want to finish, I need to fix bugs and bring them up-to-date with rules changes since 2003.

11. PBEM
The technical task of sending and receiving emails from within the program hasn’t been coded. Work on the standalone program (running on a third party computer) to generate random numbers hasn’t begun. The large task here concerns the Standing Orders: defining and instantiating internal variables, then displaying them in the forms so players can review and revise them.

III Tasks requiring a large number of hours

12. Sequence of Play
There are still bugs related to the sequence of play, though that number keeps dropping every week.

13. NetPlay
There isn’t a lot to do directly related to NetPlay, but the underlying performance of the program in generating Game Record Log Entries has to be perfect. That’s because the GRLs are sent to each computer in a networked game to keep them up-to-date with the decisions of all players. I need to instantiate, with actual data, the form used to monitor internet communications while a game is in progress.

14. AI Opponent
Presently I am looking at the geographical breakdown of the map. Once that is done, I will make a quick realignment of the decision making assignments for each decision maker. This will simplify converting the AIO decision making that I have written from plain text into LAIO rules. I need to finish writing the parser. Which then leaves the task of calibrating the rules’ performance so the AIO plays well.





Neilster -> RE: When? (10/1/2009 5:24:10 PM)

Like the 1970s poster with the kitten says...

"Hang in there" [;)]

Cheers, Neilster




Jagdtiger14 -> RE: When? (10/1/2009 7:42:26 PM)

RAW7 are the Rules As Written that we are playing now and what MWiF is based on. Factory in Flames is not part of RAW7.

I'm not sure what will all be in RAW8. Personally Its my opinion that SOME of the new versions and kits have improved the game. I think oil rules can still be improved, but I prefer to play with oil rather than without. Counter density becomes too great without oil.

As for Factory in Flames...that was a product put out with little or no play testing. Our group is currently playing it and have caught many errors and problems. However, the basic idea behind it is a good one, and if fine tuned can be incredibly good. A simplified version is coming out: "Simple Factory in Flames". The worst part of Factory in Flames is USSR production...too low without the city mods. I like the idea of USSR recovering 50% of destroyed units, but only M/J'41.

I think Steve already mentioned Factory in Flames will not be in MWiF product one...however, RAW8 is not Factory in Flames. If RAW8 comes out to the WiF community well before the MWiF release, and also depending on what is within RAW8, MWiF could find itself an obsolete game that the regular WiF community may become less interested in...something Matrix should pay attention to, and probably have discussions about with Harry/ADG.

C
PS: Bad Azana, bad!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

I don't know exactly the contents of RAW7 but I have noticed that the version of the game does not use the FiF options (I believe), including the three-dice combat table.

I hope the new RAW is not implemented if it can delay the game more time. Besides, from some years to now, it is my opinion that the new versions of WIF are worsening the game, like the oil rules (which I never use) , the mentioned combat table the recovery of 50% of the destroyed (land) units in national territory...

So I hope the game build will not be delayed to include (what in my opinion are) new rules that make the game worse.







paulderynck -> RE: When? (10/1/2009 7:45:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

Quick question:

Long time since I studied a bit of latin, but isn't the plural of Forum, Fori not Fora?

Not trying to show off, just make sure on how it really was in latin or if in English they have decided to do it otherwise. [:)]

As I recall (from 1962!) um => a, us => i, and a => ae. Much dust and many cobwebs covered those brain cells.

Fora is correct in Canadian. It ends with an 'a'.




micheljq -> RE: When? (10/1/2009 8:39:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

I think Steve already mentioned Factory in Flames will not be in MWiF product one...however, RAW8 is not Factory in Flames. If RAW8 comes out to the WiF community well before the MWiF release, and also depending on what is within RAW8, MWiF could find itself an obsolete game that the regular WiF community may become less interested in...something Matrix should pay attention to, and probably have discussions about with Harry/ADG.



Personally if you want my opinion, probably it is already too late to adjust MWiF to fit with RAW8, supposing RAW8 will be released soon, or ever. It will need to be playtested anyway. MWiF based on RAW7 is fine with me a lot, even if released in late 2010. [:)]




MajorDude -> RE: When? (10/1/2009 10:28:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

Quick question:

Long time since I studied a bit of latin, but isn't the plural of Forum, Fori not Fora?

Not trying to show off, just make sure on how it really was in latin or if in English they have decided to do it otherwise. [:)]

As I recall (from 1962!) um => a, us => i, and a => ae. Much dust and many cobwebs covered those brain cells.

Fora is correct in Canadian. It ends with an 'a'.



Noun: fora

Irregular plural of forum.

Usage notes: The English plural forums is preferred to the Latin plural fora in normal English usage.

Ref: Modern English Usage, 2nd Edition, ed. Sir Ernest Gowers, Oxford 1968 (article '-um', p.658).




Jagdtiger14 -> RE: When? (10/1/2009 11:37:29 PM)

I have no idea what will be in RAW8...for all I know it might not be anything significant...just updates, clarifications, etc...on that line(no need to play test, etc...), and no threat to MWiF. I do have it on good authority that RAW8 is on the way, I'll try to find out what it consists of next Wednesday.
C

quote:

ORIGINAL: micheljq

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

I think Steve already mentioned Factory in Flames will not be in MWiF product one...however, RAW8 is not Factory in Flames. If RAW8 comes out to the WiF community well before the MWiF release, and also depending on what is within RAW8, MWiF could find itself an obsolete game that the regular WiF community may become less interested in...something Matrix should pay attention to, and probably have discussions about with Harry/ADG.



Personally if you want my opinion, probably it is already too late to adjust MWiF to fit with RAW8, supposing RAW8 will be released soon, or ever. It will need to be playtested anyway. MWiF based on RAW7 is fine with me a lot, even if released in late 2010. [:)]





Joseignacio -> RE: When? (10/2/2009 7:57:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: yvesp

Forum,i,n :place

NEUTRAL

SINGULAR
forum
forum
forum
fori
foro
foro

PLURAL
fora
fora
fora
fororum
foris
foris




Woooops, it seems the two years that i took latin as a subject completely vanquished already (as for this language).[:o] This is basic, declinations, for God's sake!

Edit: Thanks all.




Joseignacio -> RE: When? (10/2/2009 8:06:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

...
C
PS: Bad Azana, bad!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

I don't know exactly ... worse.







Thanks for the info about RAW7 and I am glad to see someone else is critical with some of the latests versions of the game (although it keeps on being the best, of course :D ) .

As for Azaña, I don't know what you mean, but it was the only Republican Spain HQ, so...




Kronans -> RE: When? (10/2/2009 8:51:08 AM)

one question are ther only one that is programing the game?




Joseignacio -> RE: When? (10/2/2009 9:01:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kronans

one question are ther only one that is programing the game?


Strictly programming, yes. Although there is a lot of people doing collateral work.

However, this is very usual in computer games, one or two persons carry most or all the programming work.




Caquineur -> RE: When? (10/2/2009 11:59:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
October 1, 2009 Status Report for Matrix Games’ MWIF Forum
I. Project Management
I had a long conversation with David Heath and Erik Rutins. All of us want MWIF to be bug-free (to the best of our knowledge) before release.


Thanks for that - apart from the fact that releasing a game with a lot of bugs would be (IMO) killing the hen who lays golden eggs (and a shame considering the work done so far), it shows a commitment to the customers that is much appreciated

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Alain (Caquineur) continued his quest to find all the things that I have done wrong. Regrettably what he finds is wrong and needs to be corrected. This past month he read through the picture and text tutorials (125 pages) and found several dozen typos and the like.


"his quest to find all the things that I have done wrong" [:D] Nothing personal here ! [:'(]
In fact, as I'm a beginner in WiF, I read everything I can, carefully (from data files to tutorials), and I simply note everything that doesn't seem right - but I can only do so because the reading material itself, even though with errors, is interesting (and it's an understatement)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Alain sent me an updated version of the Land Unit writeups, which contained new contributions from Adam and David Hughes.


It contained only the contributions from Adam. I hadn't had time to include David's.
(That's what I meant when I said "I haven't included David's additions yet." in my mail)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
IX. Glitz (historical video, sound effects, music, historical unit write-ups)
To the best of my knowledge, the currently active authors for the unit writeups are Robert, Alain, Adam, and David. I am waiting on the sound effects from Jim and the music from Dave.
...


Thanks for the credit about writing write-ups for me, but it's undeserved, as I didn't write any of them (I'm more on the "find all the wrong things" part of the business [;)])

Alain

Edit : spelling mistake(s)




Jagdtiger14 -> RE: When? (10/2/2009 6:20:28 PM)

Come to think of it...maybe playing without oil would not be too bad with MWiF since counter density would be less with the map expansions esp. Asian hexes.

As for Azana...I'm an adrent anti-leftist;-)...which unfortunately happened to be both sides in in that civil war. I suppose as the leader of the Republican side Azana should have an HQ...I'm not sure the 2 re-org value is deserving in light of the result he had. I dont think he re-orged anything and was constantly on the run?

C

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio


Thanks for the info about RAW7 and I am glad to see someone else is critical with some of the latests versions of the game (although it keeps on being the best, of course :D ) .

As for Azaña, I don't know what you mean, but it was the only Republican Spain HQ, so...





brian brian -> RE: When? (10/2/2009 7:04:08 PM)

I haven't tried Factories in Flames and even if rules holes/questions/problems came out in the finished version, I would have to say that it was tested and worked on in draft versions for several years before it came out. I saw one of the very first drafts a long time ago. One of the problems with WiF I think is that the English language works just slightly differently all around the world and what is clear to a native English rules writer in one country comes out a little fuzzy somewhere else. Also anyone writing a wargame rule already knows their intent but it takes a lot of people reading and using the same rules language to uncover all the possible permutations in the game, so some things will never come to attention until the great mass of players give it a try.




nanorider426 -> RE: When? (10/3/2009 12:34:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kc_chiefs

Name me one program that anyone has written that didn't have some error in it.



MINESWEEPER! [sm=00000280.gif]

Sorry! I couldn't resist the temptation. [8|]

Let's all join in the old coder's anthem...ahem...

99 little bugs in the code
99 bugs in the code
fix one bug
compile it again
101 little bugs in the code

> (Repeat until BUGS = 0)

Jokes aside, thank you so much for all your work Steve. Also thank you for the monthly updates. It's been said before but I'll gladly say it again, it's remarkable that you post these reports in the forum for the community to read. It's one of the most userfriendly and overall nice things that I've ever seen a game company do for it's consumers (or fanbase). It's always exciting to read them and look for changes and completed topics. Kudos for that! [:)]

...and as always : [&o] Keep up the good work!

Cheers

Edit: Oh yes, I finally gave up on the Danish translation. I've asked those of my friends who might have shown some interest in the endevour but those I asked were not terribly interested, so that kind of settles it. To further compound it my job just got a bit more taxing recently, so I simply don't have the time to do it anyway. Would have been fun though.




Jagdtiger14 -> RE: When? (10/3/2009 6:01:37 PM)

I find it hard to believe that any group having play tested Factory in Flames did not notice the production problem with USSR. Once our group started playing it(after it came out in the annual), we spoted a bunch of problems and questions...all of which were addressed, and then one of our group who happens to be on the rules committee developed "Simple Factory in Flames" which will now replace regular Factory in Flames.
C

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I haven't tried Factories in Flames and even if rules holes/questions/problems came out in the finished version, I would have to say that it was tested and worked on in draft versions for several years before it came out. I saw one of the very first drafts a long time ago. One of the problems with WiF I think is that the English language works just slightly differently all around the world and what is clear to a native English rules writer in one country comes out a little fuzzy somewhere else. Also anyone writing a wargame rule already knows their intent but it takes a lot of people reading and using the same rules language to uncover all the possible permutations in the game, so some things will never come to attention until the great mass of players give it a try.





monkla -> RE: When? (10/4/2009 12:50:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

I find it hard to believe that any group having play tested Factory in Flames did not notice the production problem with USSR. Once our group started playing it(after it came out in the annual), we spoted a bunch of problems and questions...all of which were addressed, and then one of our group who happens to be on the rules committee developed "Simple Factory in Flames" which will now replace regular Factory in Flames.
C


What problems do you refer to??? My group has recently started playing with Factory in Flames (we're only in 1938, DODIII). No-one has yet mentioned any problems that they think exist. (I'm playing USA so haven't so don't have a close take on what's with Russian production).

Thanks
Leigh




morgil -> RE: When? (10/4/2009 5:34:51 PM)

After having played a game with FoF, our group found several things that were "wrong".
First of all, the shipyards. Spend one BP on a ship, get one extra for free, this means there will be a whole lot more ships on the map than it used to be. What we found was that CW can outproduce Germany on the sea, so there will be more ASW's built than there will be subs, and any combat will hit the subs harder and harder during the war, thus rendering that part of the war useless for Germany. The situation between Japan and USA is more on par, but we found that Japan actually ran out of ships to build, while the US didnt, and then got the edge that way.
For Germany and Russia, its the added bonus of having to produce units in a fatory hex, and not in any random city, meaning its easier to target spesiffic units during building, and harder to get them to where they need to be, specially for USSR.
Then you have the speciallization thingies, that Germany get rather sooner than USSR, this means there will be a lot more 3 factor bombers on German side, since you can choose them, and that you will allways get the highest value MOT and MECH, instead of the average, witch is like two combat factors weaker.
On the pluss side for USSR was that the lend-lease aircraft now came fully built, delivered to Murmansk on a transporter, instead of them having to build it themselves. Dunno if we did it right in that game, but it certainly increased the Lend Lease.




Jagdtiger14 -> RE: When? (10/5/2009 1:53:17 AM)

You'll see that in 1943 USSR struggles to get into the 30BP's...when normally in 1943 USSR has about 40BP's(not including LL). This is huge! Playing with city mods is highly recomended!!! Also, play with some kind of oil rule, if you dont then there is way too much builds. Factory in Flames is better for the USA, and actually makes WiF a bit more realistic from the US perspective since the USA is understated in regular WiF versions. If not playing with oil, as the USA I highly recomend building 5 extra factories asap. Also, there is finally a good use for the far Soviet eastern territory(Petropavlovsk)...put Clark there, the 10 range 7pt FTR2, and a good NAV to mess with the Sea of Japan. Keeping that port also allows 1 auto BP to USSR if playing with that option(Japan will want to take it along with the other two ports it needs to stop that auto LL). The CV shipyard makes building the CVL's worthwhile.

Everyone loves crack-points...makes it possible to re-org an HQ cheaply to keep offensives alive...especially Japan vs China! Japan has been given an air spec by the way...thats a change from the original version. I was pushing for it to be included in the Japanese setup and to allow the Japs to be able to pick all their carrier air at setup...not sure if that is the case in the update though.

I'm not aware of all the problems because in the current game we are playing(I'm playing US/China)...I'm kinda concentrating on the Pacific theater...the moans and groans over Factory in Flames problems reach me like static noise from the European theater. I'll try to get more specifics.
C


quote:

ORIGINAL: monkla


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

I find it hard to believe that any group having play tested Factory in Flames did not notice the production problem with USSR. Once our group started playing it(after it came out in the annual), we spoted a bunch of problems and questions...all of which were addressed, and then one of our group who happens to be on the rules committee developed "Simple Factory in Flames" which will now replace regular Factory in Flames.
C


What problems do you refer to??? My group has recently started playing with Factory in Flames (we're only in 1938, DODIII). No-one has yet mentioned any problems that they think exist. (I'm playing USA so haven't so don't have a close take on what's with Russian production).

Thanks
Leigh





monkla -> RE: When? (10/5/2009 5:49:03 AM)

Obviously we managed to fumble our way through successfully then, 'cos before we even started our first game we left out the shipyards. Also, after reading the specialization rules, we modified them to only one unit can be selected per hex, rather than one per factory stack. Figuring that the specialization only costs one point and that this was still a good enough bonues. As the US, I certainly intend building some when I can. From memory, not the armor though. It comes out too late to be any good...

Leigh

quote:

ORIGINAL: morgil

After having played a game with FoF, our group found several things that were "wrong".
First of all, the shipyards. Spend one BP on a ship, get one extra for free, this means there will be a whole lot more ships on the map than it used to be. What we found was that CW can outproduce Germany on the sea, so there will be more ASW's built than there will be subs, and any combat will hit the subs harder and harder during the war, thus rendering that part of the war useless for Germany. The situation between Japan and USA is more on par, but we found that Japan actually ran out of ships to build, while the US didnt, and then got the edge that way.
For Germany and Russia, its the added bonus of having to produce units in a fatory hex, and not in any random city, meaning its easier to target spesiffic units during building, and harder to get them to where they need to be, specially for USSR.
Then you have the speciallization thingies, that Germany get rather sooner than USSR, this means there will be a lot more 3 factor bombers on German side, since you can choose them, and that you will allways get the highest value MOT and MECH, instead of the average, witch is like two combat factors weaker.
On the pluss side for USSR was that the lend-lease aircraft now came fully built, delivered to Murmansk on a transporter, instead of them having to build it themselves. Dunno if we did it right in that game, but it certainly increased the Lend Lease.






fallgelb -> RE: When? (10/5/2009 8:24:18 AM)

@ Morgil a few annotations to FoF (if we play it the right way!):
1. The shipyard give you 1 BP Bonus for the first ship only. One of us said that the german shipyard is the best allied unit, because germany pumps BP into ships, and that may be not good.
2. In our second FoF Game we have CW under pressure. BoA is going very well, only some ASW (our DR were very well i must admit).
3. The German ARM spewcialisation is not much of use. I'am biulding any ARM/MECH in every game, regardelsee of Barbarossa or Meiterranean Strategy.
4. USSR city bonuses were compensated with the loss of unit bonusses. I think the USSR looses more than 0,25 Equivalent in a fierce Barbarossa. Without city bonus its more interesting for germany not to attack russia. But anyway you have now +0,25 I think.
5. For Japan we play more with land based air than with more ships. We built not every game the Yamato Class ships.
I think with a little experience FoF will be a very goog expansion, but some rules have to be reconsidered:
1. Strategic Bombing is nearly worthless, ecause "emtpy factories" cannot be hitted.
2. Russian GBA are not linked to BP.
3. Production Bonuses for beeing in home country and losses of units are not crystal clear (also MinorPowers?)
4. Lend Lease von US to CW. Now with seperate home country productionit should be possible to deliver some BP to canada per rail, but not to allow "beaming" of BP to CW as it is prohibited in RAW.
And there will be a lot more to be developed in playtesting.




Joseignacio -> RE: When? (10/5/2009 8:30:55 AM)

Yes, I have thought that the Asian map in a different scale would mean a need of many more units, it means and maybe, the change of some of their values of movement.

As for me, I would stay to the left of the Democrat Party, from my initial origins of marxism-leninism, from which I still keep many ideas. As Putin said: "Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain." It was a wonderful idea impossible to fulfill, and corrupted by men.

However, to say that both sides in the civil war were leftist... Wow. franco did not ally with Hitler only because of some factors:

- He was afraid
- The country was in ruins, although the military were experienced and first class after three year's war there were left no more than infantry, almost no navy, no mech or armor..., we were an easy objective. A weaker Italy and more exposed. And there were the partisans that stayed after the war, the maquis, which would have increased with the foreign help.
- Hitler did not give what he wanted when they met at the border in Hendaya, be it what it could be: Some say the promise of Gibraltar, some say (more probable) massive help for the reconstruction of the country.

In fact, Franco sent a Division to Russia, to help Hitler, where it fought with heroism in despite of their poor means.

However, the National side was a combination of the most right-winged people you could find in Europe: Requetés, Falange, Fascists, ... To call them leftists must be a joke for anyone to the left of Hitler. [:)]

It was unfortunate that the Republican HQ was named Azaña, since he was just one politician more, with few direct influence in strategy itself, not like all the other HQs in the game. for example, Franco was also a general and most of the war he was commander in Chief, and Mussolini, Roosevelt, and Hitler don't have HQ in WIF, which is ok for me. They could have gave the name of general Rojo instead.

As for "on the run", the mostly green and volunutary-filled Republican army bravely stood for 3 years against much stronger and professional land forces (legionnaires and morocchian soldiers from our colonies), supported by powerful German aviation ( Condor Legion) and Italian armor and mech forces + volunteers, with the sole help of a bunch of rifle-armed idealist coming to defend the legal government form the fascist Coup from all the world, including the USA (may they all be blessed), the International Brigades.

Only when the war was in it's latest weeks, the Government moved to Valencia when the fall of Madrid was unavoidable.




warspite1 -> RE: When? (10/5/2009 9:09:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

Yes, I have thought that the Asian map in a different scale would mean a need of many more units, it means and maybe, the change of some of their values of movement.

As for me, I would stay to the left of the Democrat Party, from my initial origins of marxism-leninism, from which I still keep many ideas. As Putin said: "Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain." It was a wonderful idea impossible to fulfill, and corrupted by men.

However, to say that both sides in the civil war were leftist... Wow. franco did not ally with Hitler only because of some factors:

- He was afraid
- The country was in ruins, although the military were experienced and first class after three year's war there were left no more than infantry, almost no navy, no mech or armor..., we were an easy objective. A weaker Italy and more exposed. And there were the partisans that stayed after the war, the maquis, which would have increased with the foreign help.
- Hitler did not give what he wanted when they met at the border in Hendaya, be it what it could be: Some say the promise of Gibraltar, some say (more probable) massive help for the reconstruction of the country.

In fact, Franco sent a Division to Russia, to help Hitler, where it fought with heroism in despite of their poor means.

However, the National side was a combination of the most right-winged people you could find in Europe: Requetés, Falange, Fascists, ... To call them leftists must be a joke for anyone to the left of Hitler. [:)]

It was unfortunate that the Republican HQ was named Azaña, since he was just one politician more, with few direct influence in strategy itself, not like all the other HQs in the game. for example, Franco was also a general and most of the war he was commander in Chief, and Mussolini, Roosevelt, and Hitler don't have HQ in WIF, which is ok for me. They could have gave the name of general Rojo instead.

As for "on the run", the mostly green and volunutary-filled Republican army bravely stood for 3 years against much stronger and professional land forces (legionnaires and morocchian soldiers from our colonies), supported by powerful German aviation ( Condor Legion) and Italian armor and mech forces + volunteers, with the sole help of a bunch of rifle-armed idealist coming to defend the legal government form the fascist Coup from all the world, including the USA (may they all be blessed), the International Brigades.

Only when the war was in it's latest weeks, the Government moved to Valencia when the fall of Madrid was unavoidable.

Warspite1

Certainly one of the great "what ifs" of the Second World War. Its late Summer 1940 and Spain agrees to attack Gibraltar with assistance from the Luftwaffe and a few key land units. I think it must be assumed that Gibraltar cannot hold out and as a consequence the Western Mediterranean is then closed to the British. Malta - without the reinforcements supplied courtesy of Force H and the merchant navy via Gibraltar - falls later without the need for an invasion.

The period in the later half of 1941 when so many Axis supplies fail to reach Tripoli - courtesy of the Malta Strike Force and subs operating from that island - does not happen. Was that enough to enable Rommel to take Egypt?

How would the British have reacted? Maybe they would not have sent men to Greece, but instead kicked the Italians out of Africa before Rommel landed in February 1941 by continuing on to Tripoli?

Fascinating stuff......

P.S

Joseignacio - I don`t suppose you know where I could get info to fill three Spanish Transport counters? E.g. Do you know what vessels would have transported Franco`s troops from North Africa?

P.P.S

Apologies this all seems to have gone a bit off-topic




composer99 -> RE: When? (10/5/2009 4:36:01 PM)

That bugs in the code ditty is hilarious.

The game will hopefully be ready sooner rather than later; however I'd rather have a mostly bug-free game than not, so I will continue to remind myself that patience is a virtue. [:)]




Petracelli69 -> RE: When? (10/5/2009 10:47:59 PM)

keep going Steve, so looking forward to it's release

cheers

Phil




Jagdtiger14 -> RE: When? (10/5/2009 11:42:25 PM)

I'm not sure the Republican side for DoDIII should even have a TRS. When Azana gave Stalin the 510 tonnes of Spanish gold reserves, Stalin had to transport it himself...and even "charged" Spain for the transport. I would like to see Matrix move towards DoDIII in their next WiF product.

Edited by moderator.
C

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

Yes, I have thought that the Asian map in a different scale would mean a need of many more units, it means and maybe, the change of some of their values of movement.

As for me, I would stay to the left of the Democrat Party, from my initial origins of marxism-leninism, from which I still keep many ideas. As Putin said: "Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain." It was a wonderful idea impossible to fulfill, and corrupted by men.

However, to say that both sides in the civil war were leftist... Wow. franco did not ally with Hitler only because of some factors:

- He was afraid
- The country was in ruins, although the military were experienced and first class after three year's war there were left no more than infantry, almost no navy, no mech or armor..., we were an easy objective. A weaker Italy and more exposed. And there were the partisans that stayed after the war, the maquis, which would have increased with the foreign help.
- Hitler did not give what he wanted when they met at the border in Hendaya, be it what it could be: Some say the promise of Gibraltar, some say (more probable) massive help for the reconstruction of the country.

In fact, Franco sent a Division to Russia, to help Hitler, where it fought with heroism in despite of their poor means.

However, the National side was a combination of the most right-winged people you could find in Europe: Requetés, Falange, Fascists, ... To call them leftists must be a joke for anyone to the left of Hitler. [:)]

It was unfortunate that the Republican HQ was named Azaña, since he was just one politician more, with few direct influence in strategy itself, not like all the other HQs in the game. for example, Franco was also a general and most of the war he was commander in Chief, and Mussolini, Roosevelt, and Hitler don't have HQ in WIF, which is ok for me. They could have gave the name of general Rojo instead.

As for "on the run", the mostly green and volunutary-filled Republican army bravely stood for 3 years against much stronger and professional land forces (legionnaires and morocchian soldiers from our colonies), supported by powerful German aviation ( Condor Legion) and Italian armor and mech forces + volunteers, with the sole help of a bunch of rifle-armed idealist coming to defend the legal government form the fascist Coup from all the world, including the USA (may they all be blessed), the International Brigades.

Only when the war was in it's latest weeks, the Government moved to Valencia when the fall of Madrid was unavoidable.





Joseignacio -> RE: When? (10/6/2009 8:05:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Warspite1

Certainly one of the great "what ifs" of the Second World War. Its late Summer 1940 and Spain agrees to attack Gibraltar with assistance from the Luftwaffe and a few key land units. I think it must be assumed that Gibraltar cannot hold out and as a consequence the Western Mediterranean is then closed to the British. Malta - without the reinforcements supplied courtesy of Force H and the merchant navy via Gibraltar - falls later without the need for an invasion.

The period in the later half of 1941 when so many Axis supplies fail to reach Tripoli - courtesy of the Malta Strike Force and subs operating from that island - does not happen. Was that enough to enable Rommel to take Egypt?

How would the British have reacted? Maybe they would not have sent men to Greece, but instead kicked the Italians out of Africa before Rommel landed in February 1941 by continuing on to Tripoli?

Fascinating stuff......

P.S

Joseignacio - I don`t suppose you know where I could get info to fill three Spanish Transport counters? E.g. Do you know what vessels would have transported Franco`s troops from North Africa?

P.P.S

Apologies this all seems to have gone a bit off-topic



First, I will say I have not been to Giraltar myself, although I have been very close this very summer. But let me tell you that Gibraltar is a tiny area of under 7 square km, which means les that 3 square miles, they have a (very recent) short airport lane which has to cross the road itself and traffic is paralized when used.

[image]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Gibraltar-nasa-pd.jpg[/image]

Although it seems it has massive excavations (not so massive then) , I cannot imagine a way they could have resisted a serious attack from the spanish army in what is not more than a beach head, let alone be supported by luftwaffe, howitzers and commandos, no matter how much sea or (sea-based)aerial ground support they were given.

Sorry about the offTopic, as for me, it ends here, and if someone wants to follow up the discussion we can start a new topic.

I cannot know if it got politized because there has been an edition, but it was not my intention either and I am glad it stays as it is. [:)]

As for the transports, Warspite, I have a couple of friends who have a degree in History and they probably know or can find the info. I will let you know wth a PM.




BallyJ -> When? (10/6/2009 1:48:22 PM)

I would like to request that this be moved to another thread.[image][/image]
I keep looking here expecting to see something about WHEN???[image][/image]

I am not trying to be difficult but fair is fair guys![image][/image]
regards John




brian brian -> RE: When? (10/7/2009 6:04:48 AM)

I thought a fair amount of Franco's "Army of Africa" was flown to Spain on Ju-52's ... which is why Days of Decision used to make a big deal about committing foreign ATR units to Spain. Not sure how it works in DoD III.




Page: <<   < prev  46 47 [48] 49 50   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.734375