Critical luck (Full Version)

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



Message


Froonp -> Critical luck (4/6/2008 12:03:38 PM)

Hey, I had an idea.
Why also not let the player have a look at their global luck within the game ?
Players are always complaining they have no luck, or that they never roll this or that well. Showing them the hard data may make them shut their mouth and better thing their actions ?

Why not have all the dice rolls stored somewhere, showing what the die roll was for what the result was ?

For example :
Germany, Air to Air, 2d10, 18, AX
Germany, Air to Air, 2d10, 6, DX
Germany, Air to Air, 2d10, 11, DC
USA, Search roll, 1d10, 2, Found
etc...

I always wanted to do that in real games, to make people realise that they are neither out of luck or extremely lucky, rather that they tend to remember only some results and not others.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Memo (4/6/2008 12:09:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
4 - The center horizontal bar shows the progress through the air-to-air combat sub-phase. I think of these as sub-sub-phases. Right now the setting is on Choose Combat. That isn't quite right, since there is only 1 combat location (Changsha), but I haven't written the code to automatically skip subsubphases yet.

"Choose location" would be better, as "Choose combat" makes me think that you can choose the combat nature, as you choose in Naval Combat.

quote:

5 - The map shows the selected combat location. If there were more than 1, the player could click on different locations and have the map change. At the same time the unit lists at the top would change, and the information on the Results from Current Combat would refresh too. The idea is for the player to be able to review the different air-to-air combats before selecting one. The side with the most bombers in the air gets to choose the combat; and the major power within that side with the most bombers in the air is the decision maker.

I don't understand the choices.
Normaly, it is the active side that chooses the order in which to fight air to air combats, not the side with the most bombers in the air.
Also it seems to me, that the "decision maker" should be the owner of the front fighter (or bomber if there is no front fighter), as this is this air unit that is "fighting".
But maybe I have not understood what the "decision maker" or the "choose the order" meant.


Ok for Choose Location. All the word choices needed to be reviewed. I try to use Air-to-air Combat Location when there is enough room; when there isn't, I need to condense that to something shorter.

I haven't changed the decision maker code from CWIF, I have merely been documenting it. Having done so, I can now state what it is doing.

I have no emotional investment in who makes the decisions, and the code is easy to change if we decide on something different.

1 - Having the phasing/attacking side choose the order for fighting air-to-air combats is fine by me. That will be the only side flying bombers (includes ATRs) except possibly for Ground Support missions, where both sides get to fly bombers. In naval air combat, each air-to-air combat location is processed separately - there is no location choice to be made.

2 - Choosing the major power with the front bomber/fighter to arrange units doesn't work since someone has to decide which units will be the front bomber and fighter.

3 - I could make the major power arranging the units different from the major power that selects which units to destroy/abort/clear through, though that doesn't seem quite right to me.




Froonp -> RE: Memo (4/6/2008 12:13:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
2 - Choosing the major power with the front bomber/fighter to arrange units doesn't work since someone has to decide which units will be the front bomber and fighter.

3 - I could make the major power arranging the units different from the major power that selects which units to destroy/abort/clear through, though that doesn't seem quite right to me.

Maybe have a choice proposed to the player ? He would have to click on the flag of the decision maker Major Power before arranging the air units ?




lomyrin -> RE: Memo (4/6/2008 6:49:54 PM)

In air to air battles where surprise points are available, port attacks, Ground strike intercepts etc. there must exist a mechanism to allocate such points to modify the odds.

Lars




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Critical luck (4/6/2008 9:05:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Hey, I had an idea.
Why also not let the player have a look at their global luck within the game ?
Players are always complaining they have no luck, or that they never roll this or that well. Showing them the hard data may make them shut their mouth and better thing their actions ?

Why not have all the dice rolls stored somewhere, showing what the die roll was for what the result was ?

For example :
Germany, Air to Air, 2d10, 18, AX
Germany, Air to Air, 2d10, 6, DX
Germany, Air to Air, 2d10, 11, DC
USA, Search roll, 1d10, 2, Found
etc...

I always wanted to do that in real games, to make people realise that they are neither out of luck or extremely lucky, rather that they tend to remember only some results and not others.


That information is in the game record log. The players will have to dredge it out, but who rolled what when will all be there. I do not intend to do special reports from the GRL.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Memo (4/6/2008 9:06:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
2 - Choosing the major power with the front bomber/fighter to arrange units doesn't work since someone has to decide which units will be the front bomber and fighter.

3 - I could make the major power arranging the units different from the major power that selects which units to destroy/abort/clear through, though that doesn't seem quite right to me.

Maybe have a choice proposed to the player ? He would have to click on the flag of the decision maker Major Power before arranging the air units ?

Catch 22: who clicks on the flag?

At some point there has to be someone who makes a decision, where that person is identified by the computer.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Memo (4/6/2008 9:14:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

In air to air battles where surprise points are available, port attacks, Ground strike intercepts etc. there must exist a mechanism to allocate such points to modify the odds.

Lars

Surprise points only affect naval air-to-air combat (including port attacks). They do not affect air-to-air combat for ground strikes, ground support, strategic bombing, etc..

I haven't change this recently. The code for air-to-air combat executes the same way for all air missions as it does for port attacks. That is, the first time that surprise points might be used in the sequence of play (when processing an air mission), the program runs through the surprise point calculation and then presents the winning side with the Surprise Points (usage) form. There the player chooses to Avoid Combat, Increase/Decrease air-to-air combat table column, etc.. If later in the sequence of play another opportunity arises for spending surprise points (and more than 1 exists), the winning player sees that form again.




Froonp -> RE: Memo (4/6/2008 11:53:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
2 - Choosing the major power with the front bomber/fighter to arrange units doesn't work since someone has to decide which units will be the front bomber and fighter.

3 - I could make the major power arranging the units different from the major power that selects which units to destroy/abort/clear through, though that doesn't seem quite right to me.

Maybe have a choice proposed to the player ? He would have to click on the flag of the decision maker Major Power before arranging the air units ?

Catch 22: who clicks on the flag?

At some point there has to be someone who makes a decision, where that person is identified by the computer.

The players decide.
I prefer the players deciding rather than the computer deciding.




Froonp -> RE: Critical luck (4/6/2008 11:53:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Hey, I had an idea.
Why also not let the player have a look at their global luck within the game ?
Players are always complaining they have no luck, or that they never roll this or that well. Showing them the hard data may make them shut their mouth and better thing their actions ?

Why not have all the dice rolls stored somewhere, showing what the die roll was for what the result was ?

For example :
Germany, Air to Air, 2d10, 18, AX
Germany, Air to Air, 2d10, 6, DX
Germany, Air to Air, 2d10, 11, DC
USA, Search roll, 1d10, 2, Found
etc...

I always wanted to do that in real games, to make people realise that they are neither out of luck or extremely lucky, rather that they tend to remember only some results and not others.


That information is in the game record log. The players will have to dredge it out, but who rolled what when will all be there. I do not intend to do special reports from the GRL.

Maybe for MWiF 2 ?




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Memo (4/7/2008 2:28:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
2 - Choosing the major power with the front bomber/fighter to arrange units doesn't work since someone has to decide which units will be the front bomber and fighter.

3 - I could make the major power arranging the units different from the major power that selects which units to destroy/abort/clear through, though that doesn't seem quite right to me.

Maybe have a choice proposed to the player ? He would have to click on the flag of the decision maker Major Power before arranging the air units ?

Catch 22: who clicks on the flag?

At some point there has to be someone who makes a decision, where that person is identified by the computer.

The players decide.
I prefer the players deciding rather than the computer deciding.

No.

We do not want the program polling all the players on a side for every air-to-air combat that involves units controlled by different players. This comes up for naval combat losses too. And I am sure there are many other instances where more than 1 player's units are affected by a decision.

It is far better to have an automated mechanism that designates one player as the decision maker. If the players want to converse among themselves to reach a decision, that's ok; but there is one designated "decision maker" as far as the program is concerned. Only one player is authorized to enter the decision.




composer99 -> RE: Memo (4/7/2008 7:01:27 PM)

Accumulation of Luck Statistics
This would be an interesting thing to see dredged up from the Game Record Logs. Maybe some programmer fan of MWiF can create a utility to do so.

Air Combat Stuff
In terms of who decides the arrangement of air units for a side during air combat, that obviously only matters for groups of units from multiple major powers in the same combat. The obvious choice is for the player with the most participating units to decide. After that, if there is a default decision maker (e.g. Germany for Axis, US for Allies) they would pick.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Memo (4/7/2008 7:38:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

Accumulation of Luck Statistics
This would be an interesting thing to see dredged up from the Game Record Logs. Maybe some programmer fan of MWiF can create a utility to do so.

Air Combat Stuff
In terms of who decides the arrangement of air units for a side during air combat, that obviously only matters for groups of units from multiple major powers in the same combat. The obvious choice is for the player with the most participating units to decide. After that, if there is a default decision maker (e.g. Germany for Axis, US for Allies) they would pick.

I was looking a little closer at the code and it appears to use the player (on the side) with the most fighters at times and the player with the most bombers at other times. I would like to make that a sinlge person, for two reasons: (1) it is easier to code, and (2) it is less confusing to the players.

I propose the following process for deteremining the air-to-air combat leader for each side (A2A leader):

1 - The A2A leader is the major power with the most air units in the air-to-air combat at the beginning of the air-to-air combat subphase.
2 - In case of ties, the major power whose air units cost the most BPs decides.
3 - In case of ties, the permanent team leader decides. [The permanent team leader makes other decisions, like whether to ask for a reroll for initative.]
4 - The calculation of the A2A leader for each side is made before any units are shot down/cleared through/aborted.
5 - The A2A leader for each side does not change during the air-to-air combat. it does not change from one round to the next in an air-to-air combat.
6 - A2A leader makes all decisions for his side in the air-to-air combat: arranges units, chooses which units are affected, and decides whether to stay or abort at the end of each round.

Thee is also the question of which player (overall) chooses the next air-to-air combat to be fought. This does not apply to naval air combat since that is a subphase of a naval engagement and each naval engagement is fought to a standstill before the next naval engagement takes place. Which means that there is only one location "to choose from" for every naval air combat.

I propose that that be the major power on the phasing side who has the most air units flying in all the air-to-air combats chooses the next air-to-air combat to be fought. Ties are broken the same way as for the A2A leader. Just as for the A2A leader, once this has been decided, it does not change at the completion of an air-to-air combat - the same major power chooses the 2nd, 3rd, etc..

Yes, these proposals are self-serving in that they are easier to code. But even more important is for things to be predictable to the players. having the A2A leader switch during air-to-air combat over a hex, would be confusing to me, and I assume it would also be confusing to players.




hakon -> RE: Critical luck (4/7/2008 8:44:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
That information is in the game record log. The players will have to dredge it out, but who rolled what when will all be there. I do not intend to do special reports from the GRL.

Maybe for MWiF 2 ?


Maybe just have filters on the GRL? Possible filters:
- Show player chat
- Show turn progression
- Show system/network events (save/load/players connecting/disconnecting, etc)
- Show dice rolls

And for debug purposes (could be disabled in the regular game only to be disabled by a cheat code, or simply by a "Displaying these log events is considered cheating. Proceed? Y/N?"):
- Show debug info
- Show AI events and decisions (such as overall AI strategy selection, triggers selected etc)

Also, it sould be possible to restrict chat with other players, but at the sender and reciever end. (The sender should have the option to send a message to allies only, by something like:
/allies Hirohito, can you try to help me set Suez out of supply this turn?

Which would be displayed like this in all axis logs (in a seprate color, green for instance):
Adolph (allies) : Hirohito, can you try to help me set Suez out of supply this turn?

Dice rolls would probably be only one entry, but at least being able to display ONLY the dice rolls would be some help, and the other filters would be useful too.

etc?




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Critical luck (4/7/2008 10:59:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: hakon


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
That information is in the game record log. The players will have to dredge it out, but who rolled what when will all be there. I do not intend to do special reports from the GRL.

Maybe for MWiF 2 ?


Maybe just have filters on the GRL? Possible filters:
- Show player chat
- Show turn progression
- Show system/network events (save/load/players connecting/disconnecting, etc)
- Show dice rolls

And for debug purposes (could be disabled in the regular game only to be disabled by a cheat code, or simply by a "Displaying these log events is considered cheating. Proceed? Y/N?"):
- Show debug info
- Show AI events and decisions (such as overall AI strategy selection, triggers selected etc)

Also, it sould be possible to restrict chat with other players, but at the sender and reciever end. (The sender should have the option to send a message to allies only, by something like:
/allies Hirohito, can you try to help me set Suez out of supply this turn?

Which would be displayed like this in all axis logs (in a seprate color, green for instance):
Adolph (allies) : Hirohito, can you try to help me set Suez out of supply this turn?

Dice rolls would probably be only one entry, but at least being able to display ONLY the dice rolls would be some help, and the other filters would be useful too.

etc?

The game record log only contains decisions that affect the game state. Chat between players is not included. Nor does it store a lot of the fumbling around prior to committing to a decision.

Die rolls appear in dozens of places, with the purpose of the die roll (e.g., weather, initiative, ground strike) and usually the circumstances too (e.g., which column of the CRT).

My intent for the GRL is to be able to replay the game, but in a stripped down version of just what actually happened to change the game state.

The are 483 different GRL record types (I counted yesterday). That number will probably change over time as I remove spurious types that I expected I would need, and add some that I forgot to include. I expect the final number to be around 500.




wfzimmerman -> RE: Critical luck (4/7/2008 11:01:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: hakon


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
That information is in the game record log. The players will have to dredge it out, but who rolled what when will all be there. I do not intend to do special reports from the GRL.

Maybe for MWiF 2 ?


Maybe just have filters on the GRL? Possible filters:
- Show player chat
- Show turn progression
- Show system/network events (save/load/players connecting/disconnecting, etc)
- Show dice rolls




the GRL is a CSV, right? so can't you use Excel's filtering features to do the filtering?




Froonp -> RE: Critical luck (4/7/2008 11:04:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman
the GRL is a CSV, right? so can't you use Excel's filtering features to do the filtering?

If so, it would be great !




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Critical luck (4/8/2008 2:43:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman


quote:

ORIGINAL: hakon


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
That information is in the game record log. The players will have to dredge it out, but who rolled what when will all be there. I do not intend to do special reports from the GRL.

Maybe for MWiF 2 ?


Maybe just have filters on the GRL? Possible filters:
- Show player chat
- Show turn progression
- Show system/network events (save/load/players connecting/disconnecting, etc)
- Show dice rolls




the GRL is a CSV, right? so can't you use Excel's filtering features to do the filtering?


The GRl is a comma separated file, but each line/ record is quite irregular. Some are short (3 items) , some are very long (over 100 items). For instance, the weather roll has 3 or 4 data fields, while the optional rule set has over 80.

Basically, column headings would be meaningless.

All the raw data is there, but it would be hard to extract using any general purpose software (like a spreadsheet). A report generator application designed specifically for the GRL data records/fields would be the best approach.

EDIT: the beta testers have copies of the GRL - a new one is generated each time you start a game.




SemperAugustus -> RE: Critical luck (4/8/2008 4:52:57 AM)

If each row of the GRL showed what type of row it was it should be trivial to use a filter in excel combined with the row type information to datamine it.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Critical luck (4/8/2008 5:33:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SemperAugustus

If each row of the GRL showed what type of row it was it should be trivial to use a filter in excel combined with the row type information to datamine it.

Yes, that is how it is set up; the first field denotes record type.

As for 'trivial', there are going to be around 500 different "row types".




Ullern -> RE: Memo (4/8/2008 11:21:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

Accumulation of Luck Statistics
This would be an interesting thing to see dredged up from the Game Record Logs. Maybe some programmer fan of MWiF can create a utility to do so.

Air Combat Stuff
In terms of who decides the arrangement of air units for a side during air combat, that obviously only matters for groups of units from multiple major powers in the same combat. The obvious choice is for the player with the most participating units to decide. After that, if there is a default decision maker (e.g. Germany for Axis, US for Allies) they would pick.

I was looking a little closer at the code and it appears to use the player (on the side) with the most fighters at times and the player with the most bombers at other times. I would like to make that a sinlge person, for two reasons: (1) it is easier to code, and (2) it is less confusing to the players.

I propose the following process for deteremining the air-to-air combat leader for each side (A2A leader):

1 - The A2A leader is the major power with the most air units in the air-to-air combat at the beginning of the air-to-air combat subphase.
2 - In case of ties, the major power whose air units cost the most BPs decides.
3 - In case of ties, the permanent team leader decides. [The permanent team leader makes other decisions, like whether to ask for a reroll for initative.]
4 - The calculation of the A2A leader for each side is made before any units are shot down/cleared through/aborted.
5 - The A2A leader for each side does not change during the air-to-air combat. it does not change from one round to the next in an air-to-air combat.
6 - A2A leader makes all decisions for his side in the air-to-air combat: arranges units, chooses which units are affected, and decides whether to stay or abort at the end of each round.

Thee is also the question of which player (overall) chooses the next air-to-air combat to be fought. This does not apply to naval air combat since that is a subphase of a naval engagement and each naval engagement is fought to a standstill before the next naval engagement takes place. Which means that there is only one location "to choose from" for every naval air combat.

I propose that that be the major power on the phasing side who has the most air units flying in all the air-to-air combats chooses the next air-to-air combat to be fought. Ties are broken the same way as for the A2A leader. Just as for the A2A leader, once this has been decided, it does not change at the completion of an air-to-air combat - the same major power chooses the 2nd, 3rd, etc..

Yes, these proposals are self-serving in that they are easier to code. But even more important is for things to be predictable to the players. having the A2A leader switch during air-to-air combat over a hex, would be confusing to me, and I assume it would also be confusing to players.


The general idea that we don't need to poll each player one more time in a game that polls each player very often anyway, is a very good idea.

For you tie breaker suggestion, may I suggest the following:
2. In case of ties the player with most FTRs
3. In case of ties random draw.

For how the next A2A fight is choosen:
In a board game each player would play out his own A2A fights in what order he himself wanted, some multitasking between players is usually done.

I understand it that way that the MWIF plays each A2A serially?

May I then propose the following:
A) Suppose there is already an A2A leader for each fight allocated (using whatever automatic method Steve comes up with)
B) Let the Team leader choose the order of the players (or major powers, whatever is most convenient)
C) Let that player play out all the fights where he is A2A leader
D) go back to B and let the team leader select the next player or go directly to the next player (depending on how it's most easy to implement this)
E) Continue until all A2A fights done

I think the proposed method gives less polling between players, am I right?











Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Memo (4/9/2008 12:58:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ullern

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

Accumulation of Luck Statistics
This would be an interesting thing to see dredged up from the Game Record Logs. Maybe some programmer fan of MWiF can create a utility to do so.

Air Combat Stuff
In terms of who decides the arrangement of air units for a side during air combat, that obviously only matters for groups of units from multiple major powers in the same combat. The obvious choice is for the player with the most participating units to decide. After that, if there is a default decision maker (e.g. Germany for Axis, US for Allies) they would pick.

I was looking a little closer at the code and it appears to use the player (on the side) with the most fighters at times and the player with the most bombers at other times. I would like to make that a sinlge person, for two reasons: (1) it is easier to code, and (2) it is less confusing to the players.

I propose the following process for deteremining the air-to-air combat leader for each side (A2A leader):

1 - The A2A leader is the major power with the most air units in the air-to-air combat at the beginning of the air-to-air combat subphase.
2 - In case of ties, the major power whose air units cost the most BPs decides.
3 - In case of ties, the permanent team leader decides. [The permanent team leader makes other decisions, like whether to ask for a reroll for initative.]
4 - The calculation of the A2A leader for each side is made before any units are shot down/cleared through/aborted.
5 - The A2A leader for each side does not change during the air-to-air combat. it does not change from one round to the next in an air-to-air combat.
6 - A2A leader makes all decisions for his side in the air-to-air combat: arranges units, chooses which units are affected, and decides whether to stay or abort at the end of each round.

Thee is also the question of which player (overall) chooses the next air-to-air combat to be fought. This does not apply to naval air combat since that is a subphase of a naval engagement and each naval engagement is fought to a standstill before the next naval engagement takes place. Which means that there is only one location "to choose from" for every naval air combat.

I propose that that be the major power on the phasing side who has the most air units flying in all the air-to-air combats chooses the next air-to-air combat to be fought. Ties are broken the same way as for the A2A leader. Just as for the A2A leader, once this has been decided, it does not change at the completion of an air-to-air combat - the same major power chooses the 2nd, 3rd, etc..

Yes, these proposals are self-serving in that they are easier to code. But even more important is for things to be predictable to the players. having the A2A leader switch during air-to-air combat over a hex, would be confusing to me, and I assume it would also be confusing to players.


The general idea that we don't need to poll each player one more time in a game that polls each player very often anyway, is a very good idea.

For you tie breaker suggestion, may I suggest the following:
2. In case of ties the player with most FTRs
3. In case of ties random draw.

For how the next A2A fight is choosen:
In a board game each player would play out his own A2A fights in what order he himself wanted, some multitasking between players is usually done.

I understand it that way that the MWIF plays each A2A serially?

May I then propose the following:
A) Suppose there is already an A2A leader for each fight allocated (using whatever automatic method Steve comes up with)
B) Let the Team leader choose the order of the players (or major powers, whatever is most convenient)
C) Let that player play out all the fights where he is A2A leader
D) go back to B and let the team leader select the next player or go directly to the next player (depending on how it's most easy to implement this)
E) Continue until all A2A fights done

I think the proposed method gives less polling between players, am I right?

I keep going back and forth on whether fighters or bombers/ATRs are more important.[&:] Yes, it is an air-to-air combat so the fighters are important. But the only reason the fight is taking place is so the bombers can complete their mission. That is why I have suggested total number of air units flying (for who decides which fight to do next) and total number flying over a hex/sea area for who is the leader for each side.

If a perfect tie exists, random is a viable alternative.
---------------
Consider A done. When each air-to-air combat location is identified, a team leader for each side is determined and stored as part of the data for that combat. The mechanism for deciding on which major power is still under discussion herein.

Your proposal would have Germany fight all her A2A combats, then Japan, then Italy. That has some attractiveness, but it constrains the players in that Italy can not do its A2A combat between two German A2A combats. I do not want to impose that constraint on the players - since it isn't in the rules.

Instead, I see a single major power 'elected' to make the decision in B. Step C would be for a single combat location. There is a very small increase in overhead here, but it should be so small as to be invisible to the players.
---------------
I have created a whole host of messages for the players for this process. If you are deciding, you see a prompt to make the decision (e.g., "Choose which Axis bomber to clear through."). If you are not deciding, then you are informed as to the delay (e.g., "Waiting for the Commonwealth to decide which bomber to clear through."). Essentially, the program will keep everyone informed as to what is happening and who is deciding. This should permit the allies of the decision maker to pipe up with their thoughts via Chat (e.g., "Destroy the fighter!").




Jimm -> RE: Memo (4/9/2008 10:55:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


I keep going back and forth on whether fighters or bombers/ATRs are more important.[&:] Yes, it is an air-to-air combat so the fighters are important. But the only reason the fight is taking place is so the bombers can complete their mission. That is why I have suggested total number of air units flying (for who decides which fight to do next) and total number flying over a hex/sea area for who is the leader for each side.

If a perfect tie exists, random is a viable alternative.
---------------



The bombers set the strategic context, I'd go with them.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Memo (4/9/2008 10:59:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimm


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


I keep going back and forth on whether fighters or bombers/ATRs are more important.[&:] Yes, it is an air-to-air combat so the fighters are important. But the only reason the fight is taking place is so the bombers can complete their mission. That is why I have suggested total number of air units flying (for who decides which fight to do next) and total number flying over a hex/sea area for who is the leader for each side.

If a perfect tie exists, random is a viable alternative.
---------------



The bombers set the strategic context, I'd go with them.

Other votes? I have 1 for fighters and 1 for bombers. The change in the code is a single variable name.




Froonp -> RE: Memo (4/9/2008 11:25:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimm


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


I keep going back and forth on whether fighters or bombers/ATRs are more important.[&:] Yes, it is an air-to-air combat so the fighters are important. But the only reason the fight is taking place is so the bombers can complete their mission. That is why I have suggested total number of air units flying (for who decides which fight to do next) and total number flying over a hex/sea area for who is the leader for each side.

If a perfect tie exists, random is a viable alternative.
---------------



The bombers set the strategic context, I'd go with them.

Other votes? I have 1 for fighters and 1 for bombers. The change in the code is a single variable name.

I'm abstaining finally, as the most important is simply that the players talk between themselves for the decisions. And I'm not sure to have understood all the discussion.

I'll just say that in our games, we let the player who has the fighting FTR (the front FTR) roll the A2A dice, as he is responsible for the outcome inflicted on the enemy. When the enemy rolls against us we talk in between the involved players to decide what happens, who get destroyed or cleared through, or whether to bounce or not.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Memo (4/10/2008 12:30:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimm


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


I keep going back and forth on whether fighters or bombers/ATRs are more important.[&:] Yes, it is an air-to-air combat so the fighters are important. But the only reason the fight is taking place is so the bombers can complete their mission. That is why I have suggested total number of air units flying (for who decides which fight to do next) and total number flying over a hex/sea area for who is the leader for each side.

If a perfect tie exists, random is a viable alternative.
---------------



The bombers set the strategic context, I'd go with them.

Other votes? I have 1 for fighters and 1 for bombers. The change in the code is a single variable name.

I'm abstaining finally, as the most important is simply that the players talk between themselves for the decisions. And I'm not sure to have understood all the discussion.

I'll just say that in our games, we let the player who has the fighting FTR (the front FTR) roll the A2A dice, as he is responsible for the outcome inflicted on the enemy. When the enemy rolls against us we talk in between the involved players to decide what happens, who get destroyed or cleared through, or whether to bounce or not.


Right. That is what I expect will happen. Once the group decides, then the designated "decision maker" moves the mouse and clicks a button.




Norman42 -> RE: Memo (4/10/2008 6:36:45 PM)

quote:

we let the player who has the fighting FTR (the front FTR) roll the A2A dice, as he is responsible for the outcome inflicted on the enemy.


This is our method as well.

If a choice is needed, I'd say go with # of bombers.  As mentioned above, they are the more strategicly valuable unit involved.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Memo (4/10/2008 6:58:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Norman42

quote:

we let the player who has the fighting FTR (the front FTR) roll the A2A dice, as he is responsible for the outcome inflicted on the enemy.


This is our method as well.

If a choice is needed, I'd say go with # of bombers.  As mentioned above, they are the more strategicly valuable unit involved.

I was thinking of using build point costs to break ties, but that is going to work out to the same result as using bombers 99% of the time.




Ullern -> RE: Memo (4/10/2008 9:27:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Norman42

quote:

we let the player who has the fighting FTR (the front FTR) roll the A2A dice, as he is responsible for the outcome inflicted on the enemy.


This is our method as well.

If a choice is needed, I'd say go with # of bombers. As mentioned above, they are the more strategicly valuable unit involved.


Interesting to see that everyone posted so far let the player with the best FTR roll the dice. My group tend to let the same player do all the decision making in the combat too, which was different from the two other who posted, who let the ones with bombers decide. I am going to guess that this difference stems from the fact that my group is playing with WIFcon Time rule (added about 10% time, but not more), which makes us minimize the war by committee issues in WIF.

Everything takes time. And this leads me to a question:

Suppose we could reduce the time needed to play an impulse by one third by reducing the number of meddling between players, and affecting hopefully no rules, only imposing some limitiation on when and where negotiations could be made. Would it be better?

I think the fun per time unit ratio is important. And my concern at the moment is mostly about the game beeing too slow phased.

(And Frankly I didn't understand the Italian a2a in between two German A2A fights example you had earlier Steve. What is the point of allowing an Italian a2a combat in between two German A2A fights?)




composer99 -> RE: Memo (4/10/2008 11:01:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ullern
(And Frankly I didn't understand the Italian a2a in between two German A2A fights example you had earlier Steve. What is the point of allowing an Italian a2a combat in between two German A2A fights?)


Because the active side can resolve air combats in a step in any order they please, as per RAW (someone correct me if I am wrong. [:)]), I imagine.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Memo (4/11/2008 12:10:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99


quote:

ORIGINAL: ullern
(And Frankly I didn't understand the Italian a2a in between two German A2A fights example you had earlier Steve. What is the point of allowing an Italian a2a combat in between two German A2A fights?)


Because the active side can resolve air combats in a step in any order they please, as per RAW (someone correct me if I am wrong. [:)]), I imagine.

Yes. And it might make a difference on how much risk you are willing to take in other air-to-air combats.

For instance, having just seen Germany lose a couple of fighters in a ground strike on Lille, you might want to see if any Italian fighters survive a ground strike on Marseilles before making decisions about whether to expose more German fighters in a ground strike on Paris. By 'expose' I mean whether you continue to fight on or abort at the earliest possible moment. [You are already committed to the air-to-air combats - they can't be avoided completely.]




Page: <<   < prev  37 38 [39] 40 41   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.734375