RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (Full Version)

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



Message

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (7/25/2011 5:34:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

I probably did not phrase the question properly [;)] Will the game have a program in it that will show me the ships that have been sunk the air units that have lost and the ground unit that have been destroyed any time during the game that I could check on for what purpose I don't know just like the idea. Or, big or, does every destroyed unit go back into the force pool therefore no need for a destroyed count? Would still like a destroyed report.

Bo

I too would like a global losses report.
How many INF, ARM, FTR2, LND3, BB, CL, etc, etc... destroyed turn per turn per major power and globaly.

The Game Record Log is a detailed list of "what happened?". Eventually I'll modified some of the GRL entries so they include additional information (e.g., who killed whom, where, and with what weapon). But for the initial release it will just provide stark obituary notices: "We note with sorrow the passing of the USSR 3rd infantry corps, ...".



Red Prince -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (7/25/2011 6:12:00 PM)

Colonel Mustard, in the Balkans, with the 3rd Armor Division [;)]

That global losses report would be real nifty. I like the idea, and also the fact that there is a way to eventually get it done.



Centuur -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (7/25/2011 7:33:12 PM)

Nice screenshots of the US entry and entry choices. One question about these. Suppose I want to see what is exactly meant by for example "Embargo on strategic materials". Is it than possible to click on the line and see the rule in detail? Would be a really nice feature in both lists for starting players.





Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (7/25/2011 8:01:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Nice screenshots of the US entry and entry choices. One question about these. Suppose I want to see what is exactly meant by for example "Embargo on strategic materials". Is it than possible to click on the line and see the rule in detail? Would be a really nice feature in both lists for starting players.




No. This falls into the category "Wouldn't it be loverly, ..." with Liza Doolittle twirling around the room.

The Help button brings up the general information on US Entry Options/Actions from the RAC document. It references section 13.3.2 (or whatever) for the details on specific US Entry items. The player can access the RAC PDF by clicking on F2 (Players Manual PDF is F1).

---

I did do something similar to what you suggested for the optional rules. Right clicking on any of their names in the Start New Game form or the Selected Optional Rules form (during a game) generates a help page for the specific optional rule. That seemed to me to be essential for several reasons:
- the text describing all the optional rules runs to 47 pages.
- the Start New Game form is one that new players need to deal with almost immediately, and deciding on which of the 80 optional rules to use is daunting enough.
- during a game players will want to be able to read the finer points on some optional rules without having to search for a specific one among the 80.



bo -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (7/26/2011 3:15:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

I probably did not phrase the question properly [;)] Will the game have a program in it that will show me the ships that have been sunk the air units that have lost and the ground unit that have been destroyed any time during the game that I could check on for what purpose I don't know just like the idea. Or, big or, does every destroyed unit go back into the force pool therefore no need for a destroyed count? Would still like a destroyed report.

Bo

I too would like a global losses report.
How many INF, ARM, FTR2, LND3, BB, CL, etc, etc... destroyed turn per turn per major power and globaly.

The Game Record Log is a detailed list of "what happened?". Eventually I'll modified some of the GRL entries so they include additional information (e.g., who killed whom, where, and with what weapon). But for the initial release it will just provide stark obituary notices: "We note with sorrow the passing of the USSR 3rd infantry corps, ...".

I get that weird feeling that Steve and Froonp are pulling my chain [;)] Oh well, if I don't ask questions they would have nothing to do but work on the game and everyone needs a break once in a while[:@]

Bo



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (7/26/2011 4:13:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

I probably did not phrase the question properly [;)] Will the game have a program in it that will show me the ships that have been sunk the air units that have lost and the ground unit that have been destroyed any time during the game that I could check on for what purpose I don't know just like the idea. Or, big or, does every destroyed unit go back into the force pool therefore no need for a destroyed count? Would still like a destroyed report.

Bo

I too would like a global losses report.
How many INF, ARM, FTR2, LND3, BB, CL, etc, etc... destroyed turn per turn per major power and globaly.

The Game Record Log is a detailed list of "what happened?". Eventually I'll modified some of the GRL entries so they include additional information (e.g., who killed whom, where, and with what weapon). But for the initial release it will just provide stark obituary notices: "We note with sorrow the passing of the USSR 3rd infantry corps, ...".

I get that weird feeling that Steve and Froonp are pulling my chain [;)] Oh well, if I don't ask questions they would have nothing to do but work on the game and everyone needs a break once in a while[:@]

Bo

Not at all (well ,ok, the Obit might be a somewhat wordy).

Here are some of the Game Record Log record definitions (there are over 550 of these):

TRL_UDes = record // Destroy unit by placing it in DestroyedPool.
MsgID: Integer;
EntryNum: Integer;
TransNum: Integer;
By: Byte; // Who recorded the entry = PlayerNum or 0 (MWIF).
CNum: Byte; // Country number.
UNum: Word; // Unit #.
Reason: String; // The reason the unit is being destroyed.
ShowMess: Boolean; // Whether a message should be shown.
end;

TRL_URel = record // Place unit in RelocateStack.
MsgID: Integer;
EntryNum: Integer;
TransNum: Integer;
By: Byte; // Who recorded the entry = PlayerNum or 0 (MWIF).
UNum: Word; // Unit #.
end;

TRL_URbs = record // Place unit in RebaseStack.
MsgID: Integer;
EntryNum: Integer;
TransNum: Integer;
By: Byte; // Who recorded the entry = PlayerNum or 0 (MWIF).
UNum: Word; // Unit #.
end;

TRL_URet = record // Place unit in RetreatStack.
MsgID: Integer;
EntryNum: Integer;
TransNum: Integer;
By: Byte; // Who recorded the entry = PlayerNum or 0 (MWIF).
UNum: Word; // Unit #.
end;

TRL_URTB = record // Place unit in ReturnToBase.
MsgID: Integer;
EntryNum: Integer;
TransNum: Integer;
By: Byte; // Who recorded the entry = PlayerNum or 0 (MWIF).
UNum: Word; // Unit #.
end;



brian brian -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (8/29/2011 6:15:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

This afternoon I got the Search and Seizure form displaying information correctly. There is only one entry (sea area) that is enough for testing its basic functionality.

I still have to write code that actually executes the effects of search and seizure when that button is clicked on.



Hi Steve, not sure if you keep up with the Yahoo list, but if not, I thought you might be interested in a new question on there this morning about Search & Seizure....

1st Answer:

The rule says that you can't execute a search and seizure unless "the major
power you are not at war with must have convoy points there
that ARE transporting resources (or build points)...".
So reasonably the allies must decide on the transportation pattern first,
otherwise you don't know if it is possible to execute a search and seizure at
all.

Original Post:



Here is the scenario:

1 - Axis desperately trying to prevent France from building its Mech in '39.

2- Italy at war with France, not at war with Commonwealth

3- Italy can Search and Seize 1 resource in the Med (Indochinese res)

4- France & CW can allocate different resource pathways, e.g., either ship the
New Calidonian resource to France or ship an Australian resource to England.



Question: when does the CW/French have to decide which resources are taking
which path? We currently have a situation where the CW can either lose a BP by
not accepting the Australian resource, or they have to spend a saved oil in
France to get the Mech.



Does the Allies have to make their decision before the USE roll is made for
searching & seizing, or can they make up their mind afterwards?



Rule doesn't say, as far as I can tell. Thanks! (Rule quote below)




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (8/29/2011 6:48:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

This afternoon I got the Search and Seizure form displaying information correctly. There is only one entry (sea area) that is enough for testing its basic functionality.

I still have to write code that actually executes the effects of search and seizure when that button is clicked on.



Hi Steve, not sure if you keep up with the Yahoo list, but if not, I thought you might be interested in a new question on there this morning about Search & Seizure....

1st Answer:

The rule says that you can't execute a search and seizure unless "the major
power you are not at war with must have convoy points there
that ARE transporting resources (or build points)...".
So reasonably the allies must decide on the transportation pattern first,
otherwise you don't know if it is possible to execute a search and seizure at
all.

Original Post:



Here is the scenario:

1 - Axis desperately trying to prevent France from building its Mech in '39.

2- Italy at war with France, not at war with Commonwealth

3- Italy can Search and Seize 1 resource in the Med (Indochinese res)

4- France & CW can allocate different resource pathways, e.g., either ship the
New Calidonian resource to France or ship an Australian resource to England.



Question: when does the CW/French have to decide which resources are taking
which path? We currently have a situation where the CW can either lose a BP by
not accepting the Australian resource, or they have to spend a saved oil in
France to get the Mech.



Does the Allies have to make their decision before the USE roll is made for
searching & seizing, or can they make up their mind afterwards?



Rule doesn't say, as far as I can tell. Thanks! (Rule quote below)



Here is the raw informatiojn on the sequence of play in MWIF. Your question (or the one from Yahoo to be more precise) is about the long, wide column that is second from the right: End of Turn phases. The 4 phases that relate to the question are: Prod. Planning Preliminary, Prod. Planning Final, Search & Seizure, and Build Units. The last is also known as Production.

MWIF has/lets the players figure out which resources & build points go where, using what routes in the Prod. Planning phases. The Preliminary is there to let you decide on which unit stay at sea and how you are going to use oil to reorganize units. The Final is so you can deal with any changes do to naval combat in the return to base phases (you might have lost some convoys).

So, Search & Seizure occurs after each resource/build point that is going overseas has been allocated a specific set of convoys to get it from point A to point B. Production happens after all those issues have been resolved.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/F8F021323BFF48418E362C611EB53798.jpg[/image]

EDIT: I'll leave it as a WIF guru puzzle to assemble the complete SOP using all these component parts.[;)] Hey, I could have just made each one a single line entry instead of 19 nicely arranged lists.[:D] FOr extra credit, can you find the mistake in this SOP? Beta testers should not reply, since the item is on my todo list.



brian brian -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (8/29/2011 7:52:11 PM)

so basically, MWiF will force the players to designate which CPs are carrying which resources where, somethine WiF:FE fails to do explicitly in the rules, leading to lots of confusing situations when it comes to Search & Seizure. That sounds good.

But wouldn't Production Planning/Final have to be after Search & Seizure? The Enemy side could Seize some of your resources, and you could cover them with an expenditure of Saved Oil, for example... ???



Red Prince -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (8/29/2011 11:46:45 PM)

Now, this is sad. [:(] I really should be able to find the error, but I can't! [&:]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (8/29/2011 11:52:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

so basically, MWiF will force the players to designate which CPs are carrying which resources where, somethine WiF:FE fails to do explicitly in the rules, leading to lots of confusing situations when it comes to Search & Seizure. That sounds good.

But wouldn't Production Planning/Final have to be after Search & Seizure? The Enemy side could Seize some of your resources, and you could cover them with an expenditure of Saved Oil, for example... ???

I thought about adding a 3rd Production Planning phase but the beta testers are already complaining about having 2 being a waste of time - rarely does anything change, so they just click on the Ok Done button repeatedly. The other problem is that the 3rd pass through which resources are used where would have to operate without changing any of the convoy assignments et al. In the end it seemed like a lot of work for a very small effect on game play. As it is now, the player has to decide whether he is going to risk depending on resources not being intercepted - with the possibility of keeping some saved oil - or whether he commits the saved oil so his factories are at maximum produciton.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (11/23/2011 4:38:56 AM)

First in a series of 4.

I have made a breakthrough in the determining supply routines. There are still things that need to be straightened out but the program is correctly finding supply paths for secondary supply sources and units - and displaying them on the Supply Sources and Paths form.

Here is a sample of Warsaw tracing to Konisberg (the closest primary supply source). At the bottom are the units that trace to Warsaw (a secondary supply source).

[image]local://upfiles/16701/CA85189263E94821A7E5704FAE97001E.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (11/23/2011 4:48:49 AM)

2nd in a series of 4.

Here is Rundstedt tracing supply back to Berlin. The algorithm starts out heading to Breslau, but favors rail hexes, which leads it to Warsaw and hence a straight line path of rail hexes to Berlin. Note that all secondary supply sources try to trace directly to a primary. Which is why the path does not stop at Warsaw.

I want to change the reporting of the Cost so it says Rail if the number of Basic Path hexes doesn't change. Once I do that, Rundstedt's path will consist of a single instance of 1R, 2R, 3R, and 4R, with the rest saying Rail.

There's also a bug I need to fix, where movement across lake hexesides is being permitted (up in Finland) although the weather isn't snow or blizzard.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/6F3ACC43377847BC8500029746CA843A.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (11/23/2011 4:58:28 AM)

3rd in a series of 4.

Timoshenko is tracing to Cernauti, which is under the 3 unit stack in the forest hex across the Dniester River. Most players would trace to Kiev, but that is 4 hexes away while Cernauti is only 3.

What is strange here is that the 8-5 mechanized unit should trace to Kiev (1 hex away) instead of to Timoshenko. As I see it, Timoshenko should only be supplying 3 units (if you count himself). Fixing this ~bug should be easy to do.

Notice that I have checked the boxes Active and Primary. The list would be much shorter if I excluded the Primary supply sources. It would be longer if I unchecked Active, since there are a lot of other primary supply sources for the USSR. For the Germans, some of their Secondary supply sources are unused (e.g., Budapest).

[image]local://upfiles/16701/0D0F512F0A494E2EB5249FABCA6572FF.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (11/23/2011 5:09:35 AM)

4th and last in the series.

Here are the units being supplied by the Primary supply source Cernauti. It includes all the units that are tracing to Timoshenko. Once again a unit (2-5 cavalry) is ignoring the primary supply source Cernauti - even though it traces right through it. There is no supply path for Cernauti since it is a primary supply source.

I want to add the ability to click on a unit in the list at the bottom and have the path displayed for just that unit. Then I want to be able to click on the path label at the top of the form and have the unit list refreshed with all the units using that path - which is the same as all the units in the same hex.

I know that tracing supply over sea areas works most of the time but fails under some circumstances. After I work out the few glitches in this easier test case of Barbarossa, I'll start testing using a Decline and Fall scenario, where the US and CW are in Italy and Italy has fallen.

The beta testers are anxious to start testing this but I want to fix all the obvious bugs first.

Oh, I forgot to mention, clicking on the Minors button brings up a list of the minor countries which have units on the map. Selecting one of them brings up the supply sources for the minor, including those belonging to its controlling major power.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/669E5579E0FC48F28401C73E40B7E42D.jpg[/image]



gridley -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (11/23/2011 11:29:20 PM)

Congrat's Steve. From the wording of your posts, it sounds like this was a tough component to get going. I know you mentioned it still has some work...but a breakthrough none the less.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (11/28/2011 11:37:12 PM)

1st in a series of 8.

I have devoted virtually the entire month to getting my rewrite of supply to work. Finding supply paths is something I solved several years ago, but getting it to execute quickly when there are units all over the world has been really tough.

Here the Italians are tracing to a secondary supply source in Athens.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/AEAB447D09134E3F82402848AD3025EE.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (11/28/2011 11:41:31 PM)

2nd in a series of 8.

Here von Bock is keeping the center of the German front in supply.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/9246A2015DEC4887BA5B046EED30488B.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (11/28/2011 11:43:49 PM)

3rd in a series of 8.

Rundstedt is extended to the full 4 hex range to keep the southern front in supply. Note that the path traces overland to Kiev and uses rail heses all the way to Berlin.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/1A7104CCBBAC44EE944296FA0194DB15.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (11/28/2011 11:44:57 PM)

4th in a series of 8.

The Vichy navy is all in port.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/C1A4D1A227944BB0B64F533040F79A7F.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (11/28/2011 11:48:52 PM)

5th in a series of 8.

Chiang traces to Chihkiang. The 6 units being supply by that city are all cominc from Chiang. All the other Chinese units are being supplied directly from primary supply sources.

[Somehow in the last set of changes I made, I lost the Communist Chinese supply sources. One filter too many most likely. That was working correctly last week.] Sigh.[:(]

[image]local://upfiles/16701/48FA3EAFF7184E37895C2D29CFF39C2E.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (11/28/2011 11:53:02 PM)

6th in a series of 8.

Here Timoshenko supplies the swamp hexes southeast of Novgorod (the HQ is under the 1-4). Note that Timoshenko's supply path goes around the German ZOC.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/8BF9CA94D77A4A8AA0A5390BF466A631.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (11/28/2011 11:56:00 PM)

7th in a series of 8.

I am having trouble displaying the overseas supply paths (another item that worked last week). The linkage from the unit to the departure port to the sea area series to the arrival port to the primary supply source drops a link somewhere along the line.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/D6CC59F68DAB4682B0585AF24F4FB832.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (11/29/2011 12:00:09 AM)

8th and last in the series.

Here is a minor country. On the far right is the list of minor countries. After choosing Finland, the form shows the map and supply path - which was temporarily hidden.

When viewing supply sources, the form currently shows all possible supply sources that could be used by Finland - that are also currently being used by some country. I could trim this so only the sources supplying Finnish units are shown, but I'm not real happy with that solution. Adding another button doesn't appeal to me either.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/738178093D9B41D3B5CF5D07DA77B08F.jpg[/image]



brian brian -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (11/29/2011 12:46:33 AM)

Napoleon would be proud!



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (12/21/2011 12:20:28 AM)

I am still working on rewriting supply. Here is an example of some the difficulties the rules present.

On the left is supply for Finnish units, as indicated by the text in the top left corner of the form. I've clicked on the Primary check box so all supply sources for Finnish units are listed. The number after them denote the number of units being supplied by each source. Most of the German units trace to Konigsberg. All the Finnish units trace to Helsinki.

Note that Mannerheim traces to Helsinki and thereby becomes a viable secondary supply source to Finnish units - the 5 shown at the bottom of the form, some of which would be out of supply were it not for Mannerheim.

=======

On the right are two excerpts showing supply for German units. The label at the top says Germany and the German flag is shown in the top center of the form.

Now Helsinki is shown as a secondary supply source and it traces overseas to Stettin for supply. What this means is that in order for Helsinki to supply German units, it has to trace to a German primary supply source. The same is true for Mannerheim, who also traces to Stettin. Neither of these are supplying German units presently.



[image]local://upfiles/16701/FE85E390185241D3BF7BC009F9540819.jpg[/image]



brian brian -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (12/24/2011 2:23:33 PM)

I've never been able to figure out an iteration of one of the supply rules in a game, which leads to a combat rule question too. Let's say you are invading (as in over-the-beach naval invasion) a country with TERRitorial units. The TERR can trace supply to a city in it's home country. But let's say there is no connection between that country and it's controlling major power (the powerful invasion task force seems to have cut the overseas supply line). So a notional unit in an empty hex along the shoreline of the invaded country would be out-of-supply. But what about a notional stacked with a TERR that is in supply? Does this create a situation where a combat unit is in supply, but a notional unit in the same combat is not? Then what about a notional in the ZoC of such a TERR unit?

Then a simpler solution would be to think that the notional unit is in supply by tracing to a city in that country just as a TERR would. But if that is the case, would you add modifiers to the combat die roll because the defending unit is a (notional) TERR unit?

Good luck Steve.



Orm -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (12/24/2011 2:56:08 PM)

Deleted.



Orm -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (12/24/2011 3:04:43 PM)

quote:

But what about a notional stacked with a TERR that is in supply?

The notional is always the same nation as one of the units it is stacked with so it would then be in supply.
quote:

Then what about a notional in the ZoC of such a TERR unit?

If it is an aligned country then the notional would be of that country and in supply. If it is not then it would be OOS. Regardless of supply it gains a modifier for beeing in the ZOC of TERR.

RAC: 11.14 Invasions
....
The notional unit is the same nationality as any major power or minor country with a real unit in the hex (owner’s
choice if more than one). If there are no real units, it is the same nationality as the major power or minor country that
controls the hex.

The notional unit has 1 combat factor, modified by:
• +1 if it is a city hex;
• +1 if the hex is in the home country of the major power that controls the hex;
• +1 if it is not stacked with a land unit, but is in the ZOC of a friendly corps or army;
• + the shore bombardment modifier for each invading unit;
• -1 if it cannot trace a basic supply path of any length; and
• -1 if surprised



brian brian -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (12/24/2011 3:30:17 PM)

ahh, thanks Orm, I like the thought about making a distinction between 'aligned' or not. I think this could create some trickiness for the computer code with TERR units in countries that have been conquered during the game and thus not 'aligned'. ?

The 'major power or minor country' clause in the original rules makes things hard to parse sometimes.



Edit: the portion of my brain that figures this out has a faulty bit of wiring to that portion of the memory chip as I think I have asked this before, and been shown The Way in the rules. It's much like trying to correctly remember my friends' wives or children named Lauren, Laurel, or Laura. Argh.



Page: <<   < prev  68 69 [70] 71 72   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.734375