RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

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 (12/24/2011 5:00:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brian brian 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. Key on the differences. Lauren has a N, is she the one that's Nuts? Laurel has an L, is she Lazy? Laura has no extra letter, so I would use 'b' as in blank for computer notation, or b-flat in music notation. Does she sing? Somethings are easy to remember. My brother Lars marries Lois, I (Steven) married Shereen. Now if my sister Marie had just married Mark, we would have been all set (she married Larry!?).

Red Prince -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (12/24/2011 5:09:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: brian brian 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. Key on the differences. Lauren has a N, is she the one that's Nuts? Laurel has an L, is she Lazy? Laura has no extra letter, so I would use 'b' as in blank for computer notation, or b-flat in music notation. Does she sing? Somethings are easy to remember. My brother Lars marries Lois, I (Steven) married Shereen. Now if my sister Marie had just married Mark, we would have been all set (she married Larry!?). My folks named us Erica, Amanda, and Aaron (oldest to youngest). They used to get confused calling up the stairs to our rooms to get our attention (I ws the boy, but go figure). So, if they wanted all of us at once, they used to shout out: "America, dinner time!"

brian brian -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (12/24/2011 5:25:44 PM)
I've always suspected a 3D friend of mine named Aaron gets more 'pocket'/'purse' cellphone calls than anyone else. I get several with a name starting with 'B'. 'Aa' must get the most?

Red Prince -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (12/24/2011 5:30:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brian brian I've always suspected a 3D friend of mine named Aaron gets more 'pocket'/'purse' cellphone calls than anyone else. I get several with a name starting with 'B'. 'Aa' must get the most? My uncle actually ended up adding an "x" before my name because he kept accidentally calling me -- not only pocket calls, but when he was trying to speed-dial somebody else. Always nice to talk to him, but not his intention. Similarly, I was in 1st grade (about 6 years-old) when I learned about alphabetical order . . . and I was thrilled. I mean, how do you beat Aa? I was always going to be first in line, etc. Then I was told it usually goes by last name, and mine begins with an 'R' putting me just about in the middle every single time, whether you went from beginning to end, or end to beginning of the alphabet. What a disappointment that was for a kid that age. [:D]

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (12/25/2011 7:47:34 PM)
Here is another weirdo aspect of the supply rules that was difficult to code. MacArthur has two supply paths because he can be used as a secondary supply for cooperative major powers, aligned minors, and US units. When using him for US units the /C path can be used; it traces to Brisbane (where MacArthur is) which is a primary supply source. But when used by aligned minors (e.g., Brazilian naval units), he has to trace overseas to a US primary supply source. The overseas route limits which units can be supplied since only one link of a supply path can trace overseas. I just added the /C for cooperating supply source and /S for overseas routes. I made the change because I think that will help new players learn the supply rules. [image]local://upfiles/16701/A26DA17C04DA458DA7C7DAEE960128ED.jpg[/image]

Centuur -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (12/26/2011 12:31:58 PM)
What? Working on Christmas Day? Really, really amazing... [&o] Doesn't you're wife have something to say about this? [:-] I would probably get killed for working on Christmas day... [;)] Now, I'm getting a little confused here. Mac Arthur can cooperate with the CW, so Brisbane is a primary supply source. All the rest is only of importance, when there is an US aligned country having units in Australia, tracing to Mac Arthur. Those units have to trace to the USA or to their own homecountry. On the right part of the screen, things are now a little confusing. It looks like MacArthur traces back to the USA. What I would suggest is to add a "C" in those area's to make clear the difference of the supply line of the USA/CW units and those of other countries cooperating only with the USA. Or do you have the thing programmed the way that if you're clicking on the left part of the screen on MacArthur 2ndary/C the other lines on the right pop up blue? If so, than things are clear to me.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (12/26/2011 5:59:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Centuur What? Working on Christmas Day? Really, really amazing... [&o] Doesn't you're wife have something to say about this? [:-] I would probably get killed for working on Christmas day...惽;)] Now, I'm getting a little confused here. Mac Arthur can cooperate with the CW, so Brisbane is a primary supply source. All the rest is only of importance, when there is an US aligned country having units in Australia, tracing to Mac Arthur. Those units have to trace to the USA or to their own homecountry. On the right part of the screen, things are now a little confusing. It looks like MacArthur traces back to the USA. What I would suggest is to add a "C" in those area's to make clear the difference of the supply line of the USA/CW units and those of other countries cooperating only with the USA. Or do you have the thing programmed the way that if you're clicking on the left part of the screen on MacArthur 2ndary/C the other lines on the right pop up blue? If so, than things are clear to me. My wife made a very nice dinner for Xmas. She also helped me out with MWIF by editing my task list. Trust me when I say that she and I are equally anxious to finish MWIF and release it to the salivating WIF aficionados. There are two lines for MacArthur on the left. One is where he traces overseas (/S), whose path I displayed in the screen shot. That leads back to the US and can be used by all units that cooperate with the US. The second one has a single line entry in the path: Brisbane (not shown). It also has the label /C which indicates that it involves supply sources from countries that cooperate with the US. Counter-intuitively, the /C indicates that cooperating countries can not use MacArthur, only US units. I only show one entry for an HQ that has an overland path to its own primary supply source (e.g., Eisenhower). In that instance, it can be used by all units that cooperate with the US, even those tracing a path overseas to reach the HQ. The example I chose to show with MacArthur is the most unusual, where both instances restrict which units can use him as a supply source. One prevents cooperating units from using him and the other prevents units tracing overseas from using him. Yeah, it's confusing. You should try programming this mess.[8D]

Centuur -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (12/26/2011 9:06:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: Centuur What? Working on Christmas Day? Really, really amazing... [&o] Doesn't you're wife have something to say about this? [:-] I would probably get killed for working on Christmas day...惽;)] Now, I'm getting a little confused here. Mac Arthur can cooperate with the CW, so Brisbane is a primary supply source. All the rest is only of importance, when there is an US aligned country having units in Australia, tracing to Mac Arthur. Those units have to trace to the USA or to their own homecountry. On the right part of the screen, things are now a little confusing. It looks like MacArthur traces back to the USA. What I would suggest is to add a "C" in those area's to make clear the difference of the supply line of the USA/CW units and those of other countries cooperating only with the USA. Or do you have the thing programmed the way that if you're clicking on the left part of the screen on MacArthur 2ndary/C the other lines on the right pop up blue? If so, than things are clear to me. My wife made a very nice dinner for Xmas. She also helped me out with MWIF by editing my task list. Trust me when I say that she and I are equally anxious to finish MWIF and release it to the salivating WIF aficionados. There are two lines for MacArthur on the left. One is where he traces overseas (/S), whose path I displayed in the screen shot. That leads back to the US and can be used by all units that cooperate with the US. The second one has a single line entry in the path: Brisbane (not shown). It also has the label /C which indicates that it involves supply sources from countries that cooperate with the US. Counter-intuitively, the /C indicates that cooperating countries can not use MacArthur, only US units. I only show one entry for an HQ that has an overland path to its own primary supply source (e.g., Eisenhower). In that instance, it can be used by all units that cooperate with the US, even those tracing a path overseas to reach the HQ. The example I chose to show with MacArthur is the most unusual, where both instances restrict which units can use him as a supply source. One prevents cooperating units from using him and the other prevents units tracing overseas from using him. Yeah, it's confusing. You should try programming this mess.[8D] I decline the generous offer of programming this mess. I wouldn't know where to start anymore. I used to do some minor programming in a computerlanguage called Cobol, but that is now more than 20 years ago. However, you're doing a great job, no doubt about that...

brian brian -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (12/27/2011 12:14:18 AM)
I noticed a wrinkle in the control rules that would affect supply rules sometimes I think, going back to my question about notionals. When Major Power A declares war on Minor Country Z, the side opposite A has to align Z to a Major Power B on that side. If A and B are not at war, hexes (and notionals) in Z are controlled by Z. If A and B go to war, hexes and notionals in Z become controlled by B. spinning yet?

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (12/27/2011 8:22:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brian brian I noticed a wrinkle in the control rules that would affect supply rules sometimes I think, going back to my question about notionals. When Major Power A declares war on Minor Country Z, the side opposite A has to align Z to a Major Power B on that side. If A and B are not at war, hexes (and notionals) in Z are controlled by Z. If A and B go to war, hexes and notionals in Z become controlled by B. spinning yet? The game keeps track of who controls each hex. If an aligned minor country controls a hex, it is the minor that is shown controlling the hex. When hexes are taken from the enemy that is another issue entirely, and the example you gave is the correct way to handle it. Notional units are another whole ball of wax, especially in regard to supply.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (1/18/2012 4:03:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets I was reluctant to start a new thread just for this, so I have placed it here. ================= This is the MWIF Processing Structure for the redesign of the game engine. I had done several previous versions but this is both more complete and more coherent. All the lines without arrowheads are bi-directional. I think of the 'player' as having two roles: Controller and Player. As Controller, he starts the game, sets up for restoring or begining a new game, and also has the option to replay a previous game or run through the tutorials. Note that in all those cases he is not 'playing' the game per se. As a Player, he is moving units and making other decisions according to the WIF rules. So, the Controller starts MWIF (upper left corner) and then decides what to do using the Controller Interface. Say he chooses to start a new game. He gets to set the mode of play (e.g., solitaire or Internet), scenario, optional rules, and identify the players. He might simply assign major powers to players or decide to go through the bidding process. If bidding, he then becomes a Player and the program reaches out to the other players over the Internet. Once major powers are set, Game Control is in charge and informs the active decision makers (Local Player, Internet Player, PBEM Player, AI Assistant, and AI Opponent) so they can perform any preparatory analysis they want. Simultaneously, the "Player on Move" will be informed that it is his turn to make decisions. The AIO will perform and store its preparatory analysis while waiting on the human player(s) and the human players can do likewise with "Preplanned Decisions". There is some minor stuff not shown here, but I believe all the important pieces are identified and in place. My follow-up task to this one is to restructure the program logic so it matches this process structure. [image]local://upfiles/16701/051B3F6829A9487387F21E4BBCEFDC75.jpg[/image] I thought I would bump this image of the Processing Structure. When I originally posted this redesign from CWIF to MWIF (5 years ago) none of it existed. Looking at it today, I have finished all the items in brown (Controller Interface) and yellow (Game Control). There are still bugs in the latter. The only item missing from the blue boxes is bidding for major powers. From the light green (Tutorials), I still need to create the content for the Interactive tutorials, and there is a new item: Training Videos, which are 70% completed. The purple items (Game Replay) has no work done on it, other than the Game Record Log. The GRL needs to be tested for completeness; it is crucial for NetPlay and PBEM. The teal boxes (Player Interface) are a mixed bag. Modifying the player interface settings is done. Combat sound, etc. exist but are not embedded in the game play yet. Context sensitive help is ~90% done. General Help and Rules Enforcement are done. Historical Details has it text 90% done, while no work has been done on Preplanned Decisions. Historical Pictures have been dropped from the design completely. The AI (red boxes) has a lot of existing code but it needs a ton more work before it will be ready for prime time. The same is true for PBEM. NetPlay is in daily alpha testing by me and I expect to have it in beta testing come February. I have had to reluctantly conclude that Game Replay and Preplanned Decisions won't be available for a long time (years[:(]).

brian brian -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (1/18/2012 11:01:22 PM)
well that is all a little mysterious there Steve, particularly Preplanned Decisions, which I just can't think of a part of the game I would need this? You pre-plan everything while you look at the screen all the time. When the phase comes to push the buttons you need to push, then you do it. ??? Game Replay sounds very enticing. A little mini-movie of the war (game), complete with a Groupon coupon for some popcorn down at your local market? No, I suspect that is not what you meant. But I can only think of how Cyberboard works; all it does is manipulate little graphic objects (counters) over a graphic layer underneath (map). When looking at a move record sent from another player, the player can pause, click forward a single move of a piece at a time, even if perhaps the opponent just clicked on a piece, moved it a single pixel (not changing hexes), and then go on to the next, or the player can let it all roll by automatically. This would seem to be important for pbem. The alternative would be to look at all of your opponents pieces, click some sort of permission acknowledging receipt of your opponent's moves from the 'net, and then suddenly all of their pieces are in new places. But it doesn't seem that hard to get that done. ? The game log must have a part that sequentially changes the location of the pieces....as that is read into the log on the 2nd player's computer, couldn't it go out to the screen, one move at a time? But I really have no idea what you were hoping to have in 'Game Replay'.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (1/18/2012 11:33:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brian brian well that is all a little mysterious there Steve, particularly Preplanned Decisions, which I just can't think of a part of the game I would need this? You pre-plan everything while you look at the screen all the time. When the phase comes to push the buttons you need to push, then you do it. ??? Game Replay sounds very enticing. A little mini-movie of the war (game), complete with a Groupon coupon for some popcorn down at your local market? No, I suspect that is not what you meant. But I can only think of how Cyberboard works; all it does is manipulate little graphic objects (counters) over a graphic layer underneath (map). When looking at a move record sent from another player, the player can pause, click forward a single move of a piece at a time, even if perhaps the opponent just clicked on a piece, moved it a single pixel (not changing hexes), and then go on to the next, or the player can let it all roll by automatically. This would seem to be important for pbem. The alternative would be to look at all of your opponents pieces, click some sort of permission acknowledging receipt of your opponent's moves from the 'net, and then suddenly all of their pieces are in new places. But it doesn't seem that hard to get that done. ? The game log must have a part that sequentially changes the location of the pieces....as that is read into the log on the 2nd player's computer, couldn't it go out to the screen, one move at a time? But I really have no idea what you were hoping to have in 'Game Replay'. My idea is to treat the game record log the same way a database is handled for business (banking, inventory). The common system design allows database transactions to be "rolled forward" and "rolled backward". For instance, if the database gets damaged in a system crash, a back up can be restored and then all the transactions (which are recorded separately as they occur) can be applied to bring the database up-to-date. Or, if the last groups of transactions didn't get applied cleanly, they can be removed (rolled backward) to restore the database to where it is known to have been 'valid'. For MWIF, the replay would let you see the pieces move on the map, control the pace at which that happens, and stop to examine various forms etc. when ever you like. The direction of the replay would be either forwards or backwards. My design of the GRLs allows for all this to happen. For example, each GRL records where the unit was before it moved, so the move can be undone. Preplanned decisions would permit the player to move his land units around (or rebase his air units) while the other side was figuring out what to do. The units wouldn't move on the opponent's map of the world, and the moves wouldn't be permanent until confirmed. So, for example, while the Commonwealth is trying to decide whether to send up fighters against the German ground strike, the Japanese player could move all his units in China. Neither of these will be available until 2013 or 2014, if ever.[;)]

brian brian -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (1/18/2012 11:57:11 PM)
I don't think pre-planned moves is that important then. Except in Hot Seat games, but I just don't see that being a popular way to handle movement. I have had opponents I would never ever play Hot Seat against, except for air or naval combat only. Why play on the computer in real time if you have to sit there while a factor counter type player counts and recounts his factors? [factor counter players are the easiest to defeat....while they spend their time counting and re-counting factors for the perfect attack, you think deeply about strategy.] But if you can't move your units somewhat just mentally while you wait on something, you probably won't be able to play the game that well anyway. As long as you can undo moves when actually moving units, and the program enforces that as I'm sure it will. I'm still confused on Game Replay then. Are you saying watching the pieces move can't be part of it yet? That three dozen land units will just all snap from their pre-movement phase location to their post-movement phase location? Perhaps this isn't as important either, with the program enforcing the movement costs and limits, the complete opposite of the pbem programs used today. We might could use the ability to snap back and forth with some sort of permission to end the viewing of the enemy movement phase.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (1/19/2012 2:41:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brian brian I don't think pre-planned moves is that important then. Except in Hot Seat games, but I just don't see that being a popular way to handle movement. I have had opponents I would never ever play Hot Seat against, except for air or naval combat only. Why play on the computer in real time if you have to sit there while a factor counter type player counts and recounts his factors? [factor counter players are the easiest to defeat....while they spend their time counting and re-counting factors for the perfect attack, you think deeply about strategy.] But if you can't move your units somewhat just mentally while you wait on something, you probably won't be able to play the game that well anyway. As long as you can undo moves when actually moving units, and the program enforces that as I'm sure it will. I'm still confused on Game Replay then. Are you saying watching the pieces move can't be part of it yet? That three dozen land units will just all snap from their pre-movement phase location to their post-movement phase location? Perhaps this isn't as important either, with the program enforcing the movement costs and limits, the complete opposite of the pbem programs used today. We might could use the ability to snap back and forth with some sort of permission to end the viewing of the enemy movement phase. What is missing from Game Replay are: reversing the flow, and taking a saved game and replaying it using the game record log. The latter is available for bringing a game up-to-date when a session starts, but it isn't intended for dynamic control by the viewing player; nor for the heavy use it would receive if a full game were replayed.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (3/29/2012 7:00:25 PM)
1st in a series of 2. The beta testers have been complaining that the interactive tutorials just dump the player into a saved game cold. So we have been adding title pages for each interactive tutorial. This let's you decide whether you really want to start the tutorial or not, before the program restores a game (which takes 10+ seconds). The title page also gives some visuals of the game elements the IT covers. [image]local://upfiles/16701/39EF5DE0E3A64461BF75F7E2051880C7.jpg[/image]

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (3/29/2012 7:03:20 PM)
Rob W. has been writing the content for the Interactive Tutorials and Peter v. has been testing them heavily. So far Rob has finished: 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, and 18. He is close to finishing #16. That will just leave #19 and #20 left for him to do, which should be done in the first half of April. [image]local://upfiles/16701/1977913839A842D683C777FEFF374FBC.jpg[/image]

brian brian -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (3/29/2012 11:41:53 PM)
not sure how much you have been linking the tutorials to the full Sep/Oct 1939 Global War scenario, and how much the Barbarossa and Guadalcanal scenarios. I hope those first two are used and promoted heavily in MWiF. Especially Guadalcanal, which should almost be Scenario #1 in my opinion, as lots of people have moved land units on hexes...but every game has a different naval system. I think. ? Anyhow, I think everything is easier to learn when the counter densities are lower and active map area is smaller.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (3/30/2012 12:24:23 AM)
1st in a series of 3. Here is another title page. Note that the bottom portion of the text is the same in each title page. The horizontal line denotes the break between unique and standard text. [image]local://upfiles/16701/DD4CC0AB923C4735AEBCD0DC9856E0FF.jpg[/image]

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (3/30/2012 12:25:10 AM)
2nd in a series of 3. [image]local://upfiles/16701/CEC658107E2F4170A2446CA429D75A1E.jpg[/image]

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (3/30/2012 12:25:47 AM)
3rd and last in this series. [image]local://upfiles/16701/D3348D75769A4AC7B6CBB0AF70D57154.jpg[/image]

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (3/30/2012 5:50:16 AM)
2 more title pages. I am now caught up with the 7 that Rob has completed. The other title pages will have to wait until he has completed the details. [image]local://upfiles/16701/DC448597224F48BE9C2DFFFD546E39A6.jpg[/image]

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (3/30/2012 5:50:52 AM)
2nd in a series of 2. [image]local://upfiles/16701/C7314D8D819541539B30BA6513AC5B94.jpg[/image]

nedcorleone1 -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (3/30/2012 2:58:35 PM)
These tutorials will be a godsend for someone like me. I just hope that the tutorials are written accurately. I cannot stand a tutorial that says "click on..." and that button doesn't exist, or "then this will happen..." and it never does.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (3/30/2012 6:05:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mr_flappypants These tutorials will be a godsend for someone like me. I just hope that the tutorials are written accurately. I cannot stand a tutorial that says "click on..." and that button doesn't exist, or "then this will happen..." and it never does. That's what Peter is checking now. We'll have some more beta testers goes through them to add polish once Peter has removed any dangerous rough edges. The same material is covered in the Training Videos - where no buttons need to be clicked[;)].

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/14/2012 4:19:49 AM)
Post #1 of 3. We renumbered the Interactive tutorials so the ones on naval movement and combat are towards the end. Here are the last 3 title pages. [image]local://upfiles/16701/AE4D4429206143AEA11E61D469466A5C.jpg[/image]

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/14/2012 4:20:37 AM)
2nd in a set of 3 posts. [image]local://upfiles/16701/1598BAFDD0DF40EC9E8CF26678AE3D5E.jpg[/image]

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/14/2012 4:22:53 AM)
3rd and last in a series of 3. Rob has now finished these. They are likely to get a little more buffing and polishing as the beta testers go through them. But as far as I'm concerned, these are done. Thank you Rob![&o][&o][&o][&o] And Peter, for being the first to test them.[&o][&o] [image]local://upfiles/16701/A318B6C1CFC144A38DA8EE18B0B97F90.jpg[/image]

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (1/27/2013 11:19:32 PM)
I just finished fixing the last of 22 Vichy France creation bugs. Below is a screen shot of the world post-Vichy creation for the saved game I have been beating to death with testing. Germany had DOW'd Portugal, which was aligned to France. Both Belgium and the Netherlands were also aligned to France. The Netherlands had been conquered by Germany with NEI chosen as its new home country. France then DOW'd Spain and conquered Spain. With all that having taken place, Germany captured Paris and declared Vichy. For the die rolls for which areas went to Vichy, I made sure that All Other Minors and Territories were awarded to Vichy. I let the other die rolls happen randomly. Because Belgium, the Netherlands, and Portugal were aligned to France, Germany got to choose which Axis major power was considered to have conquered each of them. Most were given to Germany, but Japan got NEI and all of Portugal's possessions in Asia and the Pacific. They also got Madagascar. Germany decided to align Spain (which France had conquered). All of these countries and territories went to Vichy. If they had gone to Free France, then none of this would have happened. For instance, during some of my testing Libya went to Vichy, and since it had been conquered by the Commonwealth, I awarded to Italy. In the case of a minor country being aligned to an Axis major power during this phase, in the subsequent Liberation phase, the Axis major power gets to liberate the country. For instance, I had Germany liberate Spain in the shown screenshot. It doesn't make any difference on the map, but some of the Spanish units got moved from the Conquered Pool to the German Force Pool. Note the blue hex in Portugal - there is a Commonwealth land unit there. The same is true for a couple of hexes in Belgium. Germany also picked up a couple of countries in South America. There were a ton of naval units to rebase because the Commonwealth had units in many of the French territories. There were also Dutch naval units in occupied France and NEI, plus Portuguese naval units in Lisbon. Many of these units move during different subphases of the Vichy Creation phase. There were also a ton of French land and air units scattered about the Mediterranean; all of them had to be relocated (teleported) to the nearest hex controlled by either Vichy France or Free France. Now I have to await the beta testers attacking my modified code for Vichy Creation and hope there aren't too many new bugs for me to fix. [image]local://upfiles/16701/D3AAEF733E3A48A7BAC7E495BA1EB22B.jpg[/image]

composer99 -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (1/28/2013 1:18:22 AM)
That is one of the more convoluted Vichy phases I have ever encountered, but it makes sense to come up with the craziest boundary cases when stress-testing. However, correct me if I am wrong, but shouldn't all those French-aligned & French-conquered minor powers become either Vichy or Free French rather than becoming conquered/controlled by other Axis major powers? From the FAQ: quote: Q17.2-6 17.2 Q: What happens to countries conquered and aligned by France when Vichy is declared? A: You roll for them on the appropriate row of the Free-French chart (see WiF 17.2).

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.65625