Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Japan Map

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Japan Map Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Japan Map - 5/6/2007 10:56:56 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

The RaW doesn't say what happens to the corps when it breaks down into divisions.
When it breaks down does the corps go back into the force pool like the divisions?

In WiF FE, broken down Corps are put back into the force pool and can be rebuilt.

This "Broken-Down Pool" is only for MWiF, because of the unlimited DIV breakdown that is a rule that is different from WiF FE.

(in reply to Mziln)
Post #: 181
RE: Japan Map - 5/6/2007 1:59:54 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
'Remembering' from which corps a division came when it was created by breaking down a corps, has a lot of problems. Say there are 3 corps broken down and each of them has lost one if the divisions. Then none of them can be reformed on the board, nor can the corps be reformed in the "destroyed broken down divisions pool" (so it would go back into the force pool to be available for being rebuilt). That interpretation makes logical sense but is stupid from the point of view of the player. It would also necessitate that the information concerning the divison's original corps be availabel to the player, since it would affect his ability to reform units - messy to do.

I intend to simply modify the reforming rule so that to reform a corps you need two divisions equal to those that were created when it was broken down. They do not have to be the same divisions, but they do have to be the correct size (strength factors). And they have to match in other particulars too (i.e., unit type).

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 182
RE: Japan Map - 5/9/2007 6:09:47 AM   
doctormm


Posts: 124
Joined: 5/28/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
quote:

ORIGINAL: doctormm
Doesn't that effectively remove the strongest broken down units from the game? Given the way that the break down/recombine rules work, some corps can never be re-created from divisions.

I was not aware of that. Could you give an example?

I think he means that :

<snip>
A 2-4 and a 2-4 DIV are reformed into what Corps ?
Twice the CF of both DIV is 8.
The Corps reformed into must have less than 8 CF.
So the 2-4 and 2-4 DIV cannot reform into the 8-4 Corps.

But I think that MWiF will work differently than RAW here, in that peculiar thing that (from what I think I understood) the broken down DIV will "remember" from which Corps they were created, and so that the corps will be able to be reformed from these DIVs.


OK, if MWiF introduces some sort of "memory" that would allow the divisions resulting from breaking down that 8-4 into two 2-4 divs to be rebuilt into the original 8-4, that solves some of the problem. But that would be violating the existing "less than twice the factors" rule on the strength of the reformed corps. If (for some reason) you broke down a 9-4 you would never be able to reform it unless you had a 3 factor division (there aren't many of those in WiF).

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 183
RE: Japan Map - 5/9/2007 7:17:39 AM   
amwild

 

Posts: 105
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

'Remembering' from which corps a division came when it was created by breaking down a corps, has a lot of problems. Say there are 3 corps broken down and each of them has lost one if the divisions. Then none of them can be reformed on the board, nor can the corps be reformed in the "destroyed broken down divisions pool" (so it would go back into the force pool to be available for being rebuilt). That interpretation makes logical sense but is stupid from the point of view of the player. It would also necessitate that the information concerning the divison's original corps be availabel to the player, since it would affect his ability to reform units - messy to do.

I intend to simply modify the reforming rule so that to reform a corps you need two divisions equal to those that were created when it was broken down. They do not have to be the same divisions, but they do have to be the correct size (strength factors). And they have to match in other particulars too (i.e., unit type).


Here's a possible solution to missing factors, but it may cause a few problems with the internal datatypes:

When splitting a corps, keep track of fractional unit strength, but ignore the fractions for purposes of combat. Then, when recombining, add and double the fractional strengths and use an "Equal" rather than a "Largest But Less Than" policy.

E.g. splitting a 9-4 gets you a 2.5-4 and a 2.0-4. Splitting an 8-4 gets you two 2.0-4s. In terms of gameplay, fractions are rounded off (a 2.5-4 becoming a 3-4), so the 2.5-4 can be combined with any 2.0-4 to get a 9-4. A 3.0-4 and a 2.0-4 could combine to a 10-4, though the divisions could be apparently identical to the units that can combine to a 9-4.

I hope I had the breakdown and recombination rules straight to start with...

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 184
RE: Japan Map - 5/9/2007 10:43:35 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: amwild
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
'Remembering' from which corps a division came when it was created by breaking down a corps, has a lot of problems. Say there are 3 corps broken down and each of them has lost one if the divisions. Then none of them can be reformed on the board, nor can the corps be reformed in the "destroyed broken down divisions pool" (so it would go back into the force pool to be available for being rebuilt). That interpretation makes logical sense but is stupid from the point of view of the player. It would also necessitate that the information concerning the divison's original corps be availabel to the player, since it would affect his ability to reform units - messy to do.

I intend to simply modify the reforming rule so that to reform a corps you need two divisions equal to those that were created when it was broken down. They do not have to be the same divisions, but they do have to be the correct size (strength factors). And they have to match in other particulars too (i.e., unit type).


Here's a possible solution to missing factors, but it may cause a few problems with the internal datatypes:

When splitting a corps, keep track of fractional unit strength, but ignore the fractions for purposes of combat. Then, when recombining, add and double the fractional strengths and use an "Equal" rather than a "Largest But Less Than" policy.

E.g. splitting a 9-4 gets you a 2.5-4 and a 2.0-4. Splitting an 8-4 gets you two 2.0-4s. In terms of gameplay, fractions are rounded off (a 2.5-4 becoming a 3-4), so the 2.5-4 can be combined with any 2.0-4 to get a 9-4. A 3.0-4 and a 2.0-4 could combine to a 10-4, though the divisions could be apparently identical to the units that can combine to a 9-4.

I hope I had the breakdown and recombination rules straight to start with...

Yes, a viable solution, but I am simply going to permit two 2 strength divisions to be reformed into a 9, if one is available in the broken down pool.

Yes, this is a deviation from RAW, but in my opinion not one worth anyone getting upset about. You can't reform them into a 9 if there isn't one in the broken down pool, and if there are both 9's and 8's in the broken down pool, then which one is selected will be done randomly.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to amwild)
Post #: 185
RE: Japan Map - 5/11/2007 1:01:32 AM   
jcprom

 

Posts: 36
Joined: 5/1/2007
Status: offline
I like this rule (first loss with corps in most situations).

The only important change between WIF FE and MWIF is scale: if any change is needed in the game system, it's probably related to divisions. Breakdown rules, combat rules with divisions are a key issue. Decisions made (or not made) will affect AI set-up, AI strategy, AI builds...



< Message edited by jcprom -- 5/11/2007 1:04:01 AM >

(in reply to npilgaard)
Post #: 186
RE: Japan Map - 5/11/2007 4:37:11 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jcprom
I like this rule (first loss with corps in most situations).

The only important change between WIF FE and MWIF is scale: if any change is needed in the game system, it's probably related to divisions. Breakdown rules, combat rules with divisions are a key issue. Decisions made (or not made) will affect AI set-up, AI strategy, AI builds...


We made a lot of changes to the China map, you might want to check that out (if you haven't already). The number of hexes in China increased by times 6.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to jcprom)
Post #: 187
RE: Japan Map - 5/11/2007 4:20:38 PM   
jcprom

 

Posts: 36
Joined: 5/1/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcprom
I like this rule (first loss with corps in most situations).

The only important change between WIF FE and MWIF is scale: if any change is needed in the game system, it's probably related to divisions. Breakdown rules, combat rules with divisions are a key issue. Decisions made (or not made) will affect AI set-up, AI strategy, AI builds...


We made a lot of changes to the China map, you might want to check that out (if you haven't already). The number of hexes in China increased by times 6.


I've seen it, Shannon, thank you (that's why I made those comments).


< Message edited by jcprom -- 5/11/2007 11:56:49 PM >

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 188
RE: Japan Map - 2/8/2008 11:15:26 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

I haven't seen a map of the Kuriles, but I presume you have included a port at Hitokappu (I think the island's name was Etorofu), from where the Pearl Harbor strike force set off.

I believe that Hitokappu Bay is more a gathering point, some form of large sheltered anchorage where the fleet hide in late november 1941. There seem to be no trace of a large naval base here on Etorofu. I think that this place does not deserve being a port, neither minor nor major.

(in reply to jcprom)
Post #: 189
RE: Japan Map - 2/8/2008 1:03:16 PM   
marcuswatney

 

Posts: 279
Joined: 2/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I believe that Hitokappu Bay is more a gathering point, some form of large sheltered anchorage where the fleet hide in late november 1941. There seem to be no trace of a large naval base here on Etorofu. I think that this place does not deserve being a port, neither minor nor major.


Fair comment. The use of sea areas in WiF make the port of departure not as significant as in hex-by-hex naval games.

But please also consider the Pescadores (Mako), which I think were more than a gathering point. I believe they were used regularly throughout the war as a naval base, like Truk. I suspect the Japanese developed the Pescadores to keep military preparations secret from the enquiring eyes of the indigenous Chinese people of Formosa.

Also, the naval base on Hainan from where the invasion force set off was at the south end of the island, and called Samah.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 190
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Japan Map Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.250