Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Start of Game
Choose Scenarios...................choose scenarios, remote, watchers, free set up, extended game
Choose Options......................set optional rules on/off
Add Players............................add players to game
Bid..........................................current bids, bidding, countries available
Choose Sides..........................set who plays what
Password................................request player’s password
Setup......................................primary screen for setting up units

quote:

ORIGINAL: OzHawkeye

In the UI design thread Shannon created (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=915054) the options for new games mentioned included the following:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Start of Game
Choose Scenarios...................choose scenarios, remote, watchers, free set up, extended game
Choose Options......................set optional rules on/off
Add Players............................add players to game
Bid..........................................current bids, bidding, countries available
Choose Sides..........................set who plays what
Password................................request player’s password
Setup......................................primary screen for setting up units

I've bolded the "extended game" option, because this would imply the ability to play past 1945 I think.

I've looked for the answer through that thread and can't find it, so I guess my question is, in MWiF will I be able to play for as long as I happen to want to, even if that extends beyond the historical end-date for the war?

I ask, because I really hate it when games come to end even if the players in hand didn't want it to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
This is easy to do, and is currently coded to extend the game 3 years (to 1948).

I want to make this more dynamic, but haven't been able to figure out what to do exactly.

- Can this be done while the game is in progress, or only at the start of the game (which is how all the others optional rules work)?
- If the former, should all the players have to agree?
- How close to the currently scheduled end of the game can the end point be changed? As the end of the game approaches, production planning changes; for instance, ship building stops more than 2 years before the end of the game.
- Can it be changed more than once?
- Should there be an absolute maximum?

... and perhaps other issues (it's late, and I am not as alert as I am earlier in the day).

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

What he means is players usually stop building new ships in late '42 (aside, perhaps, from submarines, sealift, and convoys) because any that appear on the map in '45 are not going to be used much, if at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: OzHawkeye

More relevantly though I guess, is that I'd hate to play a game where there's still unresolved campaigns, things on my "to do" list as it were, and find that suddenly I'm being told by the computer that "Nope, you're done."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

quote:

ORIGINAL: OzHawkeye

More relevantly though I guess, is that I'd hate to play a game where there's still unresolved campaigns, things on my "to do" list as it were, and find that suddenly I'm being told by the computer that "Nope, you're done."

You mean like the real Allied Generals were.

Good Hunting.

MR

quote:

ORIGINAL: OzHawkeye

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

quote:

ORIGINAL: OzHawkeye

More relevantly though I guess, is that I'd hate to play a game where there's still unresolved campaigns, things on my "to do" list as it were, and find that suddenly I'm being told by the computer that "Nope, you're done."

You mean like the real Allied Generals were.

Good Hunting.

MR

Actually I'd argue that a known end-date is far less realistic. The actual commanders of the day didn't know two years out, or even six months out, when the war was going to end. Indeed, it's one of my principle criticisms of some people who complain about Allied actions during the war, assuming that somehow for example Harris knew the war only had 6 weeks to run when executing the Dresden bombing raid for example.

Be that as it may, this being a game, the human player is the one that should always be in control. If the human player wants the game to continue, and the game is physically able to do so, then the game should respond by continuing, indefinitely if needs be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Sorry, I can't agree with the "human player should always be in control". The game/simulation is a set of rules. Without rules, there is no game. For example, during development, the beta testers can arbitrarily place new units on the map where ever they want to: ooo, look at all the panzers in Washington D.C.! This ability is essential for creating and testing situations that might arise in game play, but this god-like power makes 'playing' the game meaningless.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
---
But I liked your answers to my set of open questions on how the end-of-game optional rule should work. Do you want to read through the posts in this thread and put forth a 'formal' proposal for this optional rule? Then we could see if there is a consensus.

quote:


ORIGINAL: OzHawkeye

More relevantly though I guess, is that I'd hate to play a game where there's still unresolved campaigns, things on my "to do" list as it were, and find that suddenly I'm being told by the computer that "Nope, you're done."

quote:

ORIGINAL: OzHawkeye

I would suggest perhaps though, that the more open, the more moddable the game is, the more successful it's likely to be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: OzHawkeye

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Sorry, I can't agree with the "human player should always be in control". The game/simulation is a set of rules. Without rules, there is no game. For example, during development, the beta testers can arbitrarily place new units on the map where ever they want to: ooo, look at all the panzers in Washington D.C.! This ability is essential for creating and testing situations that might arise in game play, but this god-like power makes 'playing' the game meaningless.

I guess we have a difference of philosophy there. If a player chose to short-circuit the game by having some Tiger Tanks rumble down Pennsylvania Avenue in 1941, then that's their choice. Obviously they'll have skipped a lot of fun gameplay in between, to their own loss, but I don't believe in telling someone else how to spend their play time (in saying that, I do understand that as a game designer you'll have a necessarily different view point to that stance).

I would suggest perhaps though, that the more open, the more moddable the game is, the more successful it's likely to be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
---
But I liked your answers to my set of open questions on how the end-of-game optional rule should work. Do you want to read through the posts in this thread and put forth a 'formal' proposal for this optional rule? Then we could see if there is a consensus.

Happy to do so. I'll work something up over the next couple of days.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

That doesn't say anything about the natural flow of events. It says YOU weren't finished yet. My point was then and still is, the Allied Generals, and some politicians as well, that felt the same way in some instances. Because the war ended and there were still some things they wanted to accomplish.

Good Hunting.

MR

quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

While I would agree with your above statement in regards to many other games. In this instance, I most definately disagree. I believe MWiF, as an adaptation of a existing board game, will be more successful if the core game works well "out of the box".

Down the road if resources permit mod away "if possible". But if the core isn't solid (it looks to me to be on the right path) anything else is pointless.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Thanks. I prefer to offload work whenever I get the opportunity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: OzHawkeye

As a relative outsider to MWiF, I would be especially concerned that my viewpoints didn't impede on a faithful boardgame to PC conversion. However, is there something inherent to the Wif Ruleset that would make post-1945 gameplay broken in some way?

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
I would say not at all. The only thing of impact is that there are so few 1946 units to build.

quote:

ORIGINAL: OzHawkeye

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
I would say not at all. The only thing of impact is that there are so few 1946 units to build.

Are units specific to a particular build date are they are? That is, I don't build "a" ship, but build instead a particular, uniquely named ship that gets built once and once only?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
For ships, all capital ships down to the light cruiser are named, and have a date when they enter the Force pool.

For example, the Yorktown II (Essex class) enters the force pool in 1941. You can build it right away, and have it on the map in S/O 43 (Essex class carriers only take 20 months to build, instead of 2 years).


For all ships, including named ones, as well as for any dated unit, you can decide to scrap it when it is destroyed, or you can allow it to return in the Force Pool to be possibly rebuilt later.

For example, if the Yorktown II sinks in N/D 43, you can scrap it if you want. You can also keep it in the Force Pool, and build it again. But it would not be a good idea since you have in 1943 better Carriers than the Yorktown II, the Ticonderoga or Hancock for example.

The beauty of MWiF is that if you decide to rebuild the Enterprise for example (which is unique in its class), you can rename the counter the Enterprise II if you want . But it would not be an efficient decision, as there will be better Carriers in the Force Pool.

quote:

ORIGINAL: OzHawkeye

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
For ships, all capital ships down to the light cruiser are named, and have a date when they enter the Force pool.

For example, the Yorktown II (Essex class) enters the force pool in 1941. You can build it right away, and have it on the map in S/O 43 (Essex class carriers only take 20 months to build, instead of 2 years).


For all ships, including named ones, as well as for any dated unit, you can decide to scrap it when it is destroyed, or you can allow it to return in the Force Pool to be possibly rebuilt later.

For example, if the Yorktown II sinks in N/D 43, you can scrap it if you want. You can also keep it in the Force Pool, and build it again. But it would not be a good idea since you have in 1943 better Carriers than the Yorktown II, the Ticonderoga or Hancock for example.

The beauty of MWiF is that if you decide to rebuild the Enterprise for example (which is unique in its class), you can rename the counter the Enterprise II if you want . But it would not be an efficient decision, as there will be better Carriers in the Force Pool.

Now I'm starting to understand the fixed end-date concept. I've been going through the WiF manual off the ADG site, but it's been slow (tough) going and I've obviously not gotten to that point yet.

Hmmm, this is definitely a spanner in the works of an no-end-date game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Patrice's post might be interpretted as the player gets to choose which units to build. That is not the case. Units are randomly selected from the force pools, though the force pools are subdivided by type. So, for example, you can choose whether to build a battleship or a cruiser, but not a specific unit. A couple of exceptions are: if there is only one unit of that type in the force pool, and when building a naval unit for its second year. For example, you might want to scrap poorer units to enrich the quality of your forcepool, even to the point of scrapping all but one unit so you know what will be 'randomly' selected. The naval units are built in two stages, and each stage takes about 1 year. The cost of each stage is 'paid' for separately, and units which have comlpeted the first stage go into a Construction pool, where they can sit indefinitiely (until their second stage is 'paid' for). While the first stage is randomly selected, the second stage can be chosen by the player from all those that have completed stage 1.