Option 47

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Option 47

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 >> Option 47

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Option 47 - 6/11/2014 2:20:24 PM

WarHunter

Posts: 1207
Joined: 3/21/2004
Status: offline

What is option 47?

Where is it found in the rules?

Why is it important?

Is it a house rule that became more?

_____________________________

�We never felt like we were losing until we were actually dead.�
Marcus Luttrell

Post #: 1

RE: Option 47 - 6/11/2014 2:26:41 PM

Centuur

Posts: 8802
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline

From RAW:

Option 47: (Isolated reorganization) You can only turn a unit faceup
if it can trace a path to a primary supply source for that unit. You
trace the path in the same way as a basic supply path, including via
overseas supply paths (see 2.4.2) except that it can be of any length.

I think that if you've read this, you will agree that this is an option which is used by a lot of players, since it is historically right to assume that surrounded units can't be reoganised...

I think it's a pity that this optional rule isn't functional in MWIF at the moment, because it really is an important one.

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to WarHunter)

Post #: 2

RE: Option 47 - 6/11/2014 5:51:53 PM

Larry Smith

Posts: 203
Joined: 4/14/2001
From: Williams Lake, BC, Canada
Status: offline

It would be relatively easy to implement, too, since in a way, similar subroutines are already being used for the Oil rules. All you'd have to do is make all units oil dependent, but by such a small amount - say 0.01, or even 0.005, depending on how small of a oil fraction the game will keep track of - and that's that. if the smallest fraction is 0.05, then you'd have an issue, but my point is that the subroutine to do the checks is there, and works. It would just need to be adapted to suit the units that are not oil dependent.

(in reply to Centuur)

Post #: 3

RE: Option 47 - 6/12/2014 3:35:58 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Larry Smith

It would be relatively easy to implement, too, since in a way, similar subroutines are already being used for the Oil rules. All you'd have to do is make all units oil dependent, but by such a small amount - say 0.01, or even 0.005, depending on how small of a oil fraction the game will keep track of - and that's that. if the smallest fraction is 0.05, then you'd have an issue, but my point is that the subroutine to do the checks is there, and works. It would just need to be adapted to suit the units that are not oil dependent.

CPU cycles is my concern for implementing this rule. Trying to find a path of infinite length on the Asia map can take a long time - especially if there are a dozen or so units OOS but not isolated.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Larry Smith)

Post #: 4

RE: Option 47 - 6/12/2014 6:44:20 AM

paulderynck

Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

How difficult would it be to include only the ability to disorganize a unit manually? (Somewhat of a debug functionality.) Make it available only during the final re-org phase and only able to be implemented by the owning player, so if both players agree to play Option 47, the effects can be implemented.

I do recall the issues with it in beta testing and why it slowed the game execution down tremendously trying to ensure units way off in the hinterlands truly had absolutely no path to a supply source.

A classic example of how the human brain is still superior to the computer for certain tasks.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 5

RE: Option 47 - 6/12/2014 6:25:46 PM

Centuur

Posts: 8802
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline

For the oil reorganisation, the check in MWIF is made in that phase only. For isolation, Steve wanted to do this check after each supply calculation, so players could see if a unit was simply out of supply or isolated. This is of course the best way to do this, seeing on how players would like the information to be as good as possible, to prevent units from getting isolated...

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to paulderynck)

Post #: 6

RE: Option 47 - 6/12/2014 9:20:21 PM

CrusssDaddy

Posts: 330
Joined: 8/6/2004
Status: offline

In my experience, usually on the Asia map this involves bypassed ChiComm units trying to trace to Urumqi or Kashgar or far south, potentially dozens of hexes in any case. As a house rule, we would look suspiciously at giant supply lines that snaked through desert, mountains, etc. endlessly to establish supply improbably far, far away: when flipped, those guys would stay flipped until relived from the outside. This also alleviated littering the map with control markers.

Maybe as a compromise that retains the spirit of the rule without taking ages to compute, the computer could cut off its supply search after 15 or 20 hexes? That seems a reasonable distance to preserve some need to truly pocket bypassed forces.

Otherwise, it's inconceivable playing without 47.

(in reply to Centuur)

Post #: 7

RE: Option 47 - 6/12/2014 9:34:55 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

In my experience, usually on the Asia map this involves bypassed ChiComm units trying to trace to Urumqi or Kashgar or far south, potentially dozens of hexes in any case. As a house rule, we would look suspiciously at giant supply lines that snaked through desert, mountains, etc. endlessly to establish supply improbably far, far away: when flipped, those guys would stay flipped until relived from the outside. This also alleviated littering the map with control markers.

Maybe as a compromise that retains the spirit of the rule without taking ages to compute, the computer could cut off its supply search after 15 or 20 hexes? That seems a reasonable distance to preserve some need to truly pocket bypassed forces.

Otherwise, it's inconceivable playing without 47.

warspite1

Sounds sensible if it means a chance of this being coded.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to CrusssDaddy)

Post #: 8

RE: Option 47 - 6/12/2014 10:59:34 PM

AlbertN

Posts: 3693
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline

I agree this rule is quite important - even a "manual flip" of units could do, even if for a newb like me could come down harsh. Some pockets are quite evident in many cases even to someone like me.

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 9

RE: Option 47 - 6/13/2014 5:28:35 AM

AxelNL

Posts: 2386
Joined: 9/24/2011
From: The Netherlands
Status: offline

Good discussion guys. Crussdaddy has a reasonable proposal, I wonder how many others will support this?
Perhaps the maxx range of hexes could be user-defined?

(in reply to AlbertN)

Post #: 10

RE: Option 47 - 6/13/2014 11:32:23 AM

brian brian

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

I've never understood why this rule is an optional. I haven't played without it since my 2nd or 3rd game of World in Flames in about 1991, playing as a House Rule even before Final Edition came out.

The worst would be paying without the Oil Rule due to game issues and seeing an isolated enemy HQ become a Ghost Army Group HQ.

It seems to be a sad irony that WiF is a game that gives the players easy logistics in the interests of playability and now MWiF has to do the same?

(in reply to AxelNL)

Post #: 11

RE: Option 47 - 6/13/2014 1:43:09 PM

rkr1958

Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AxelNL

Good discussion guys. Crussdaddy has a reasonable proposal, I wonder how many others will support this?
Perhaps the maxx range of hexes could be user-defined?

If this rule is that critical and run times with an "infinite" range are prohibited then implementing this with a user defined (variable) range seems to be a good compromise. Though I'm not part of the beta, I could see this implemented in beta and someone run tests to derive lag time versus range and coming up with a value that allows for the intent of this rule without impacting run time. But having the range as variable would allow users with faster or slower computers to customize as necessary. And as computers get faster, in a decade or so, then an infinite range might be possible.

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 6/13/2014 2:54:49 PM >

(in reply to AxelNL)

Post #: 12

RE: Option 47 - 6/13/2014 3:28:19 PM

Viktor_Kormel_slith

Posts: 372
Joined: 11/14/2013
Status: offline

I don�t think that rule is so critical but I think limited supply range calculations could work to fix it and these way everybody will be happy!

_____________________________

Sorry, for my bad english! "Wiffing" since 1990 to the tomb!

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 13

RE: Option 47 - 6/16/2014 2:44:47 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

In my experience, usually on the Asia map this involves bypassed ChiComm units trying to trace to Urumqi or Kashgar or far south, potentially dozens of hexes in any case. As a house rule, we would look suspiciously at giant supply lines that snaked through desert, mountains, etc. endlessly to establish supply improbably far, far away: when flipped, those guys would stay flipped until relived from the outside. This also alleviated littering the map with control markers.

Maybe as a compromise that retains the spirit of the rule without taking ages to compute, the computer could cut off its supply search after 15 or 20 hexes? That seems a reasonable distance to preserve some need to truly pocket bypassed forces.

Otherwise, it's inconceivable playing without 47.

That is my intended solution. However it remains on my task list as a not 'super' high priority.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to CrusssDaddy)

Post #: 14

RE: Option 47 - 6/16/2014 1:21:51 PM

CrusssDaddy

Posts: 330
Joined: 8/6/2004
Status: offline

Does the boldface type indicate you are shouting? Should your customers on this thread deploy boldface type to prod you toward elevating that task in importance on your list? Or should they use the more traditional ALL CAPS AND SUPERFLUOUS PUNCTUATION!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!!?!?

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 15

RE: Option 47 - 6/16/2014 1:23:58 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

Does the boldface type indicate you are shouting? Should your customers on this thread deploy boldface type to prod you toward elevating that task in importance on your list? Or should they use the more traditional ALL CAPS AND SUPERFLUOUS PUNCTUATION!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!!?!?

warspite1

WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT STUPID POST ALL ABOUT???!!!????!!!

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to CrusssDaddy)

Post #: 16

RE: Option 47 - 6/16/2014 2:04:27 PM

CrusssDaddy

Posts: 330
Joined: 8/6/2004
Status: offline

Hold on, I had it a bit wrong. It's supposed to be ALL CAPS AND SUPLERFUMOUS PUNTUATION AND MISPELLPIGNS??????!?!!!??!!$

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 17

RE: Option 47 - 6/16/2014 9:37:40 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

Does the boldface type indicate you are shouting? Should your customers on this thread deploy boldface type to prod you toward elevating that task in importance on your list? Or should they use the more traditional ALL CAPS AND SUPERFLUOUS PUNCTUATION!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!!?!?

I quoted your entire post but made bold the portion to which I was replying. So the portion of my text in bold corresponds to the portion of your post in bold.

I sometimes do this by underlining the corresponding text portions - or by using color. I was lazy this time and just used bold.

Your response seems a little excessive.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to CrusssDaddy)

Post #: 18

RE: Option 47 - 6/17/2014 6:15:35 AM

CrusssDaddy

Posts: 330
Joined: 8/6/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

Does the boldface type indicate you are shouting? Should your customers on this thread deploy boldface type to prod you toward elevating that task in importance on your list? Or should they use the more traditional ALL CAPS AND SUPERFLUOUS PUNCTUATION!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!!?!?

I quoted your entire post but made bold the portion to which I was replying. So the portion of my text in bold corresponds to the portion of your post in bold.

I sometimes do this by underlining the corresponding text portions - or by using color. I was lazy this time and just used bold.

Your response seems a little excessive.

You feel no urgency to accomplish the minor work required to fix this, is that what you are confirming?

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 19

RE: Option 47 - 6/17/2014 2:22:05 PM

wworld7

Posts: 1727
Joined: 2/25/2003
From: The Nutmeg State
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

Does the boldface type indicate you are shouting? Should your customers on this thread deploy boldface type to prod you toward elevating that task in importance on your list? Or should they use the more traditional ALL CAPS AND SUPERFLUOUS PUNCTUATION!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!!?!?

I quoted your entire post but made bold the portion to which I was replying. So the portion of my text in bold corresponds to the portion of your post in bold.

I sometimes do this by underlining the corresponding text portions - or by using color. I was lazy this time and just used bold.

Your response seems a little excessive.

You feel no urgency to accomplish the minor work required to fix this, is that what you are confirming?

CrusssDaddy, Steve stated (ie: confirmed) this is ON his list, it just is not a "super" high priority.

I like that Steve takes a few minutes to answer questions here periodically. I would rather he spend his time working on the game
instead of expending his limited time repeating an answer because you don't like his answer and then try to warp whatever he says into a negative.

_____________________________

Flipper

(in reply to CrusssDaddy)

Post #: 20

RE: Option 47 - 6/17/2014 3:14:57 PM

CrusssDaddy

Posts: 330
Joined: 8/6/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

Does the boldface type indicate you are shouting? Should your customers on this thread deploy boldface type to prod you toward elevating that task in importance on your list? Or should they use the more traditional ALL CAPS AND SUPERFLUOUS PUNCTUATION!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!!?!?

I quoted your entire post but made bold the portion to which I was replying. So the portion of my text in bold corresponds to the portion of your post in bold.

I sometimes do this by underlining the corresponding text portions - or by using color. I was lazy this time and just used bold.

Your response seems a little excessive.

You feel no urgency to accomplish the minor work required to fix this, is that what you are confirming?

CrusssDaddy, Steve stated (ie: confirmed) this is ON his list, it just is not a "super" high priority.

I like that Steve takes a few minutes to answer questions here periodically. I would rather he spend his time working on the game
instead of expending his limited time repeating an answer because you don't like his answer and then try to warp whatever he says into a negative.

I'm more interested in your opinion on the thread -- do you think 47 is important and creating some sort of workaround should be a priority?

(in reply to wworld7)

Post #: 21

RE: Option 47 - 6/17/2014 7:15:52 PM

Centuur

Posts: 8802
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

Does the boldface type indicate you are shouting? Should your customers on this thread deploy boldface type to prod you toward elevating that task in importance on your list? Or should they use the more traditional ALL CAPS AND SUPERFLUOUS PUNCTUATION!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!!?!?

I quoted your entire post but made bold the portion to which I was replying. So the portion of my text in bold corresponds to the portion of your post in bold.

I sometimes do this by underlining the corresponding text portions - or by using color. I was lazy this time and just used bold.

Your response seems a little excessive.

You feel no urgency to accomplish the minor work required to fix this, is that what you are confirming?

CrusssDaddy, Steve stated (ie: confirmed) this is ON his list, it just is not a "super" high priority.

I like that Steve takes a few minutes to answer questions here periodically. I would rather he spend his time working on the game
instead of expending his limited time repeating an answer because you don't like his answer and then try to warp whatever he says into a negative.

I'm more interested in your opinion on the thread -- do you think 47 is important and creating some sort of workaround should be a priority?

It's an important optional rule, that I agree on. But it's optional, so it comes behind the bug fixing of supply, production, naval and netplay. After that a new order of battle for MWIF will be decided on...

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to CrusssDaddy)

Post #: 22

RE: Option 47 - 6/17/2014 7:43:53 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

Does the boldface type indicate you are shouting? Should your customers on this thread deploy boldface type to prod you toward elevating that task in importance on your list? Or should they use the more traditional ALL CAPS AND SUPERFLUOUS PUNCTUATION!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!!?!?

I quoted your entire post but made bold the portion to which I was replying. So the portion of my text in bold corresponds to the portion of your post in bold.

I sometimes do this by underlining the corresponding text portions - or by using color. I was lazy this time and just used bold.

Your response seems a little excessive.

You feel no urgency to accomplish the minor work required to fix this, is that what you are confirming?

warspite1

You just can't help yourself can you? You prove how you can be a positive contributor to this game - and then almost immediately revert to obnoxious, rude, twat territory

. Well done.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to CrusssDaddy)

Post #: 23

RE: Option 47 - 6/17/2014 9:01:50 PM

CrusssDaddy

Posts: 330
Joined: 8/6/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

Does the boldface type indicate you are shouting? Should your customers on this thread deploy boldface type to prod you toward elevating that task in importance on your list? Or should they use the more traditional ALL CAPS AND SUPERFLUOUS PUNCTUATION!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!!?!?

I quoted your entire post but made bold the portion to which I was replying. So the portion of my text in bold corresponds to the portion of your post in bold.

I sometimes do this by underlining the corresponding text portions - or by using color. I was lazy this time and just used bold.

Your response seems a little excessive.

You feel no urgency to accomplish the minor work required to fix this, is that what you are confirming?

warspite1

You just can't help yourself can you? You prove how you can be a positive contributor to this game - and then almost immediately revert to obnoxious, rude, twat territory . Well done.

This is such a minor fix, shouldn't you be more angry that Steve always has an excuse ready why the things that need doing can't get done? And that Matrix couldn't care less? I mean, those pictures and novel-length posts about the new sh!tter he's installing in his pad sure are entertaining, but couldn't that time be better spent?

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 24

RE: Option 47 - 6/18/2014 5:11:23 AM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

Does the boldface type indicate you are shouting? Should your customers on this thread deploy boldface type to prod you toward elevating that task in importance on your list? Or should they use the more traditional ALL CAPS AND SUPERFLUOUS PUNCTUATION!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!!?!?

I quoted your entire post but made bold the portion to which I was replying. So the portion of my text in bold corresponds to the portion of your post in bold.

I sometimes do this by underlining the corresponding text portions - or by using color. I was lazy this time and just used bold.

Your response seems a little excessive.

You feel no urgency to accomplish the minor work required to fix this, is that what you are confirming?

warspite1

You just can't help yourself can you? You prove how you can be a positive contributor to this game - and then almost immediately revert to obnoxious, rude, twat territory . Well done.

This is such a minor fix, shouldn't you be more angry that Steve always has an excuse ready why the things that need doing can't get done? And that Matrix couldn't care less? I mean, those pictures and novel-length posts about the new sh!tter he's installing in his pad sure are entertaining, but couldn't that time be better spent?

warspite1

I cannot comment for sure on whether any fix is minor or not - since I know nothing about programming. However, I suspect from other related posts/threads/beta testing, that nothing to do with supply is a simple fix - far from it.

That being the case, and considering a) this is an optional rule, b) there are still other actual supply bugs that need fixing, Steve is prioritising accordingly.

Matrix couldn't care less? This old chestnut again, really? Listen, the game is what it is, the economics of the situation and Matrix's role is what it is. You cannot change this - no matter how much bitching and moaning you do.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to CrusssDaddy)

Post #: 25

RE: Option 47 - 6/18/2014 5:30:32 AM

wworld7

Posts: 1727
Joined: 2/25/2003
From: The Nutmeg State
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

I'm more interested in your opinion on the thread -- do you think 47 is important and creating some sort of workaround should be a priority?

I do think it is better playing with 47.

That said, I am in no position to start telling Steve how to order his priorities. He knows the big picture of this project and he stated that
this is on his list. Many people have different ideas on what should be the #1, 2, 3 etc. of priority to be fixed/programmed. This is totally up
to Steve and Matrix in reality (as it should be).

And I laugh anytime anyone (including myself) implies that ANY change to a software program is minor and or easy. There is always risk of unintended
consequences when dealing with software. But I believe you already know this.

Be well,

_____________________________

Flipper

(in reply to CrusssDaddy)

Post #: 26

RE: Option 47 - 6/18/2014 5:39:20 AM

wworld7

Posts: 1727
Joined: 2/25/2003
From: The Nutmeg State
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

This is such a minor fix, shouldn't you be more angry that Steve always has an excuse ready why the things that need doing can't get done? And that Matrix couldn't care less? I mean,
those pictures and novel-length posts about the new sh!tter he's installing in his pad sure are entertaining, but couldn't that time be better spent?

I wish I had seen this post before I replied to your other.

"Minor fix", you used it. ROFL!!!!

Your critique on what Steve does with his time is also a riot.

I doubt you would be happy even if Steve programmed 24/7 52 weeks a year (which the finances of this project could never support).

Thanks for the LAUGHS.

< Message edited by flipperwasirish -- 6/18/2014 6:39:43 AM >

_____________________________

Flipper

(in reply to CrusssDaddy)

Post #: 27

RE: Option 47 - 6/18/2014 11:47:28 AM

pzgndr

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish
And I laugh anytime anyone implies that ANY change to a software program is minor and or easy. There is always risk of unintended
consequences when dealing with software.

+1

And for THIS game, with its many optional rules that players could pick and choose from in an almost infinite variety of combinations and permutations, to run on various platforms and O/S's and device drivers, any regression testing of software changes to ensure EVERYTHING works perfectly for EVERYBODY is a daunting task. I give Steve credit for doing what he can; others should too. For a game, for our entertainment, for fun. We'll get there eventually.

(in reply to wworld7)

Post #: 28

RE: Option 47 - 6/18/2014 7:44:32 PM

CrusssDaddy

Posts: 330
Joined: 8/6/2004
Status: offline

It's a wonder anyone else has made a working computer game in under 10 years.

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 29

RE: Option 47 - 6/18/2014 7:56:32 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline