Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

I don't care what Tom Brokaw says, I think you guys are the Greatest Generation.

I don't care what Brokaw thinks the only thing he cares about is getting that liberal idiot back on as the lead liar at NBC.

Bo

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Well yes but......

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

I don't care what Tom Brokaw says, I think you guys are the Greatest Generation.

I don't care what Brokaw thinks the only thing he cares about is getting that liberal idiot back on as the lead liar at NBC.

Bo

Bo, you strike me as the kinda fella who believes in chem trails and that Jade Helm 15 is a cover for martial law, amirite?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

If Steve and Matrix indulged the same respect for contrary opinions and common courtesy as you, this would be a happier product.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

I've mostly finished plugging in the Brute Force scenario for CWiF. Should I do an AAR?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

As this topic has gotten off track.

Only reason I'm here, is WIF is the best game I can't play. Going in for surgery next week, hopefully will be back again, though I doubt that is a prevailing thought amongst the current people posting here. I wouldn't be the first to not get a chance to enjoy this game if something bad happened.

Here are the rules for supply for 3rd Reich. This game is strategic, but at a smaller scale than Fire in the East, and slightly smaller scale than WIF.

27.4 CONSEQUENCES TO UNSUPPLIED UNITS:
27.41 Unsupplied units retain their full combat factor. They may attack during an Offensive Option; they are counted when in contact with the enemy during an Attrition Option.
27.42 Unsupplied units may not move during their Movement or Combat phase. They may not advance to attack the enemy, may not advance after combat, may not exploit a Breakthrough, and may not advance to occupy an Attrition-gained hex. They may be moved by SR, but only if supply has been restored in the interim and a legal SR path exists.
27.43 Unsupplied units are eliminated if still unsupplied at the end of their player turn. This is so even if they were in supply at some intermediate point of their turn. Elimination occurs at the end of the player turn, units are lost after unit construction; therefore units lost from lack of supply cannot be reconstructed during the turn of their loss.
27.44 Supply status is determined during the Movement phase, after .0 ement of naval units but before movement of any other unit. A previously unused fleet could SR to the front and provide supply to a previously unsupplied unit to save it from elimination, but the resupplied unit could not move during that SR phase.

Once again. Why would accomplished military historians have units destroyed in games such as 3rd Reich, and Fire in the East? There are many, many games still out there with the same function.

If only the beta-testers of the game (the people who paid for the game) could have a tool to fix the organizational status of units.

The Alpha testers (known as beta testers on this forum) certainly do the necessary tools to play the game. One of them is enjoying a 4-5 player game with such a tool, and has stated his having no trouble doing so. It certainly is nice of the powers that be to share that tool, isn't it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

As this topic has gotten off track.

Only reason I'm here, is WIF is the best game I can't play. Going in for surgery next week, hopefully will be back again, though I doubt that is a prevailing thought amongst the current people posting here. I wouldn't be the first to not get a chance to enjoy this game if something bad happened.

Here are the rules for supply for 3rd Reich. This game is strategic, but at a smaller scale than Fire in the East, and slightly smaller scale than WIF.

27.4 CONSEQUENCES TO UNSUPPLIED UNITS:
27.41 Unsupplied units retain their full combat factor. They may attack during an Offensive Option; they are counted when in contact with the enemy during an Attrition Option.
27.42 Unsupplied units may not move during their Movement or Combat phase. They may not advance to attack the enemy, may not advance after combat, may not exploit a Breakthrough, and may not advance to occupy an Attrition-gained hex. They may be moved by SR, but only if supply has been restored in the interim and a legal SR path exists.
27.43 Unsupplied units are eliminated if still unsupplied at the end of their player turn. This is so even if they were in supply at some intermediate point of their turn. Elimination occurs at the end of the player turn, units are lost after unit construction; therefore units lost from lack of supply cannot be reconstructed during the turn of their loss.
27.44 Supply status is determined during the Movement phase, after .0 ement of naval units but before movement of any other unit. A previously unused fleet could SR to the front and provide supply to a previously unsupplied unit to save it from elimination, but the resupplied unit could not move during that SR phase.

Once again. Why would accomplished military historians have units destroyed in games such as 3rd Reich, and Fire in the East? There are many, many games still out there with the same function.

If only the beta-testers of the game (the people who paid for the game) could have a tool to fix the organizational status of units.

The Alpha testers (known as beta testers on this forum) certainly do the necessary tools to play the game. One of them is enjoying a 4-5 player game with such a tool, and has stated his having no trouble doing so. It certainly is nice of the powers that be to share that tool, isn't it?

quote:

Unsupplied units are eliminated if still unsupplied at the end of their player turn.

quote:

Once again. Why would accomplished military historians have units destroyed in games such as 3rd Reich, and Fire in the East? There are many, many games still out there with the same function.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

27.43 Unsupplied units are eliminated if still unsupplied at the end of their player turn.

warspite1

Well it would be helpful if you stated how long each player turn was and what each turn involved

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

27.43 Unsupplied units are eliminated if still unsupplied at the end of their player turn.

warspite1

Well it would be helpful if you stated how long each player turn was and what each turn involved

3R had three month quarterly turns vs WIF with two month turns. Close enough. 3R also had options for air resupply. The premise for unit elimination at the end of the player turn, with opportunities during the impulses to resupply units that started the player turn unsupplied, is a valid enough concept for grand strategy games like this. Keep it simple.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

27.43 Unsupplied units are eliminated if still unsupplied at the end of their player turn.

warspite1

Well it would be helpful if you stated how long each player turn was and what each turn involved

3R had three month quarterly turns vs WIF with two month turns. Close enough. 3R also had options for air resupply. The premise for unit elimination at the end of the player turn, with opportunities during the impulses to resupply units that started the player turn unsupplied, is a valid enough concept for grand strategy games like this. Keep it simple.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

What Zorachus wants is the same debug tools that the betas have, so he can flip 47'd units on his own. Seems churlish at this point to deny that to paying customers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99


27.43 Unsupplied units are eliminated if still unsupplied at the end of their player turn. This is so even if they were in supply at some intermediate point of their turn. Elimination occurs at the end of the player turn, units are lost after unit construction; therefore units lost from lack of supply cannot be reconstructed during the turn of their loss.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

27.43 Unsupplied units are eliminated if still unsupplied at the end of their player turn.

warspite1

Well it would be helpful if you stated how long each player turn was and what each turn involved

3R had three month quarterly turns vs WIF with two month turns. Close enough. 3R also had options for air resupply. The premise for unit elimination at the end of the player turn, with opportunities during the impulses to resupply units that started the player turn unsupplied, is a valid enough concept for grand strategy games like this. Keep it simple.

warspite1

With air supply possible that at least makes some sense from an historical perspective.

As to validity, if you believe the concept valid then fine, and so is Option 47 BUT SO TOO is ADG's stock rule. The point is we all have rules we do not like or do not agree with. We put up with them or - if not acceptable - we move on.

Zorachus beef I thought was Option 47 not being coded - but he now seems to want unit removal if out of supply judging by his last post. Make your mind up......

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

I think elimination in Avalon Hill's 3rd Reich means something different than destruction in MWiF. I think elimination in AH's 3rd Reich is a mixture of being shattered, retreated and destroyed in MWiF. For example, the Soviets in 1941-1942 got (if I remember correctly) approximately 150 BRPs per year. They could spend 1/2 of those in any one 3-month turn. 3-3 infantry corps cost 3 BRPs each and 4-5 armor corps 8 BRPs. So, for example, if the Soviets lost 9 infantry and 4 armor corps in a given turn then they could immediately replace those losses for 59 BRPs and have 16 BRPs left over (e.g., for an offensive option costing 15 BRPs).

Now if the Germans had cut off and put out of supply this same force and the Soviets couldn't get them back in supply by the end of the turn, then the Soviets still lose them but can't replace them until next turn. That is, builds are made before out of supply units are eliminate (e.g., removed from the board and placed back into the force pool). For me this is akin to out of supply units not being able to move without becoming disorganized or even able to attack.

In MWiF in 1941 and 1942, how many turns would it take the Soviets to replace the destruction of 9 infantry and 4 armor corps? So, loss of units represents different things in those two games so I think one is comparing apples to oranges when talking about the similarities (or dissimilarities) between the two games with respect to out of supply units.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

I think elimination in Avalon Hill's 3rd Reich means something different than destruction in MWiF. I think elimination in AH's 3rd Reich is a mixture of being shattered, retreated and destroyed in MWiF. For example, the Soviets in 1941-1942 got (if I remember correctly) approximately 150 BRPs per year. They could spend 1/2 of those in any one 3-month turn. 3-3 infantry corps cost 3 BRPs each and 4-5 armor corps 8 BRPs. So, for example, if the Soviets lost 9 infantry and 4 armor corps in a given turn then they could immediately replace those losses for 59 BRPs and have 16 BRPs left over (e.g., for an offensive option costing 15 BRPs).

Now if the Germans had cut off and put out of supply this same force and the Soviets couldn't get them back in supply by the end of the turn, then the Soviets still lose them but can't replace them until next turn. That is, builds are made before out of supply units are eliminate (e.g., removed from the board and placed back into the force pool). For me this is akin to out of supply units not being able to move without becoming disorganized or even able to attack.

In MWiF in 1941 and 1942, how many turns would it take the Soviets to replace the destruction of 9 infantry and 4 armor corps? So, loss of units represents different things in those two games so I think one is comparing apples to oranges when talking about the similarities (or dissimilarities) between the two games with respect to out of supply units.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
I just do not understand why people expect perfection for $100...Personally I think that is a very unrealistic expectation.
***
I understand you are unhappy with the product. So what would your solution be so that the people involved could make money and provide the product you wanted? Remembering the limited number of buyers for a game like this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
I just do not understand why people expect perfection for $100...Personally I think that is a very unrealistic expectation.
***
I understand you are unhappy with the product. So what would your solution be so that the people involved could make money and provide the product you wanted? Remembering the limited number of buyers for a game like this.

You're seriously accusing people of complaining about "perfection" for a game with no AI, no NetPlay, no half-map scenarios, and still bugs being squashed?!? Given that all of these things were announced as being part of the game after release, why on earth would that expectation be unrealistic?

My solution is very simple--would be that if a program is released in beta form, it is advertised as such, so that people who want to spend their money supporting their favorite game can do so, and everyone expecting a finished game can take a pass. Or Kickstarter has been suggested many times.

I don't know how many other games ADG makes, but I'll certainly never buy a computer version again--I wanted to buy EiA, but that was an even bigger debacle than WiF--no mas!

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
I just do not understand why people expect perfection for $100...Personally I think that is a very unrealistic expectation.
***
I understand you are unhappy with the product. So what would your solution be so that the people involved could make money and provide the product you wanted? Remembering the limited number of buyers for a game like this.

You're seriously accusing people of complaining about "perfection" for a game with no AI, no NetPlay, no half-map scenarios, and still bugs being squashed?!? Given that all of these things were announced as being part of the game after release, why on earth would that expectation be unrealistic?

My solution is very simple--if a program is released in beta form, it is advertised as such, so that people who want to spend their money supporting their favorite game can do so, and everyone expecting a finished game can take a pass. That was most emphatically not done with this game. Or Kickstarter has been suggested many times.

I don't know how many other games ADG makes, but I'll certainly never buy a computer version again--I wanted to buy EiA, but that was an even bigger debacle than WiF--no mas!