Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: ullern

quote:

ORIGINAL: Norman42

quote:

we let the player who has the fighting FTR (the front FTR) roll the A2A dice, as he is responsible for the outcome inflicted on the enemy.

This is our method as well.

If a choice is needed, I'd say go with # of bombers. As mentioned above, they are the more strategicly valuable unit involved.

Interesting to see that everyone posted so far let the player with the best FTR roll the dice. My group tend to let the same player do all the decision making in the combat too, which was different from the two other who posted, who let the ones with bombers decide. I am going to guess that this difference stems from the fact that my group is playing with WIFcon Time rule (added about 10% time, but not more), which makes us minimize the war by committee issues in WIF.

Everything takes time. And this leads me to a question:

Suppose we could reduce the time needed to play an impulse by one third by reducing the number of meddling between players, and affecting hopefully no rules, only imposing some limitiation on when and where negotiations could be made. Would it be better?

I think the fun per time unit ratio is important. And my concern at the moment is mostly about the game beeing too slow phased.

(And Frankly I didn't understand the Italian a2a in between two German A2A fights example you had earlier Steve. What is the point of allowing an Italian a2a combat in between two German A2A fights?)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

In this strategic bombing attack in Chang Sha there seems to some information missing. The hex show '5' units there. Presumably that is the 3 Chinese land units and the Japanese NAV. The 5th units is what ?  A saved oil or BP ?

Since there is no factory in ChangSha why would you stratbomb there unless on saved oil or BP.  Kunming or Chungking are more likely targets.

Lars

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I see no harm in showing the ground units during strategic bombing. They are important when doing most of the other air missions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

In this strategic bombing attack in Chang Sha there seems to some information missing. The hex show '5' units there. Presumably that is the 3 Chinese land units and the Japanese NAV. The 5th units is what ?  A saved oil or BP ?

Since there is no factory in ChangSha why would you stratbomb there unless on saved oil or BP.  Kunming or Chungking are more likely targets.

Lars

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I see no harm in showing the ground units during strategic bombing. They are important when doing most of the other air missions.

Yes, but seeing land (or other) units in the Strat bombing form is weird anyway IMO.
If the player wants to see what's in the hex, he has a lot of ways to do that : The unit in hex Form, the Flyouts. Why not have the flyouts available from inside the Form ?
I think that it would be better if the "Units in target hexe" were only units that are concerned by the attack.
For example, showing all the ships in an hex that is being Ground Struk seems weird. Seing land units in a hex that is being Port Attacked or Strat bombed is weird.

Maybe you could show a factory counter for each factory present in the hex for Strat Bombing.

For Port attack, you should show naval units (and maybe not the SUBs in Major ports).
For Ground Support, and Paradrops you should show land units only (as they are the only ones affected by that kind of mission).
For Ground Strike and Carpet Bombing you should sown land and aircraft units (as they are the only ones affected by that kind of mission).
For Air Transport you should show all the units in the hex, land, aircraft and ships.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

How hard would it be to overlay a red tint onto the factory stack picture?  Or perhaps use a blue/red border?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

The statement:

Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 2

is painful to see and interpret.  Is there a CSV we can modify so that it says at the very least 2nd Arm instead of simply 2?  Many different units have the designation 2, it makes sense to be just slightly more verbose.  I'm sure we can abbreviate without thrashing the land units statistics (something that was much harder for air units).
So many units are named appropriately, it hurts to see 2nd Mot or 2nd Arm not being mentioned properly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

The statement:

Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 2

is painful to see and interpret.  Is there a CSV we can modify so that it says at the very least 2nd Arm instead of simply 2?  Many different units have the designation 2, it makes sense to be just slightly more verbose.  I'm sure we can abbreviate without thrashing the land units statistics (something that was much harder for air units).
So many units are named appropriately, it hurts to see 2nd Mot or 2nd Arm not being mentioned properly.

I am nervous about making the statements longer (e.g., by adding Armor/Infantry/Division/AntiTank/etc.). The space available does not have a lot of extra width. I have provided a lot of height for multiple lines, since there could be a lot of units in a hex and numerous attackers.

Changing the name of the unit in the data file is a possiblity. What you see here is taken straight from the WIF FE counters. I guess they assume that since the NATO symbol for infantry and the XXXX denoting army are part of the counter there is no need to say anything more than '2'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

Could you make the status dot on the target units show disorganized status ?

Lars

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

The statement:

Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 2

is painful to see and interpret.  Is there a CSV we can modify so that it says at the very least 2nd Arm instead of simply 2?  Many different units have the designation 2, it makes sense to be just slightly more verbose.  I'm sure we can abbreviate without thrashing the land units statistics (something that was much harder for air units).
So many units are named appropriately, it hurts to see 2nd Mot or 2nd Arm not being mentioned properly.

I am nervous about making the statements longer (e.g., by adding Armor/Infantry/Division/AntiTank/etc.). The space available does not have a lot of extra width. I have provided a lot of height for multiple lines, since there could be a lot of units in a hex and numerous attackers.

Changing the name of the unit in the data file is a possiblity. What you see here is taken straight from the WIF FE counters. I guess they assume that since the NATO symbol for infantry and the XXXX denoting army are part of the counter there is no need to say anything more than '2'.

Exactly. When look at the 2 on the unit, it's obvious what it is, but when typed out it is much less clear. Imagine hexes with 2 units with the same number. It makes the ground strike much less informative.

Instead of Just using the number 2 I'd propose standard naming conventions for generic unit types, such as: Inf, Mot, Arm, Para, and so forth; all of which are the standard abbreviations. No need to mess with anything but the generic land units either.

That way when you ground strike the 5th Para, it would say.

Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 5th Para

instead of

Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 5 (which is misleading/confusing when read literally)

My guess is it would only take a some few hours to clean up the abbreviations for the land unit names. If nobody volunteers I would give it a try, particularly if the data was presented in CSV fashion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
That way when you ground strike the 5th Para, it would say.

Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 5th Para

instead of

Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 5 (which is misleading/confusing when read literally)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
My guess is it would only take a some few hours to clean up the abbreviations for the land unit names. If nobody volunteers I would give it a try, particularly if the data was presented in CSV fashion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

2nd and last in series.

Here is another ground strike from the same turn. Because the target is in the woods, the tactical/bombardment factors are halved. but a couple nice die rolls made the 800 mm unnecessary.

Note that the status indicators for the units in the stack viewers are the wrong size, they are zoom 4 instead of zoom 6. I need to increase them by 50%.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

2nd and last in series.

Here is another ground strike from the same turn. Because the target is in the woods, the tactical/bombardment factors are halved. but a couple nice die rolls made the 800 mm unnecessary.

Note that the status indicators for the units in the stack viewers are the wrong size, they are zoom 4 instead of zoom 6. I need to increase them by 50%.

Good job at improving this form. It is now much clearer than it was before.
Maybe you can also add in the first line that the target hex is a forest, and that the TAC factors are halved.
Maybe also you should not write the full sentences in bold. Too much bold kills the bold effect. Maybe you should just put the number rolled, and the ID of the unit ground striking and the ID unit targeted in bold.
Maybe also the "disorganized" word in green, and the "failed to disorganize" in red, so that success & failures are immediately identified by colors.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
That way when you ground strike the 5th Para, it would say.

Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 5th Para

instead of

Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 5 (which is misleading/confusing when read literally)

Or simpler :

Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 5 PARA

This way you'd just need to add the type of unit beside the ID, not needing to calculate the "st", "nd", or "rd" or "th".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
My guess is it would only take a some few hours to clean up the abbreviations for the land unit names. If nobody volunteers I would give it a try, particularly if the data was presented in CSV fashion.

Yes, but if you rename the "2" INF unit as "2nd Inf", then when using the name & type you'll have "2nd Inf INF".
I thin this is better & simpler to just add the type in the result form for air strikes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
That way when you ground strike the 5th Para, it would say.

Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 5th Para

instead of

Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 5 (which is misleading/confusing when read literally)

Or simpler :

Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 5 PARA

This way you'd just need to add the type of unit beside the ID, not needing to calculate the "st", "nd", or "rd" or "th".