WiFFE vs. MWiF

World in Flames is the computer version of Australian Design Group classic board game. World In Flames is a highly detailed game covering the both Europe and Pacific Theaters of Operations during World War II. If you want grand strategy this game is for you.

Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets

User avatar
Taxman66
Posts: 2213
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:28 pm
Location: Columbia, MD. USA

WiFFE vs. MWiF

Post by Taxman66 »

Didn't see a good forum to put these questions in (and I didn't find the answers using the search function either, I appologize if they are out there somewhere):

Is MWiF going to maintain the physical counter limit and there associated rules (i.e. what to do when you 'run out' of them) regarding the USE markers and partisans? I hope the answer is 'yes', particularly for USE markers.

Will/does MWiF have some sort of 'warning' to newbies regarding the average USE marker (I still want to call them chits...) values? i.e. Being aggressive in 1939 is going to cause more real USE than doing so in 1940? Before an action is taken (e.g. Germany is in the DOW step and is contemplating such...) could the major power be alerted (even if only by text) as to both the USE roll and the average marker value?

How are the rules (rail move costs, eligability for a factory to be rail moved, 'Siberian' deffinition regarding the USSR's PM, USE option 46, etc...) regarding the "physical" board game map breaks being implementd?

Rereading the land movement rules I just realized that it is illegal to allow 2 stacks to directly 'swap' units with each other (They would need a 3rd hex at least). Will MWiF prevent this as well? Not sure how I feel about it, I've played this wrong since for ever.

-------
Not an WiFFE vs. MWiF question: Does anyone know if any of the charts have changed since 2002 (RAW 6.02)? It seems as if a few of the counters may have but that seems pretty minor.
"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22135
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

Here are some excepts from Rules as Coded (RAC), that answer your questions. There is a thread somewhere in this forum that gives more info on RAC. I have not made this document (a PDF) file generally available, though the beta testers have a copy to review and critique.

For the US Entry makers/chits, they are being selected using a probability dirstribution that change each year (Jan/Feb). You could theoretically draw 20 zeros in a row. If your luck is that bad, you are destined to lose the game anyway.[:)]

Tutorials and the player's manual will help new players. One section of the Player's Manual is for what the crucial decisions are and some advaice about how to makle them.


------------------
RAC excepts:
------------------




Foreword

This document is faithful to the Australian Design Group’s World in Flames Final Edition Rules Booklet, commonly known as Rules as Written (RAW). Following in that tradition, the title for this document is Rules as Coded (RAC). It contains changes that reflect the transition of World in Flames (WIF) from paper maps and cardboard counters to a computer screen, with keyboard and mouse. Yet, 98% of the text is directly from RAW. The changes to RAW can be divided into cosmetic, essential, clarifying, and deviations.

Cosmetic
Cosmetic changes were made to improve legibility. RAW was laid out in a compressed black and white format so it could be printed on as few pages as possible. In that, it succeeded admirably, requiring only 64 pages. Since RAC is a PDF file and likely to be read using a computer screen, color and extensive white space have been used to improve clarity. These changes are required to show text on a computer screen, and have the benefit of making printed copies more legible. Of course the down side is that the number of pages in RAC is almost triple the number in RAW.

Color is used sparingly. First, it separates optional rules using a dark red color. Second, it separates examples, using an italicized dark blue. Third, it’s used for points of emphasis - a bold, italicized green. Fourth, a bold blue is used for major section headings and to identify terms that are being defined. Fifth, clarifications are shown using an italicized red. Lastly, deviations from RAW are shown in an italicized purple. Happily, the conversion of the figures from black and white to color adds glitz, while giving accurate pictures of how the map and units appear on the screen.

Essential
Essential changes are few and obvious. There are no paper maps to lay out on a table, nor are there cardboard counters that have to be sorted into groups. Units are not turned over during play. Instead, they have colored indicators around their edges to indicate changes in status. So, rather than ‘face-up’ and ‘face-down’, the words ‘organized’ and ‘disorganized’ are used in RAC. Continuing in that vein, “rolling dice” is replaced by computer generated “random numbers”. Other references to paper elements of the board games, such as the production circle, initiative track, etc. are replaced by references to the informational forms the player can call up and examine whenever he likes.

I also placed the conversion of the multiple paper maps using different scales into a single unified global map as an essential change, [but that’s just me being a programmer]. This resulted in references to off-map boxes and communication lines disappearing. Similarly, special rule sections pertaining to different maps were excised.

Clarifying
One of the challenges of converting World in Flames (WIF) to Matrix Games’ World in Flames (MWIF) was to make the rules absolutely air tight. Rendering rules into software doesn’t permit the luxury of ambiguity. The code will always function precisely the same way, without the advantage (?) of having humans interpret/adjudicate during game play. To achieve this goal, Harry Rowland, from Australian Design Group, answered hundreds of questions that had been raised by experienced WIF players.

Deviations
Though few in number, there are places where RAC distinctly deviates from RAW. The use of the unified world map is far and away the most important. Most other deviations are handled as optional rules. Still, there are some places where I decided to make changes to exploit the capability of the computer. For instance, the computer can generate an infinite number of generic counters, so there is no counter-imposed limit on the number of partisan units. Nor are the US Entry chits drawn from a finite chit pool, but rather from an infinite pool according to a statistical distribution.

Decision making for converting RAW to RAC involved dozens of people and for the most part was based on group consensus. Though, of course, I had the final say, so all errors are mine.

-------------------
1.2 Scale
Units
A land unit represents an army or corps (optional division units represent smaller units, see 22.4.1 and 22.4.2). A naval unit represents a squadron of 4 to 6 destroyers attached to either 1 aircraft carrier, battleship, or heavy cruiser. If playing with the Cruisers in Flames counters, each light cruiser is also represented. An aircraft unit represents 250 aircraft in 1939 gradually increasing to 500 aircraft by 1945. Each counter consists of a variety of types, but with the predominant aircraft being that depicted on the counter. Not all of them would be flying in each mission.

Usually, you are limited by the number of units included in the game, except for convoy points which can be freely broken down or combined, as long as the total points remain the same. [Deviation. The computer also permits an unlimited number of: partisans, fortifications, factories, and infantry-type divisional units. The last is an optional rule which has important restrictions.]

Time
Each game turn is two months.

Map
Each hex in Europe represents approximately 76 kilometers across and on average worldwide represents 89 kilometers across. Because a Mercator projection is used, hexes closer to the poles represent less territory and hexes near the equator represent more territory.

1.3 Markers
[Deviation. You are not limited by the number of generic units in the game except for synthetic oil plants (AfA option 14). This includes unlimited: pilots and offensive, US entry, and neutrality pact chits.]

-------------------------
2.3 Stacking
There is a limit on the number of units that can occupy each hex. This is called the stacking limit of the hex.

2.3.1 Limits
Units that can’t co-operate (see 18.1) can’t stack together in the same hex. They can stack together in the same sea-box. Stacking applies at the end of every step and after advance after combat (see 11.16.5). Stacking also affects how and if units retreat (see 11.16.5). You cannot voluntarily overstack, but if it happens (e.g., due to liberation), the owner of the hex must destroy enough of the overstacked units to comply with the stacking limits. You must destroy organized units before disorganized units.

Land unit limits
Up to 2 land units can stack in a hex. AsA/MiF/PoliF options 2, 3 & 6: you can stack 3 land units in a hex if the 3rd unit is a division, artillery or supply unit. [Deviation. Any and all hexsides of a land hex can be fortified, but only one fortification per hexside.] Units invading (see 11.14) and paradropping (see 11.15) have a stacking limit in addition to the defending units’ limit. This limit is applied to the combined number of invading and paradropping units.

-------------------------

Factories
You can rail move any blue factory you control in your home country if:
• an enemy in-supply land unit is currently in that home country, or
• a factory in that home country was destroyed by strategic bombardment during this or the previous turn.

[Deviation. For the USSR, an additional restriction applies. Either both the enemy in-supply land unit and the moving factory’s city of origin are in European USSR or they both are in Siberia (eastern USSR). Similarly, either the destroyed factory and the moving factory’s city of origin are both in European USSR or both in Siberia. The destination for the moving factory can be anywhere in the USSR. Here the European USSR and Siberia are defined by the demarcation line running north-south, three hexes to the east of Stalingrad.]

Factories must always end their rail move at a city hex in their home country. You can never end with more than 2 blue factories in one city.

The railed factory is not available for production until the 2nd turn after it finishes its move. For example, if you move it in Jan/Feb, it starts producing again in May/Jun.

Option 12: (Limited access across straits) A unit can’t rail move across a straits hexside if the presence of enemy units would prevent you tracing an overseas supply path into that sea area (see 2.4.2).

Limits
If you chose an air action, you can only rail move aircraft units. If you chose a land action, you can only rail move land units and factories. If you chose a combined action you can rail move factories, land units, and/or aircraft units.

[Deviation.
The number of hexes the unit traverses determines the number of rail moves it expends:
Hex Distance Land or Aircraft Unit Factory Unit
1 - 60 hexes 1 rail move 2 rail moves
61 - 120 hexes 2 rail moves 3 rail moves
121 + hexes 3 rail moves 4 rail moves]

The hex distance calculation is the number of hexes traversed by passing through rail hexsides.

Rail moves do not also count as a land move or an air mission.




Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
User avatar
Taxman66
Posts: 2213
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:28 pm
Location: Columbia, MD. USA

RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF

Post by Taxman66 »

Shannon, thanks for the information!
 
I presume the charts/probabilites will be made available for the players to view somewhere (i.e. DOW vs. Spain will provide a x% of getting a USE marker and the USE markers have a distrubution chance of .... in 1939, .... in 1940, etc...)
 
I don't have any qualms with the RAC differences from the RAW, except for the USE markers.  I believe you can't help but change the statistical probabilities and the somewhat self-correcting effect of a limited marker supply.
 
In particular the WiFFE effect of adding in the next year's markers is a relatively *big* deal.  I've seen in some games aggresive Axis players decide to 'slow down' a bit, or even decide not to take garrison markers (note the rules say 'can' not 'must' draw garrison chits) so as to not be forced to pick from the next year's higher average chits (for USE).
 
How are you determing yearly marker values?  In games where the rolls don't pull many markers those high average 1939 markers are still available to show up when the low value 1940 markers are still there.  Conversly, if a lot of markers got picked in 1939 then the chances of getting lower value 1940 markers (when they're added to the pool) goes way up.
 
But I'm guessing you've heard this arguement already and have decided to dismiss it. 
"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22135
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

Shannon, thanks for the information!

I presume the charts/probabilites will be made available for the players to view somewhere (i.e. DOW vs. Spain will provide a x% of getting a USE marker and the USE markers have a distrubution chance of .... in 1939, .... in 1940, etc...)

I don't have any qualms with the RAC differences from the RAW, except for the USE markers.  I believe you can't help but change the statistical probabilities and the somewhat self-correcting effect of a limited marker supply.

In particular the WiFFE effect of adding in the next year's markers is a relatively *big* deal.  I've seen in some games aggresive Axis players decide to 'slow down' a bit, or even decide not to take garrison markers (note the rules say 'can' not 'must' draw garrison chits) so as to not be forced to pick from the next year's higher average chits (for USE).

How are you determing yearly marker values?  In games where the rolls don't pull many markers those high average 1939 markers are still available to show up when the low value 1940 markers are still there.  Conversly, if a lot of markers got picked in 1939 then the chances of getting lower value 1940 markers (when they're added to the pool) goes way up.

But I'm guessing you've heard this arguement already and have decided to dismiss it. 
As your examples show, using a finite pool leads to gamesmanship. And yes, you are not the first to prefer the "old way".

My background in simulation makes me look for something in the real world that the design/model is attempting to simulate. I could find nothing to justify the finite pool, and the rationalizations for mixing the US Entry amrkers with the garrison markers between USSR-Japan were very,... well, the less I say about that the better probably.

In the work-a-day world of simulation drawing samples from an infinite pool is standard, with a finite pool only being used when reality demands it (one of my first programming assignments for statistical modelijng was for drawing from a finite sample - but that was precisely what was happening in real life).
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF

Post by Froonp »

ORIGINAL: Taxman66
How are you determing yearly marker values?  In games where the rolls don't pull many markers those high average 1939 markers are still available to show up when the low value 1940 markers are still there.  Conversly, if a lot of markers got picked in 1939 then the chances of getting lower value 1940 markers (when they're added to the pool) goes way up.
Good question.
In 1940, are some chits from 1939 still left ?
In 1941, are some chits from 1939 and 1940 still left ?
This is important, as you can draw a big chit from 1939 in 1940, or a small chit of 1940 in 1941.
User avatar
Taxman66
Posts: 2213
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:28 pm
Location: Columbia, MD. USA

RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF

Post by Taxman66 »

Hey Shannon,
You didn't answer the question about what the yearly averages are (as evidenced by Froonp's follow up).  :P
 
You could code something like:
 
If (year = 1939) & (X&nbsp;< Z) then use 1939 average marker value, else use 1940 average marker value.
&nbsp;
where:
X = Number of USE markers in the GE/IT & JA pools
Z = Number of markers 'reserved' for USE after taking out the standard amount of Garrison values.
&nbsp;
Of course it would get more complicated in later years.
"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22135
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

Hey Shannon,
You didn't answer the question about what the yearly averages are (as evidenced by Froonp's follow up).  :P

You could code something like:

If (year = 1939) & (X < Z) then use 1939 average marker value, else use 1940 average marker value.

where:
X = Number of USE markers in the GE/IT & JA pools
Z = Number of markers 'reserved' for USE after taking out the standard amount of Garrison values.

Of course it would get more complicated in later years.
I have posted the code several times previously. Though I haven't a clue where that might be. The probability distributions are based on the WIF FE markers for the current year aggregated with all previous years. The value of markers previously drawn are never considered.
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
User avatar
composer99
Posts: 2931
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Contact:

RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF

Post by composer99 »

Note that the change from a finite pool to an infinite pool for USE chits, I believe, has been sanctioned by Harry Rowland.
~ Composer99
User avatar
Taxman66
Posts: 2213
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:28 pm
Location: Columbia, MD. USA

RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF

Post by Taxman66 »

Fair enough.
&nbsp;
I did say I tried to find it with search function.&nbsp; So I'm not trying to get on anyone's nerves.
"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft
hakon
Posts: 298
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 12:55 pm

RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF

Post by hakon »

ORIGINAL: Taxman66
Rereading the land movement rules I just realized that it is illegal to allow 2 stacks to directly 'swap' units with each other (They would need a 3rd hex at least). Will MWiF prevent this as well? Not sure how I feel about it, I've played this wrong since for ever.

My impression is the direct opposite, that it IS legeal to directly swap units (since the stacking limit is only enforces at the end of the step), but it is NOT legal to temporarily move a unit to a hex (for instance moving an HQ to temorarily put units in supply), and then, after moving those units, continue to spend the last movement points of the HQ.
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF

Post by Froonp »

ORIGINAL: hakon
ORIGINAL: Taxman66
Rereading the land movement rules I just realized that it is illegal to allow 2 stacks to directly 'swap' units with each other (They would need a 3rd hex at least). Will MWiF prevent this as well? Not sure how I feel about it, I've played this wrong since for ever.

My impression is the direct opposite, that it IS legeal to directly swap units (since the stacking limit is only enforces at the end of the step),
True.
but it is NOT legal to temporarily move a unit to a hex (for instance moving an HQ to temorarily put units in supply), and then, after moving those units, continue to spend the last movement points of the HQ.
True with a strict reading of the rule.
But one can also suppose that the original intend of the designer was that it was possible, and the necessary memory exercice in a game with 6000 counters made him rule otherwise so that the board game stays playable.
The Computer game can remember each of the move of each of the units, so it can remember that a particular unit has movement point left, and allow you to move it again. Steve has taken precautions so that this can't be abused.
Also, remember that it is working like this since the earliest days of CWiF, CWiF who was then in the sole hands of ADG as a design team.
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22135
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: Froonp
ORIGINAL: hakon
ORIGINAL: Taxman66
Rereading the land movement rules I just realized that it is illegal to allow 2 stacks to directly 'swap' units with each other (They would need a 3rd hex at least). Will MWiF prevent this as well? Not sure how I feel about it, I've played this wrong since for ever.

My impression is the direct opposite, that it IS legeal to directly swap units (since the stacking limit is only enforces at the end of the step),
True.
but it is NOT legal to temporarily move a unit to a hex (for instance moving an HQ to temorarily put units in supply), and then, after moving those units, continue to spend the last movement points of the HQ.
True with a strict reading of the rule.
But one can also suppose that the original intend of the designer was that it was possible, and the necessary memory exercice in a game with 6000 counters made him rule otherwise so that the board game stays playable.
The Computer game can remember each of the move of each of the units, so it can remember that a particular unit has movement point left, and allow you to move it again. Steve has taken precautions so that this can't be abused.
Also, remember that it is working like this since the earliest days of CWiF, CWiF who was then in the sole hands of ADG as a design team.
Exchanging units between two fully stacked hexes when no third hex is available is tricky to code. I do not know if the CWIF code permits this. I do want this to be possible, and so I'll make it possible.

What I want to enable in regard to units in supply, is that supply for movement is determined when a unit moves.

If unit X was in supply because another unit Y had already moved in the impulse (Y could have been an HQ, but could also have been another land unit that enabled X's supply path to pass through an enemy ZOC), then ...
1. I want to prevent the enabling unit Y's move from being undone should unit X decide to move.
2. I could either do that by telling the player that moving X 'fixes' unit Y's move (Y's move can no longer be undone if you move X), or
3. Return unit X to its starting position if unit Y's move is undone.

I haven't decided which way to go.
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF

Post by Froonp »

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
ORIGINAL: Froonp
ORIGINAL: hakon


My impression is the direct opposite, that it IS legeal to directly swap units (since the stacking limit is only enforces at the end of the step),
True.
but it is NOT legal to temporarily move a unit to a hex (for instance moving an HQ to temorarily put units in supply), and then, after moving those units, continue to spend the last movement points of the HQ.
True with a strict reading of the rule.
But one can also suppose that the original intend of the designer was that it was possible, and the necessary memory exercice in a game with 6000 counters made him rule otherwise so that the board game stays playable.
The Computer game can remember each of the move of each of the units, so it can remember that a particular unit has movement point left, and allow you to move it again. Steve has taken precautions so that this can't be abused.
Also, remember that it is working like this since the earliest days of CWiF, CWiF who was then in the sole hands of ADG as a design team.
Exchanging units between two fully stacked hexes when no third hex is available is tricky to code. I do not know if the CWIF code permits this. I do want this to be possible, and so I'll make it possible.
It is not possible in CWiF. CWiF imposes stacking ALL the time, not only at step's end like RAW says.
What I want to enable in regard to units in supply, is that supply for movement is determined when a unit moves.
Which is RAW.
If unit X was in supply because another unit Y had already moved in the impulse (Y could have been an HQ, but could also have been another land unit that enabled X's supply path to pass through an enemy ZOC), then ...
1. I want to prevent the enabling unit Y's move from being undone should unit X decide to move.
2. I could either do that by telling the player that moving X 'fixes' unit Y's move (Y's move can no longer be undone if you move X), or
3. Return unit X to its starting position if unit Y's move is undone.

I haven't decided which way to go.
I'd simply go with 3.
A message would say why the "undoing" is prevented, saying that another move was made thanks to this one, and that as a consequence this one can't be undone. The player will have to find the exact reason.
You can also highlight the unit that prevents the undoing too, but anything that adds work inthis domain seems not necessary to me.
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22135
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

Ok.

If Undoing X will affects the supply status of Y at the start of Y's movement, and Y has already moved, then I'll present the message:
"You can not undo this move for 'X' unless you first undo the move for 'Y'. Since this just affects land moves, the two units won't be that far apart on the map; the player should be able to find Y without much trouble.
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
User avatar
Norman42
Posts: 206
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:09 pm
Location: Canada

RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF

Post by Norman42 »

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Ok.

If Undoing X will affects the supply status of Y at the start of Y's movement, and Y has already moved, then I'll present the message:
"You can not undo this move for 'X' unless you first undo the move for 'Y'. Since this just affects land moves, the two units won't be that far apart on the map; the player should be able to find Y without much trouble.


That sounds like the easiest and simplest way to handle it.
-------------

C.L.Norman
User avatar
composer99
Posts: 2931
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Contact:

RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF

Post by composer99 »

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

Fair enough.

I did say I tried to find it with search function.  So I'm not trying to get on anyone's nerves.

No nerves gotten on here - I just have a bad habit of being on break at work when I go through these forums, so I might come across as being a bit short (since I am... short on time, anyway).
~ Composer99
User avatar
Taxman66
Posts: 2213
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:28 pm
Location: Columbia, MD. USA

RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF

Post by Taxman66 »

Hmnn... I saw "You can't voluntarily overstack."&nbsp; Implies you can't do it, but I guess if you only check at the end of the phase, you can.
"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22135
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

Hmnn... I saw "You can't voluntarily overstack."  Implies you can't do it, but I guess if you only check at the end of the phase, you can.
If it helps, imagine holding a pair of tweezers in each hand and picking up a unit from each stack and then swapping their locations.

As I say whenever doing card tricks "Watch closely, my fingers never leave my hands!".
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
User avatar
Taxman66
Posts: 2213
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:28 pm
Location: Columbia, MD. USA

RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF

Post by Taxman66 »

I'm just commenting on how the rules are written... it can be interpreted either way.&nbsp; As I said before we never played that you couldn't.&nbsp; It's only my incorrect rereading of the rules (as I haven't done such since RAW 6.01).
"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft
hakon
Posts: 298
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 12:55 pm

RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF

Post by hakon »

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Ok.

If Undoing X will affects the supply status of Y at the start of Y's movement, and Y has already moved, then I'll present the message:
"You can not undo this move for 'X' unless you first undo the move for 'Y'. Since this just affects land moves, the two units won't be that far apart on the map; the player should be able to find Y without much trouble.

I think it would allow for smoother play if you present a message like "3 that were placed in supply by the move you are trying to undo. Undoing this move will also undo the moves of those 3 units. Do you want to proceed (Y/N)?".

Do you plan to allow for undoing naval moves, too? In that case there is the complicating siutatons of placing a unit in suply (with a cp, for instance), and then moving that unit. If that units is then subject to an interception roll, undoing the move of that unit or the one that placed it in supply may be tricky.

Cheers
Hakon
Post Reply

Return to “World in Flames”