Yet to be coded Options
Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets
RE: Yet to be coded Options
1. convoys
2. kif oil
...
2. kif oil
...
"If we come to a minefield, our infantry attacks exactly as it were not there." ~ Georgy Zhukov
RE: Yet to be coded Options
[/quote]warspite1
No its not in the game. Convoys In Flames introduces all those gorgeous ASW counters that I'm gagging to get my hands on [:(]
[/quote]
Ah, okay. But there are a few ASW counters in the game now, aren't there? I gather those aren't part of Convoys in Flames? I've never played the boardgame series, so I don't know these things. Thanks.
No its not in the game. Convoys In Flames introduces all those gorgeous ASW counters that I'm gagging to get my hands on [:(]
[/quote]
Ah, okay. But there are a few ASW counters in the game now, aren't there? I gather those aren't part of Convoys in Flames? I've never played the boardgame series, so I don't know these things. Thanks.
RE: Yet to be coded Options
Convoy in flames replaces the current ASW capabilities of ships and convoys with ASW units...
Peter
RE: Yet to be coded Options
ORIGINAL: Centuur
Convoy in flames replaces the current ASW capabilities of ships and convoys with ASW units...
No their ASW factors are additional to those already provided by CA/CL. They also have to go to the 0section and don't have to rtb at eot (like CP). This is balanced by roughly double the amount of subs available and the specialty subs (Milchkuh, supply subs).
Iff the other side has subs included, they can fight in a surface combat. In such a surface combat or a submarine combat they can either contribute normally or "prefire" vs the other sides subs. Result from "prefire" are inflicted on the other sides subs before the normal combat round (in which they don't participate if they prefire).
"If we come to a minefield, our infantry attacks exactly as it were not there." ~ Georgy Zhukov
RE: Yet to be coded Options
Ah OK, thanks for the clarification. Sounds like a pretty high priority for me, then.
RE: Yet to be coded Options
Actually, no. Convoys in Flames is by far the second most complicated optional rule to code (after the incredibly convoluted intelligence rule). It has a great many special units and special rules, including a major reworking of the naval combat sequence of play. Its complexity will ensure that it gets done well after most other options. Excluding en-route aircraft interception and intelligence, I would say that you could get any five other options coded for the same effort, and that is conservative; it might be any ten other options.
I thought I knew how to play this game....
RE: Yet to be coded Options
How is this complex? It is the same complexity as bounce combat or anti air..
"If we come to a minefield, our infantry attacks exactly as it were not there." ~ Georgy Zhukov
-
- Posts: 3191
- Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:39 pm
RE: Yet to be coded Options
I really like Convoys in Flames. We've had some good games using it, with a simple House Rule - all ASW comes only from ASW counters from the kit. Every navy had ASW type assets available, so they each get their first one free, and to represent the ASW given to the UK/USA in the game rules (automatic ASW factors for Convoy Points later in the game), they get one free ASW counter from each year's force pool additions. We also give the UK Food in Flames production bonuses. The struggle with the U-Boats gets quite real - the Allies have to decide to give their four engine bombers to Coastal Command, or Bomber Command, a real life inter service cat fight that had to be resolved at no less a level than personally, by Roosevelt and Churchill - the players of the game, theoretically. We also make it a little harder to get at the Milchcows, so Germany can put them to some historical uses.
Coding would be some work. Not impossible work, but lots of new code to write. ASW pre-fire and the Sub-Hunter Aircraft pool would be two such new sections.
Coding would be some work. Not impossible work, but lots of new code to write. ASW pre-fire and the Sub-Hunter Aircraft pool would be two such new sections.
-
- Posts: 1810
- Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 1:58 am
RE: Yet to be coded Options
9.5 Neutrality pacts
Option 50: (USSR-Japan compulsory peace)
University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)
-
- Posts: 169
- Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 1:43 am
RE: Yet to be coded Options
Here are my thoughts -
Atomic Weapons - my early version of WIF allowed the Germans to develop the A-Bomb. Is this possible?
V-Weapons
Kamikazes
Partisan HQ's
City based Volunteers
USSR-Japan compulsory peace
Frogmen
Flying Bombs
The Ukraine
Naval Offensive Chit
Oil Tankers
Convoy's in Flames
Rough Seas
Recruitment Limits
Bounce Combat
Limited aircraft interception
En-route aircraft interception
Partisan HQ's
Any new options would be cool IMHO
Atomic Weapons - my early version of WIF allowed the Germans to develop the A-Bomb. Is this possible?
V-Weapons
Kamikazes
Partisan HQ's
City based Volunteers
USSR-Japan compulsory peace
Frogmen
Flying Bombs
The Ukraine
Naval Offensive Chit
Oil Tankers
Convoy's in Flames
Rough Seas
Recruitment Limits
Bounce Combat
Limited aircraft interception
En-route aircraft interception
Partisan HQ's
Any new options would be cool IMHO
- paulderynck
- Posts: 8356
- Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
- Location: Canada
RE: Yet to be coded Options
No.ORIGINAL: tom730
Here are my thoughts -
Atomic Weapons - my early version of WIF allowed the Germans to develop the A-Bomb. Is this possible?
Paul
RE: Yet to be coded Options
Bit late to the party here, but ...
En-route aircraft interception is important...but only really for the Strat war (as Zartacla alludes to above), so why not just include it for that? Again as assessed above, the coding is likely less of an issue that the bothersomeness of having to declare multiple way-points for all missions. However, just for strats (probably including carpet bombing, if included) it is surely workable. And this kind of makes sense. Think Kammhuber, Chain Home etc. In fact, we play with a house rule to this effect. Soooo... not only would it be a more workable solution, but probably more realistic.
Cheers
ACMW
En-route aircraft interception is important...but only really for the Strat war (as Zartacla alludes to above), so why not just include it for that? Again as assessed above, the coding is likely less of an issue that the bothersomeness of having to declare multiple way-points for all missions. However, just for strats (probably including carpet bombing, if included) it is surely workable. And this kind of makes sense. Think Kammhuber, Chain Home etc. In fact, we play with a house rule to this effect. Soooo... not only would it be a more workable solution, but probably more realistic.
Cheers
ACMW
The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons. (Emerson)
RE: Yet to be coded Options
Coding this would not be simple by any means. In ftf games you can do things that seem so easy and think 'this should be easy to add to the computer game'. Not so. Some of the simplest seeming things can be the most difficult to code. I have no idea where interception would fall on the scale, but I doubt it is on the Easy side of it [:(]
RE: Yet to be coded Options
I understand the general point - that some aspects of the game that are trivial to manage f2f can be fiendish to code. This would clearly not be trivial (actually probably harder than most of the other optional rules discussed above); but, and accepting I write from a position of some ignorance here, it does not seem to be impossible. And for strat war it is extremely important. However, what I was more worried about is it being exluded for playability issues, which I actually think would be the right call if it were to be considered for all air missions.
So, if it was up to me, then:
Preferred choice: introduce for strat bombing.
Fall back, if it really was grim to code: Zartacla's extended range fix.
Cheers
ACMW
So, if it was up to me, then:
Preferred choice: introduce for strat bombing.
Fall back, if it really was grim to code: Zartacla's extended range fix.
Cheers
ACMW
The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons. (Emerson)
RE: Yet to be coded Options
We usually limit ERI to strat and para missions (those are the long range aircraft where it matters). I believe it is rather important for those or can lead to really strange events (esp. with the .
I agree that it is ill suited for PBEM/computer games since it involves a lot of back and forth decision making.
There is a "greedy" version/house rule though, where you only check if the A/C can trace a path "around the interception screen/bubbles" and still reach the mission hex with its range. Instead of the back and forth decision making of the RAW option, this basically is a generalization of a ZoC check, where the fighter interception range is treated as a ZoC of variable range. Arriving back at a (binary) criterion, assertable by means that should be implemented already, or at the least easily extended to cover this case.
Considering what else is wrong with this game (more of a chore really..), I don't think this proposal will land on top of the stack before ~2020..
I agree that it is ill suited for PBEM/computer games since it involves a lot of back and forth decision making.
There is a "greedy" version/house rule though, where you only check if the A/C can trace a path "around the interception screen/bubbles" and still reach the mission hex with its range. Instead of the back and forth decision making of the RAW option, this basically is a generalization of a ZoC check, where the fighter interception range is treated as a ZoC of variable range. Arriving back at a (binary) criterion, assertable by means that should be implemented already, or at the least easily extended to cover this case.
Considering what else is wrong with this game (more of a chore really..), I don't think this proposal will land on top of the stack before ~2020..
"If we come to a minefield, our infantry attacks exactly as it were not there." ~ Georgy Zhukov