Option 47

[bo]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

Sorry bo if I am being thick (a regular occurence) but I seem to be missing the point. I have no idea why there is any talk of a de-bug tool when playing the game as is.

If it (disorganised and out of supply) occurs in a MWIF game then the player deals with it as per the rules - no de-bug, no get around. It happens all the time - or at least it does to me as I suck at the game.

Sorry bo am trying to be helpful. What am I missing?

It is probably me not you, If an enemy unit should be behind your units out of supply and disorganized and you need to move your units forward without going back and destroying that unit, it will be continually reorganized every game turn, now if you do not like that situation [not meaning you per say] there is nothing you can do about it under the present rules, I do not how else to explain that to you.

This unit could cause trouble if left there I assume, as I have never played this game. If Steve does not put optional rule 47 into the game again I could care less, but if 2 players agree that this is annoying maybe Steve could leave the debug tool in the game so people who just happen to like rule 47 to keep the unit or units disorganized or the other option just ignore those disorganized or organized units at the turns end.

Of course you need to trust the other player,[:(] hmmm

It must be me but I do not see what I am saying is so complicated.

Bo

warspite1

I think from what has been said previously there is nil chance of the de-bug feature or editor being available generally due to the problems this causes.

I think it is simply a case of, if Option 47 is a deal-breaker for a player then at the moment its not the game for them. If a player does not like that situation then join the club - there are plenty of optional rules, one map campaigns and even standard rules that are not yet functioning - and that matter to others - so I do not see that Option 47 is a special case.

Agreed warspite, I happened to see this post a while back and did not understand rule 47 [&:] I do now inside and out [:(] But warspite there seems to be some people here that disagree with you about rule 47, but because my family came from the Commonwealth in the 1700's I am going to stay on your side, reluctantly [:D]

Bo

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: bo




It is probably me not you, If an enemy unit should be behind your units out of supply and disorganized and you need to move your units forward without going back and destroying that unit, it will be continually reorganized every game turn, now if you do not like that situation [not meaning you per say] there is nothing you can do about it under the present rules, I do not how else to explain that to you.

This unit could cause trouble if left there I assume, as I have never played this game. If Steve does not put optional rule 47 into the game again I could care less, but if 2 players agree that this is annoying maybe Steve could leave the debug tool in the game so people who just happen to like rule 47 to keep the unit or units disorganized or the other option just ignore those disorganized or organized units at the turns end.

Of course you need to trust the other player,[:(] hmmm

It must be me but I do not see what I am saying is so complicated.

Bo

warspite1

I think from what has been said previously there is nil chance of the de-bug feature or editor being available generally due to the problems this causes.

I think it is simply a case of, if Option 47 is a deal-breaker for a player then at the moment its not the game for them. If a player does not like that situation then join the club - there are plenty of optional rules, one map campaigns and even standard rules that are not yet functioning - and that matter to others - so I do not see that Option 47 is a special case.

Agreed warspite, I happened to see this post a while back and did not understand rule 47 [&:] I do now inside and out [:(] But warspite there seems to be some people here that disagree with you about rule 47, but because my family came from the Commonwealth in the 1700's I am going to stay on your side, reluctantly [:D]

Bo

warspite1

But bo there is nothing to disagree with me on:

a) I have no issue using the standard rule for reasons given previously (and that is coded)
b) If Option 47 is coded at some point, I will give it a go and suspect that I will use it.
c) I have made a suggestion previously that Steve/Matrix should be making note of these threads and an outline plan formulated for which optionals are going to be done and when. For those who are really keen to see one or more optionals added, this can only be a good thing. But.....

[bo]

Well it is an interesting topic warspite, and being bored like I am right now waiting for something to happen with MWIF it keeps the mind working albeit not real well, I now understand the rule inside and out.[;)]

Bo

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: bo

Well it is an interesting topic warspite, and being bored like I am right now waiting for something to happen with MWIF it keeps the mind working albeit not real well, I now understand the rule inside and out.[;)]

Bo

warspite1

Which is good! [:)] And it's nice to see the forum being used and not sad, sad, sad..... [:D]

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: bo

If you are talking about Matrix's MWIF where does that happen all the time when no one has ever played an actual game with another person as of yet because we have no net play, I am not talking about games that paul plays or e-mail games or vassel, I am talking about MWIF on the computer.

Bo

Well, for me, I am talking about MWiF which I am playing with 4 others right now. And I'm talking about the board game. Please do not create false impressions here for new readers. Many people are playing the game one on one as well, as the AARs demonstrate. Don't turn the discussion of this option into another "Sad, Sad, Sad" thread, please.

One of those is more than enough.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: bo

Or my question should be, can you handle it, in other words if there is no debug feature put into the main game by Steve [this means you could disorganize these units again at the end of every turn] how could this be handled by players assuming that you would ever let this situation even occur in the first place which I doubt you would.

Bo

You do what you'd do if Option 47 never existed. Ground strike them and kill them. If you miss the ground strike you leave units adjacent and keep them OOS. The best they can do next turn is "ooze" to somewhere and disorganize, knowing you can then probably kill them unless they try to time it with the turn ending. Also you place your units adjacent in a manner that if they do ooze, it is you who controls where they ooze to.

In the next turn you try to ground strike them again.

If Option 47 never existed this would just be standard play in WiF with no one knowing any different.

Sounds sensible paul but aren't you tying up ground units to keep them out of supply that could be used elsewhere? Also they still have a zone of control and can still disrupt supply lines and RR lines that are in their ZOC, right.

Bo

Yes they have a ZoC which can disrupt supply and rail lines. That's why you likely want to dispense with them.

Yes it ties up ground units. That's just how it is - there's no magic solution, just like there's no magic solution that will give you an AI opponent tomorrow. You kind of have to live with it.

[bo]

deleted



Bo

[bo]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: bo

If you are talking about Matrix's MWIF where does that happen all the time when no one has ever played an actual game with another person as of yet because we have no net play, I am not talking about games that paul plays or e-mail games or vassel, I am talking about MWIF on the computer.

Bo

Well, for me, I am talking about MWiF which I am playing with 4 others right now. And I'm talking about the board game. Please do not create false impressions here for new readers. Many people are playing the game one on one as well, as the AARs demonstrate. Don't turn the discussion of this option into another "Sad, Sad, Sad" thread, please.

One of those is more than enough.
[/quote

Ok

Bo

[Larry Smith]

I used the editor function with CWiF liberally, as it let me play the way I wanted. I liked to clean up the weak and obsolete air units in the reserve pool by scrapping them, and giving each MP a little back as salvage. I even tried to devise a way to do that with ships, though over a much longer period. I would do the HW unit replacements, the city based volunteer replacements, and all sorts of stuff like that.

But it would usually crash the game by about mid-war. I never did finish one. So it is better that the debug feature is not readily available.

I also think the idea of making a concerted effort to isolate certain units is silly. The "best unit" any side has is the unit that is still moving forward toward the objectives. The only "unit" better than that, is the person playing that MP, since that's the only "unit" that can actually think for itself.

[Joseignacio]

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: bo



Actually warspite I could care less whether its in or out or if Steve ever puts it in, sometimes people do not read posts correctly, of course not you and centuur[;)] I asked how you will handle it in a MWIF game if the situation does occur without the debug tool. Please tell me what you players will do in a net play game, just ignore it? I do realize you most likely will never let this happen

Ok paul answered my question while I was composing my post thank you paul.

Bo

warspite1

Sorry bo if I am being thick (a regular occurence) but I seem to be missing the point. I have no idea why there is any talk of a de-bug tool when playing the game as is.

If it (disorganised and out of supply) occurs in a MWIF game then the player deals with it as per the rules - no de-bug, no get around. It happens all the time - or at least it does to me as I suck at the game.

Sorry bo am trying to be helpful. What am I missing?

You say it happens all the time, when is that? Are you referring to the board game, if you are, then after whatever house rule or whatever optional rules you and your opponent have agreed to. I Imagine in the board game you could just turn the unit upside down and leave it here for the rest of the game with rule 47 in effect.

If you are talking about Matrix's MWIF where does that happen all the time when no one has ever played an actual game with another person as of yet because we have no net play, I am not talking about games that paul plays or e-mail games or vassel, I am talking about MWIF on the computer.

Bo

Even with optional 47, it's not so simple to keep it disorganized. Although in this I am not so positive, cause the supply rules (and the Multiple states of war) are some of the ones that make me usually mad to understand and remember them.

[Joseignacio]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: paulderynck



You do what you'd do if Option 47 never existed. Ground strike them and kill them. If you miss the ground strike you leave units adjacent and keep them OOS. The best they can do next turn is "ooze" to somewhere and disorganize, knowing you can then probably kill them unless they try to time it with the turn ending. Also you place your units adjacent in a manner that if they do ooze, it is you who controls where they ooze to.

In the next turn you try to ground strike them again.

If Option 47 never existed this would just be standard play in WiF with no one knowing any different.

Sounds sensible paul but aren't you tying up ground units to keep them out of supply that could be used elsewhere? Also they still have a zone of control and can still disrupt supply lines and RR lines that are in their ZOC, right.

Bo

Yes they have a ZoC which can disrupt supply and rail lines. That's why you likely want to dispense with them.

Yes it ties up ground units. That's just how it is - there's no magic solution, just like there's no magic solution that will give you an AI opponent tomorrow. You kind of have to live with it.

Yes, I sometimes leave behind low value but white printed militias inside cities (like Brest-Litovsk) or woods to ZOC the advance of the enemy.

The fact that they are in a woods would "protect" them partially from ground strikes, so they would be more difficult to disorganize, whereas the white print+city would require compromising a serious number of units to destroy it (not overrun, no easy attack on an 1 value unit) and the fact that it is a more mobile unit (unlike a GARR, with only a 1 movement factor) allows sometimes to cut railways in an area, along with possible partisans, or destroy undefended disorganized (used) planes left behind the enemy advance.

This is a legal strategy.

The units get tied, that is true, but it's the other player decision. he could instead decide to attack or overrun them instead. And two lousy mil can keep OOS a very good unit, like Zhukov above mentioned, until the time to crush it arrives (or if you want to be gamey until counterattack on 43? or 44.

I have seen players block Leningrad with some MIL or GARR this way when they were busy advancing but didn't want to leave a source of RU units in the rearguard, so why not for this?

[Joseignacio]

.

[Joseignacio]

ORIGINAL: Larry Smith

I used the editor function with CWiF liberally, as it let me play the way I wanted. I liked to clean up the weak and obsolete air units in the reserve pool by scrapping them, and giving each MP a little back as salvage. I even tried to devise a way to do that with ships, though over a much longer period. I would do the HW unit replacements, the city based volunteer replacements, and all sorts of stuff like that.

But it would usually crash the game by about mid-war. I never did finish one. So it is better that the debug feature is not readily available.

I also think the idea of making a concerted effort to isolate certain units is silly. The "best unit" any side has is the unit that is still moving forward toward the objectives. The only "unit" better than that, is the person playing that MP, since that's the only "unit" that can actually think for itself.

It really depends, To lose at least one impulse with a group of X units attacking an isolated unit may be too much in the first turn of Barbarossa, when the USSR is so weak and their reserves are flipped somewhere far from the front. You want to run as much as possible as fast as possible and leaving behind 24 factors to make a "safe" attack to a disorganized white printed in a city.

In this case, if you have more units than you need in the 8at that moment) short Front, you can spare a couple of MIL or INF for 1 or 2 turns and destroy the other unit later with those plus the reinforcements that go to the Front next turn/s.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Larry Smith

I used the editor function with CWiF liberally, as it let me play the way I wanted. I liked to clean up the weak and obsolete air units in the reserve pool by scrapping them, and giving each MP a little back as salvage. I even tried to devise a way to do that with ships, though over a much longer period. I would do the HW unit replacements, the city based volunteer replacements, and all sorts of stuff like that.

But it would usually crash the game by about mid-war. I never did finish one. So it is better that the debug feature is not readily available.

I also think the idea of making a concerted effort to isolate certain units is silly. The "best unit" any side has is the unit that is still moving forward toward the objectives. The only "unit" better than that, is the person playing that MP, since that's the only "unit" that can actually think for itself.

Hey Larry, I agree about the debug not in the game, it was just a fishing expedition nothing serious, just testing feelings of people who know a lot more about the game than I do, I would personally never leave a unit behind my lines, again I was just trying to understand the rule nothing more nothing less [;)]

Bo

[bo]

Deleted

Bo

[Larry Smith]

In my defense, I've been doing repairs on what amounts to our local "projects", only they aren't publicly owned. A lot of patching, and that dust is like a poor man's cocaine.
Personally, I think the mustiness from the flooding in one place, now a de facto maintenance room, is more potent.

As for my tactics, too many times I have managed to cut off my own spearheads [during solitaire games] by forces I thought I had bottled, until I realized an error I had committed, and the only way to fairly correct it [in my mind, at least] was to send the offending unit back to it's last known start position, and disorganize it [I was keeping in mind that I might have an offended human opponent to placate at some point, and then I was making a lot of mistakes]. I wasted a lot of time back then - time I should have been in classes. I was bad, but I had the bug. But I learned to play more cautiously, since if I could wreck my own plans so thoroughly, a real opponent would do so even faster.

On a completely different note, I tried out the "Making History" games I found on steam, and while the nation-building parts were fun and engrossing, there was just something about the combat that bothered me. They manage combat by territory, not by battle lines, so you can end up with two opposing armies marching right past one another, but where a frontal system would generate a meeting engagement, at the very least, as units block each other with ZOC's and whatnot, the armies in this game just pass each other by. I could just imagine the Austrian troops invading Serbia as they tip their hats to the Serbian troops marching in the other direction to invade Bosnia, perhaps even calling out tips to each other on where to find the best cafes and such. Therein and it wasn't much different for the WWII version, so it just took a nosedive in my opinion.

Imagine arguing that one out! [Actually, please don't - I'm just joking here]. Made me run all the way back to the WiF vassal module, only to be reminded that the reason I stopped messing with that is it was short a bunch of charts for the DoD part. I am a fussy completist, and I like having options, but without some more official thought put into it , that in my opinion [and it's just my opinion] Option 47 doesn't really do much more than reward a few lucky die rolls, gamey strategies to keep certain units out of action for a while, or to overly punish players for making bad moves [while out of supply] or trying to make a mad dash for it. You might find, Bo, that by using the computer game, we as players are avoiding a lot of the errors that would leave us with those dire straits. We know when a unit is out of supply before we move it, and are reminded when we do, if it goes "face down" [gets the orange dot]. Then we can undo the move, and try something else. All the frustrations we had while Steve was still sorting out the supply subroutines has certainly taught me to think twice before moving an HQ before moving anything else, and I'm a lot more careful about committing one to combat during turns where the weather could sour [just in case the HQ goes "orange dot" and can't be moved to shorten supply lines later on].
Lately I've been trying to do more just by manoeuvre - have the Japanese side prompt the Chinese side to pull back to preserve itself, rather than force the Japanese to pile up on it. The terrain now impedes the Chinese as much as the Japanese, since their units have less movement points, even if they might have more supply sources open to them.

Anyway, I'm starting to jones for the must and dust [meaning i need to go take another pass at my patching].

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Larry Smith

In my defense, I've been doing repairs on what amounts to our local "projects", only they aren't publicly owned. A lot of patching, and that dust is like a poor man's cocaine.
Personally, I think the mustiness from the flooding in one place, now a de facto maintenance room, is more potent.

As for my tactics, too many times I have managed to cut off my own spearheads [during solitaire games] by forces I thought I had bottled, until I realized an error I had committed, and the only way to fairly correct it [in my mind, at least] was to send the offending unit back to it's last known start position, and disorganize it [I was keeping in mind that I might have an offended human opponent to placate at some point, and then I was making a lot of mistakes]. I wasted a lot of time back then - time I should have been in classes. I was bad, but I had the bug. But I learned to play more cautiously, since if I could wreck my own plans so thoroughly, a real opponent would do so even faster.

On a completely different note, I tried out the "Making History" games I found on steam, and while the nation-building parts were fun and engrossing, there was just something about the combat that bothered me. They manage combat by territory, not by battle lines, so you can end up with two opposing armies marching right past one another, but where a frontal system would generate a meeting engagement, at the very least, as units block each other with ZOC's and whatnot, the armies in this game just pass each other by. I could just imagine the Austrian troops invading Serbia as they tip their hats to the Serbian troops marching in the other direction to invade Bosnia, perhaps even calling out tips to each other on where to find the best cafes and such. Therein and it wasn't much different for the WWII version, so it just took a nosedive in my opinion.

Imagine arguing that one out! [Actually, please don't - I'm just joking here]. Made me run all the way back to the WiF vassal module, only to be reminded that the reason I stopped messing with that is it was short a bunch of charts for the DoD part. I am a fussy completist, and I like having options, but without some more official thought put into it , that in my opinion [and it's just my opinion] Option 47 doesn't really do much more than reward a few lucky die rolls, gamey strategies to keep certain units out of action for a while, or to overly punish players for making bad moves [while out of supply] or trying to make a mad dash for it. You might find, Bo, that by using the computer game, we as players are avoiding a lot of the errors that would leave us with those dire straits. We know when a unit is out of supply before we move it, and are reminded when we do, if it goes "face down" [gets the orange dot]. Then we can undo the move, and try something else. All the frustrations we had while Steve was still sorting out the supply subroutines has certainly taught me to think twice before moving an HQ before moving anything else, and I'm a lot more careful about committing one to combat during turns where the weather could sour [just in case the HQ goes "orange dot" and can't be moved to shorten supply lines later on].
Lately I've been trying to do more just by manoeuvre - have the Japanese side prompt the Chinese side to pull back to preserve itself, rather than force the Japanese to pile up on it. The terrain now impedes the Chinese as much as the Japanese, since their units have less movement points, even if they might have more supply sources open to them.

Anyway, I'm starting to jones for the must and dust [meaning i need to go take another pass at my patching].

Good post Larry, I always wondered how you board game people kept things straight mostly with supply that must have taken a lot of effort, thank god the computer version handles all of that.

Bo

[AlbertN]

In general though I am more concerned with the total halt of the optional rules being coded tbh.
AI and NetPlay are quite immense more so than some Optional Rules in my eyes.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Cohen

In general though I am more concerned with the total halt of the optional rules being coded tbh.
AI and NetPlay are quite immense more so than some Optional Rules in my eyes.

warspite1

Cohen FWIW I agree with this view and have posted a suggestion in the Development forum (to the effect that plans on progress on one or more optional rules and perhaps a single map campaign be announced - even in outline). Hopefully Steve/Erik will take into consideration.

[Centuur]

The order in which to proceed was decided on by Matrix. That was: supply - naval combat - Netplay. After that, I would first like to see the missing components of the "standard" game as the half map scenario's, search and seizure, neutrality pacts and mutual peace with multiplayer Netplay and a lot of bugs fixed too...

That's a whole different strategy. Optional rules are nice, but they are optional, aren't they...