Option 47

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
paulderynck
Posts: 8356
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Canada

RE: Option 47

Post by paulderynck »

The post you quote affirms the units that are isolated still have a ZoC. It did not claim that they needed to be kept in a ZoC by the side that isolated them in order for them to stay isolated.
Paul
User avatar
Joseignacio
Posts: 2798
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 11:25 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

RE: Option 47

Post by Joseignacio »

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

The post you quote affirms the units that are isolated still have a ZoC. It did not claim that they needed to be kept in a ZoC by the side that isolated them in order for them to stay isolated.

Maybe I got it wrong but weren't you writing about " yes, it ties up ground units", in the context, I think we were referring to units left behind to impede restoration through blocking a possible supply line with their ZOCs.
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.


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.
User avatar
paulderynck
Posts: 8356
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Canada

RE: Option 47

Post by paulderynck »

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio
ORIGINAL: paulderynck

The post you quote affirms the units that are isolated still have a ZoC. It did not claim that they needed to be kept in a ZoC by the side that isolated them in order for them to stay isolated.

Maybe I got it wrong but weren't you writing about " yes, it ties up ground units", in the context, I think we were referring to units left behind to impede restoration through blocking a possible supply line with their ZOCs.
You don't need to ZoC them but if they are still face-up it's wise to keep them from running around behind your lines and converting hexes to enemy control, messing up your supply lines and maybe even capturing cities back, in which reinforcements can show up. That's what I was referring to. Depending where they are, if not disorganized, you may be very wise to ZoC them.

Later in the game if they are disorganized and you've left them there to rot, you still have to watch out for an enemy ATR to suddenly show up at an untimely moment and re-org them.
Paul
User avatar
Joseignacio
Posts: 2798
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 11:25 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

RE: Option 47

Post by Joseignacio »

Yep, that is true.
Numdydar
Posts: 3271
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:56 pm

RE: Option 47

Post by Numdydar »

In WitE you can create large pockets in the summer of '41. Some of which can take over a month to finally reduce using quite a few troops to do so. Which of course prevents then from helping the advance. So having to have units stay behind to do 'clean up' seems very realistic to me.

Also, many of the advances in '41 were very narrow against an opponent that was disorganized, poor leadership, etc. Unfortunately for players, these traits cannot be modeled in any game that will accurately recreate what actually occurred on the Eastern Front. If nothing else, we the players have the hindsight that the RL combatants did not. The same is true in ANY complex strategy game I have ever played on WWII. So saying the game cannot allow a player to recreate a specific result in a game like occurred in RL means the game is broken just does not mean much to me.

I do not hear anyone complaining about France lasting longer than RL. There are games where France has lasted past May/June '40 so that must mean the game is broken correct? So why do you think the Germans should be able to advance 400km in the game makes the game bad/unplayable. After all you are not playing a real life Stalin (or even the RL people under him). The Russian player is going to do everything they can to NOT have that happen. Again, to me, this is a function of using what we know today to impact game play.

Both sides try and optimize their play using min/max efforts. So saying one rule in a game with thousands makes or breaks it seems just a little over the top. Of course if you played the board version and used this rule a lot, then your play style is going to suffer in the computer game. But again that does not mean the game is 'unplayable'. It means it is not as much fun for you since you are used to that play style and like it.

But for those like me that never played the board game and/or never used that rule, then it does not have the same impact to us as it does to those on the other side. So for us, the game is perfectly fine without that rule. While for the other people the game is not.

So you can just stop playing until it is added at some point (if ever) or adjust your play style and learn new tricks to deal with it.
bo
Posts: 4175
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:52 pm

RE: Option 47

Post by bo »

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

In WitE you can create large pockets in the summer of '41. Some of which can take over a month to finally reduce using quite a few troops to do so. Which of course prevents then from helping the advance. So having to have units stay behind to do 'clean up' seems very realistic to me.

Also, many of the advances in '41 were very narrow against an opponent that was disorganized, poor leadership, etc. Unfortunately for players, these traits cannot be modeled in any game that will accurately recreate what actually occurred on the Eastern Front. If nothing else, we the players have the hindsight that the RL combatants did not. The same is true in ANY complex strategy game I have ever played on WWII. So saying the game cannot allow a player to recreate a specific result in a game like occurred in RL means the game is broken just does not mean much to me.

I do not hear anyone complaining about France lasting longer than RL. There are games where France has lasted past May/June '40 so that must mean the game is broken correct? So why do you think the Germans should be able to advance 400km in the game makes the game bad/unplayable. After all you are not playing a real life Stalin (or even the RL people under him). The Russian player is going to do everything they can to NOT have that happen. Again, to me, this is a function of using what we know today to impact game play.

Both sides try and optimize their play using min/max efforts. So saying one rule in a game with thousands makes or breaks it seems just a little over the top. Of course if you played the board version and used this rule a lot, then your play style is going to suffer in the computer game. But again that does not mean the game is 'unplayable'. It means it is not as much fun for you since you are used to that play style and like it.

But for those like me that never played the board game and/or never used that rule, then it does not have the same impact to us as it does to those on the other side. So for us, the game is perfectly fine without that rule. While for the other people the game is not.

So you can just stop playing until it is added at some point (if ever) or adjust your play style and learn new tricks to deal with it.

Damn Numy I was just going to say all of that but you beat me to it [:D] Well said and I totally agree with you, well at least for today [:(]

Bo
User avatar
Joseignacio
Posts: 2798
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 11:25 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

RE: Option 47

Post by Joseignacio »

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

In WitE you can create large pockets in the summer of '41. Some of which can take over a month to finally reduce using quite a few troops to do so. Which of course prevents then from helping the advance. So having to have units stay behind to do 'clean up' seems very realistic to me.

Also, many of the advances in '41 were very narrow against an opponent that was disorganized, poor leadership, etc. Unfortunately for players, these traits cannot be modeled in any game that will accurately recreate what actually occurred on the Eastern Front. If nothing else, we the players have the hindsight that the RL combatants did not. The same is true in ANY complex strategy game I have ever played on WWII. So saying the game cannot allow a player to recreate a specific result in a game like occurred in RL means the game is broken just does not mean much to me.

I do not hear anyone complaining about France lasting longer than RL. There are games where France has lasted past May/June '40 so that must mean the game is broken correct? So why do you think the Germans should be able to advance 400km in the game makes the game bad/unplayable. After all you are not playing a real life Stalin (or even the RL people under him). The Russian player is going to do everything they can to NOT have that happen. Again, to me, this is a function of using what we know today to impact game play.

It's perfectly possible to surrender Paris in the RL date, so the game is not broken. It can be done earlier if the French player is bad and the German good or the opposite if viceversa.

Which has nothing to do with whether leaving a OOS isolated unit reorganize by itself in enemy land and move normally is realistic. It is not.

Regardless of whether it contributes to balance the game or not, but that is another story.

Both sides try and optimize their play using min/max efforts. So saying one rule in a game with thousands makes or breaks it seems just a little over the top. Of course if you played the board version and used this rule a lot, then your play style is going to suffer in the computer game. But again that does not mean the game is 'unplayable'. It means it is not as much fun for you since you are used to that play style and like it.

But for those like me that never played the board game and/or never used that rule, then it does not have the same impact to us as it does to those on the other side. So for us, the game is perfectly fine without that rule. While for the other people the game is not.

So you can just stop playing until it is added at some point (if ever) or adjust your play style and learn new tricks to deal with it.

No, the fact that you cannot use this rule doesn't mean you are well without it, you don't miss it because you don't know it, like if you were raised in a rainforest you'd think the best way of bathing is in a muddy pond. You's have to have the experience to compare.

Anyway, for me this is not a big issue, since I don't use to leave big pockets behind often and when I do, I take care of them, but...

And again, the game will be done when it's done, unfortunately there are much more important matters missing.
Numdydar
Posts: 3271
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:56 pm

RE: Option 47

Post by Numdydar »

Too true [:)]

Except for those that do not agree [:D]
User avatar
Zorachus99
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Palo Alto, CA

RE: Option 47

Post by Zorachus99 »

I dusted off my Fire the East manual just to illustrate the point of what most games do with Out-of-Supply units. The OOS units are destroyed.

Tracing supply in Fire in East is a bit difficult due to the fact that there are different rail gauges, as well as trucks supplying units near the front for the Germans.

However, it's pretty evident what the results of being out of supply, and being unable to trace supply are:

12D) Supply Effects
A unit out of supply has its abilities restricted, depending on the number of consecutive turns the unit is out of supply. Fire in the East turns are 1 week long.
On the first turn out of supply, a unit has it's attack strength halved
On the second and subsequent turns out of supply, a unit has it's attack, defense, AA, and movement rating are halved.
During each initial phase starting with the fourth turn out of supply (1 month), a d6 is rolled, and on a 4 or higher, the unit is eliminated.
Modified by:
-2 if the unit is in a fortress or major city,
+1 for frost weather
+2 during snow weather

So to summarize, surrounded units, which haven't even been attacked, start to be destroyed after being out of supply for 1 month? Wow, that seems sorta mean. Even in cities? Why would that rule be there?
Most men can survive adversity, the true test of a man's character is power. -Abraham Lincoln
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Option 47

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

I dusted off my Fire the East manual just to illustrate the point of what most games do with Out-of-Supply units. The OOS units are destroyed.

Tracing supply in Fire in East is a bit difficult due to the fact that there are different rail gauges, as well as trucks supplying units near the front for the Germans.

However, it's pretty evident what the results of being out of supply, and being unable to trace supply are:

12D) Supply Effects
A unit out of supply has its abilities restricted, depending on the number of consecutive turns the unit is out of supply. Fire in the East turns are 1 week long.
On the first turn out of supply, a unit has it's attack strength halved
On the second and subsequent turns out of supply, a unit has it's attack, defense, AA, and movement rating are halved.
During each initial phase starting with the fourth turn out of supply (1 month), a d6 is rolled, and on a 4 or higher, the unit is eliminated.
Modified by:
-2 if the unit is in a fortress or major city,
+1 for frost weather
+2 during snow weather

So to summarize, surrounded units, which haven't even been attacked, start to be destroyed after being out of supply for 1 month? Wow, that seems sorta mean. Even in cities? Why would that rule be there?
warspite1

Okay we get it - you don't like the stock rule and want Option 47 put in. There are many reasons why ADG's stock rule is not as unrealistic as one may initially think - and these have been highlighted above. If you read those and still disagree well that's a shame but until Matrix decide to code Option 47 there is not much to be done is there?
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
Centuur
Posts: 9013
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:03 pm
Location: Hoorn (NED).

RE: Option 47

Post by Centuur »

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

I dusted off my Fire the East manual just to illustrate the point of what most games do with Out-of-Supply units. The OOS units are destroyed.

Tracing supply in Fire in East is a bit difficult due to the fact that there are different rail gauges, as well as trucks supplying units near the front for the Germans.

However, it's pretty evident what the results of being out of supply, and being unable to trace supply are:

12D) Supply Effects
A unit out of supply has its abilities restricted, depending on the number of consecutive turns the unit is out of supply. Fire in the East turns are 1 week long.
On the first turn out of supply, a unit has it's attack strength halved
On the second and subsequent turns out of supply, a unit has it's attack, defense, AA, and movement rating are halved.
During each initial phase starting with the fourth turn out of supply (1 month), a d6 is rolled, and on a 4 or higher, the unit is eliminated.
Modified by:
-2 if the unit is in a fortress or major city,
+1 for frost weather
+2 during snow weather

So to summarize, surrounded units, which haven't even been attacked, start to be destroyed after being out of supply for 1 month? Wow, that seems sorta mean. Even in cities? Why would that rule be there?

Personally, I don't like option 47, because it has some serious flaws in it. Consider a Italian unit in Italian East Africa which can be put easily out of supply. That is something which I can live with. But now it moves and even without any enemy troops within more than 1.000 km. it won't get reorganised anymore? That's ridiculous...

On the other hand, there are the surrounded units which do appear in the USSR from time to time. Surrounded by enemy units which are in contact with those units, so you could consider those to be slowly getting exhausted. So I agree that those should not get reorganised, if you would attack those units each turn at least once. If you leave those pockets alone, why shouldn't they get reorganised? Only containing units isn't enough, because soldiers can rest and regroup to defend...

This option has it's downsides too. And apart from this, I never understand why units are suddenly "disappearing" from a game without having been attacked because they are out of supply. Look at the French ports the Allies bypassed during the war. The German units where still in those places after 8 or 9 months of encirclement. And they often were still capable of defending those ports, had the Allies decided to attack.

Sure, encircled units cannot attack if the are out of supply. That's something I agree on. But not reorganised? That's something I don't agree on.
Peter
User avatar
Joseignacio
Posts: 2798
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 11:25 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

RE: Option 47

Post by Joseignacio »

ORIGINAL: Centuur
ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

I dusted off my Fire the East manual just to illustrate the point of what most games do with Out-of-Supply units. The OOS units are destroyed.

Tracing supply in Fire in East is a bit difficult due to the fact that there are different rail gauges, as well as trucks supplying units near the front for the Germans.

However, it's pretty evident what the results of being out of supply, and being unable to trace supply are:

12D) Supply Effects
A unit out of supply has its abilities restricted, depending on the number of consecutive turns the unit is out of supply. Fire in the East turns are 1 week long.
On the first turn out of supply, a unit has it's attack strength halved
On the second and subsequent turns out of supply, a unit has it's attack, defense, AA, and movement rating are halved.
During each initial phase starting with the fourth turn out of supply (1 month), a d6 is rolled, and on a 4 or higher, the unit is eliminated.
Modified by:
-2 if the unit is in a fortress or major city,
+1 for frost weather
+2 during snow weather

So to summarize, surrounded units, which haven't even been attacked, start to be destroyed after being out of supply for 1 month? Wow, that seems sorta mean. Even in cities? Why would that rule be there?



This option has it's downsides too. And apart from this, I never understand why units are suddenly "disappearing" from a game without having been attacked because they are out of supply. Look at the French ports the Allies bypassed during the war. The German units where still in those places after 8 or 9 months of encirclement. And they often were still capable of defending those ports, had the Allies decided to attack.

Sure, encircled units cannot attack if the are out of supply. That's something I agree on. But not reorganised? That's something I don't agree on.

That the units disappear is something I can't take either. I hate it and that's one of the things I hate most of the series Path of Glory - Pursuit of Glory - Shifting Sands, the other being the move OR fight system.

However, a unit without supply and bombed in the real life had few possibilities to restore to it's usual power. First, after being dispersed by air or artillery attacks, they usually had lost most of their material (heavier weapons, transport and ammo).

True, they still could usually get food and water from the areas they were in "foraging" or forcing the local authorities to collaborate, but even if they could regroup most of their people, they would be a depleted force till they received a full supply. It's not only about regrouping disperse units.

The fact that a bombed unit is flipped and not restored unless it gets supplied it's totally ok for me, letting that unit restore at the end of the turn full force makes no sense to me because of the afore mentioned.

If I wanted to improve option 47 I would:

- Not let that unit restore until normal supply is gotten.
- Deplete the unit every turn (with a -1, -2, -3, ... marker for combat power or a strong dice modifier) unless they are in a depot (city, fort, ...).

but

- Let it move (with some handicap - modifier) cause those units could still make some damage in the enemy's rearguard if left alone, like cutting railroad, occupying unprotected cities, etc.
User avatar
Centuur
Posts: 9013
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:03 pm
Location: Hoorn (NED).

RE: Option 47

Post by Centuur »

Interesting view. But is one bombardment (by either artillery or aircraft) enough to deplete a unit in such a way that they can't be reorganised until fully resupplied?

I don't know. Personally, I believe that option 47 would be much better if one would only allow OOS units to reorganise if they are:

1. not adjacent to enemy land units and they can't move into any other hex without entering enemy ZOC (i.e. they are surrounded);

Or:

2. In a port adjacent to a sea zone containing surface naval units with which they can cooperate. HQ's function as a port themselves for this rule.

Personally, I think that this would be better than as it is now written in that option.

The penalty for moving when OOS looks good enough in WiF for me. The same is the fact that you can't attack with an OOS unit. You don't want an OOS unit to get reorganised? Surround it and it will stay down. Don't surround it and it will reorganise.

This way, one can't ignore disorganised surrounded units (by moving all units away from them, which is ridiculous) and one hasn't got that crazy thing anymore with an OOS unit which isn't under attack and stays disorganised for ever...

Peter
User avatar
Zorachus99
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Palo Alto, CA

RE: Option 47

Post by Zorachus99 »

Thought I'd share an actual conversation I had over Skype recently regarding supply.

[9:15:18 AM] cmdrcraig: so, is there any chance that the Powers that be will ever offer the fix tool for wif?
[9:16:08 AM] zorachus: the answer is never
[9:16:15 AM] zorachus: absoute refusal
[9:17:08 AM] cmdrcraig: well, if not then the game is kinda ****ed unless we accept its short comings and play it anyways... I will wait until you decide we can proceed
[9:17:48 AM] zorachus: it's too damn broken. And wasting moves to try to fix things is BS
[9:18:16 AM] zorachus: Some idiot offered to fix my games from the beta testers, but I would have to submit our ****ing game every end of turn
[9:18:22 AM] zorachus: and then wait for him to fix it
[9:18:26 AM] zorachus: which is totally idiotic
[9:18:56 AM] zorachus: they are ****ed up, and are way too interested in getting multiplayer working
[9:20:51 AM] cmdrcraig: :( then lets not do the extra moves, I am willing to play with them as a new, unwanted feature (penalty, price)... but you gotta want to do that also or it would not be any fun at all. I miss wif because we tend to interact alot more and I like your company online
[9:23:34 AM] cmdrcraig: released way too soon... but damned too long a wait for it in the big picture. But i agree they are ****ed in the head for not addressing a fix tool for players that want to play now and PAID THE FRIGN $100.00 to get the damned game... they are gonna kill this game off if they lose the interested players out here in the world
[9:24:27 AM] cmdrcraig: well. have a good weekend, its x5 i think so will be tanking this weekend :) lates
Most men can survive adversity, the true test of a man's character is power. -Abraham Lincoln
brian brian
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:39 pm

RE: Option 47

Post by brian brian »

There is more to Option 47 than how pockets in the Ukraine work. Option 47 is a key aid in refining the grain of the logistics rules, which are very simplified. One thing it helps keep a lid on is ghost units wandering the map for several turns until they can actually get somewhere useful, forcing the opposing player to divert significant forces to do something about a partially armed band of stragglers that could accomplish little in real life.

"An Army marches on it's stomach" is the famous quote of course. A WWII Army survived on it's supply of bullets or shells for the automatic weapons, which can not be just scavenged from the country side.

In East Africa, I think things work out OK with the use of the TERRitorial units, though I highly support the post-MWiF refinement of the Territorial rules of allowing the county of origin to be selected in exchange for one extra turn of build time.

I always forget - why do the Oil dependent units trace a path of any length to meet how that rule works, but Option 47 is too complex?
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Option 47

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

Thought I'd share an actual conversation I had over Skype recently regarding supply.

[9:15:18 AM] cmdrcraig: so, is there any chance that the Powers that be will ever offer the fix tool for wif?
[9:16:08 AM] zorachus: the answer is never
[9:16:15 AM] zorachus: absoute refusal
[9:17:08 AM] cmdrcraig: well, if not then the game is kinda ****ed unless we accept its short comings and play it anyways... I will wait until you decide we can proceed
[9:17:48 AM] zorachus: it's too damn broken. And wasting moves to try to fix things is BS
[9:18:16 AM] zorachus: Some idiot offered to fix my games from the beta testers, but I would have to submit our ****ing game every end of turn
[9:18:22 AM] zorachus: and then wait for him to fix it
[9:18:26 AM] zorachus: which is totally idiotic
[9:18:56 AM] zorachus: they are ****ed up, and are way too interested in getting multiplayer working
[9:20:51 AM] cmdrcraig: :( then lets not do the extra moves, I am willing to play with them as a new, unwanted feature (penalty, price)... but you gotta want to do that also or it would not be any fun at all. I miss wif because we tend to interact alot more and I like your company online
[9:23:34 AM] cmdrcraig: released way too soon... but damned too long a wait for it in the big picture. But i agree they are ****ed in the head for not addressing a fix tool for players that want to play now and PAID THE FRIGN $100.00 to get the damned game... they are gonna kill this game off if they lose the interested players out here in the world
[9:24:27 AM] cmdrcraig: well. have a good weekend, its x5 i think so will be tanking this weekend :) lates
warspite1
Thought I'd share an actual conversation I had over Skype recently


Why?
Some idiot offered to fix my games from the beta testers, but I would have to submit our ****ing game every end of turn

Oh I see...it's so you can slag off the beta testers again... how original [8|]
they are ****ed up, and are way too interested in getting multiplayer working

So have you been e-mailing the "****ed up powers that be" and giving them a hard time rather than just insulting the beta testers (as though the beta testers are somehow responsible for the direction of the game, its development or the time it takes or the resources available to be thrown at it) every now and then?

I ask one more time. I understand you are angry with the state of the game (and you are not the only one believe me) but give the beta tester bashing a rest eh? You may not have considered the offer to fix your game as practical, but it was well meant and calling the guy an idiot for trying to help you was more than a bit rubbish....
released way too soon..

Depends in what way you mean. If you mean it was released too soon with insufficient explanation as to where the game was in terms of development (and thus people spent money that maybe otherwise would not have) - then you may have a point. If you think the game would be more developed and any further forward had it not been released, then it is impossible to see in what way, shape or form that that assertion could possibly be true. In fact, given the input and feedback from the much wider community that has been playing the game post release, the very opposite is true - and the game would likely be less well developed if not shelved altogether had it not been released.


Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
bo
Posts: 4175
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:52 pm

RE: Option 47

Post by bo »

9:18:16 AM] zorachus: Some idiot offered to fix my games from the beta testers, but I would have to submit our ****ing game every end of turn
[9:18:22 AM] zorachus: and then wait for him to fix it


Well said warspite!


There seems to me there are a lot of idiots in the beta testers group including me, would you be kind enough to point out that f***ing idiot that was kind enough to offer to fix your game when there is trouble probably caused by yourself, and when you identify him I will personally tell him he is a f***ing idiot for even thinking of trying to help you.

I have never personally been against your posts but this one seems like pure bulls**t with your skype buddy, is this the best you can come up with zorachus, I thought more of you than that.


Respectfully one of the idiots

Bo
joshuamnave
Posts: 967
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:51 am
Contact:

RE: Option 47

Post by joshuamnave »

Zorachus, like it or not disorganized units reorg every turn whether in supply or not. That's not a decision made by Matrix or by Steve - it's one of the base game rules from ADG so you're harassing the wrong people about fixing it. Take it up with Harry or play a game that has rules you find more palatable.

That aside, the discussion about the rule is interesting from a game design standpoint. The way it works now seems like an imperfect but workable solution to a complex problem. One of the guiding philosophies of WIF is to have one set of rules that works as broadly as possible across every situation. As a design concept, that means some rules will necessarily work better in some situations than in others, so the question becomes one of trade offs. Not allowing OOS units to reorg makes a certain amount of sense when they are in contact with an enemy and are disorganized because they were in combat or subjected to aerial bombardment. It makes less sense when we're talking about smaller units in minor theaters like Italians in east Africa who are disorganized because they are never in supply but frequently move. In fact, those situations are tough to model in a game this scale without adding a bunch of rules exceptions. So there are really three choices - a broad rule that lets too many units reorganize, a broad rule that doesn't let enough units reorganize, or additional narrowly tailored rules.

I like the first choice best, while stipulating that it is imperfect. If you use the second option, then minor theaters of the war more or less become moot. Getting supply to those units is impractical and I find that game play in minor theaters is often more interesting than game play in major theaters because major theaters break down into a few sets of fairly standard strategies. While using the first option can be frustrating as an attacker, you can at least attempt to groundstrike an OOS unit and disorganize it again. Under option 2, there is no ability to fix the issues with the rule.
Head Geek in Charge at politigeek.net - the intersection of politics and all things geeky
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Option 47

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

Zorachus, like it or not disorganized units reorg every turn whether in supply or not. That's not a decision made by Matrix or by Steve - it's one of the base game rules from ADG so you're harassing the wrong people about fixing it. Take it up with Harry or play a game that has rules you find more palatable.
warspite1

But that is not what he is complaining about. The complaint stems from the fact that ADG have come up with Option 47 for those that do not like the stock rule on reorganisation. Option 47 is one of the Options that should be coded as part of MWIF - but currently isn't.

So Zorachus is not looking for possible alternatives - he just wants coded an option that already exists in WIF (but not MWIF) and that he believes is important.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
Centuur
Posts: 9013
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:03 pm
Location: Hoorn (NED).

RE: Option 47

Post by Centuur »

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I always forget - why do the Oil dependent units trace a path of any length to meet how that rule works, but Option 47 is too complex?

This was discussed a long time ago in the beta testers forum too. If my memory is still OK, Steve got exceptionally calculation times when he first coded this optional rule. And that code was based on the oil dependent units reorganisation code...
Peter
Post Reply

Return to “World in Flames”