Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Tutorial #4

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Tutorial #4 Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Tutorial #4 - 10/21/2006 6:51:21 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin
I think that the unit size information should still be shown in this last tutorial screen. For stacking purposes the visual knowledge of which units are Division sized is important.  The Russians do have some units that one might think are Divison sized but are not.
Lars

I wholeheartly agree.

(in reply to lomyrin)
Post #: 61
RE: Tutorial #4 - 10/21/2006 8:55:30 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21068
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

I think that the unit size information should still be shown in this last tutorial screen. For stacking purposes the visual knowledge of which units are Division sized is important.  The Russians do have some units that one might think are Divison sized but are not.

Lars


Could you provide examples? I have been trying to make all divisional units have different colors for their NATO symbol.

While there appears to be room for the x's in this screen shot (Z4), at Z3 and Z2, where I expect some players will use medium resolution, they would just be a smudge.

----------
Patrice,

The player will be able to assign the default unit resoultion for each zoom level. And override (or change) those settings whenever he wants. That was what I was trying to say somewhere in there. Since I have plenty of room for more text, I'll make it clearer.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to lomyrin)
Post #: 62
RE: Tutorial #4 - 10/22/2006 1:42:48 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21068
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
Here is the missing (final) page for this tutorial. The screen shots are old, which is why the top 3 don't match the bottom one (which is in the new style).

I was going to talk about reserve units here but there wasn't room. I'll do that later.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 63
RE: Tutorial #4 - 10/22/2006 4:20:35 AM   
lomyrin


Posts: 3733
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline
In the Russia forcepool there are 2 2factor CAV units that are not Divisions.

Those, as well as any number or 3 and 4 factor Inf and Mech and Armor units that have been added into the game by unit breakdowns can be confused with corps sized units if there are no unit level markings on them at say zoom level 4.


Lars

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 64
RE: Tutorial #4 - 10/22/2006 4:31:38 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21068
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin
In the Russia forcepool there are 2 2factor CAV units that are not Divisions.

Those, as well as any number or 3 and 4 factor Inf and Mech and Armor units that have been added into the game by unit breakdowns can be confused with corps sized units if there are no unit level markings on them at say zoom level 4.

Lars

Yes. That was a problem in CWIF. I have changed the interior coloring for the divisions though (they roughly match those of WIF FE). So the players should be able to tell them apart by color (and for the color blind, the brightness is different). I think the divisions stand out pretty well based on color.

For example, as they appear in page 9 of 9 for this tutorial (#4) both the Russian and the German divisions are quite different from the corps/army/army group sized units. In fact, I rely on the color more than I do the number of x's above the NATO symbol when looking at units in high resolution.

Not that I want to remove the unit size. It is just that I don't think it will be detectable/helpful at zoom level 2. At that level, the numbers are hard to read on medium resolution units. If I added the x's, they would be 1/4 the size of the numbers - just a blur.


_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to lomyrin)
Post #: 65
RE: Tutorial #4 - 10/22/2006 5:31:58 AM   
lomyrin


Posts: 3733
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline
OK, I see your point with the Russian units on page 9 of 9, The German Divisions are harder to see as different, their interior color is the same as the whiteprint corps units.

Lars


(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 66
RE: Tutorial #4 - 10/22/2006 5:45:59 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21068
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin
OK, I see your point with the Russian units on page 9 of 9, The German Divisions are harder to see as different, their interior color is the same as the whiteprint corps units.

Lars


The colors for the regular corps, elite, and divisions were all created simultaneously and laid out side by side back in January/February. I was especially careful that the color blind players could tell them all apart.

The only issue I have left on my task list for unit colors is to review all the minor countries and make sure we don't have any black font on navy blue backgrounds remaining (e.g., Netherlands). There are some other hard to read color combinations too as I recall, but only a half dozen or so. For the major powers, I am extremely unlikely to change the colors at this point.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to lomyrin)
Post #: 67
RE: Tutorial #4 - 10/22/2006 8:50:01 AM   
pak19652002

 

Posts: 280
Joined: 1/2/2005
Status: offline

And we love you for it!


quote:

I was especially careful that the color blind players could tell them all apart.


(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 68
RE: Tutorial #4 - 10/22/2006 9:02:11 AM   
pak19652002

 

Posts: 280
Joined: 1/2/2005
Status: offline
On a more serious note, I can't tell one bit of difference between the division and corps sized units on 9 of 9. Color and brightness look the same. I don't think it's a big deal, though, since you can zoom in to count the xxxs or wave the cursor over the unit to see it in the unit screen on the bottom. Also, memory comes into play.

Still, I'm surprised a little that you dumped all the detail even at this zoom level. I haven't been following it too closely so I guess you had your reasons.

But, bottom line is I think the div/corps differentiation scheme fails for the colorblind, but it is not a show stopper.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin
In the Russia forcepool there are 2 2factor CAV units that are not Divisions.

Those, as well as any number or 3 and 4 factor Inf and Mech and Armor units that have been added into the game by unit breakdowns can be confused with corps sized units if there are no unit level markings on them at say zoom level 4.

Lars

Yes. That was a problem in CWIF. I have changed the interior coloring for the divisions though (they roughly match those of WIF FE). So the players should be able to tell them apart by color (and for the color blind, the brightness is different). I think the divisions stand out pretty well based on color.

For example, as they appear in page 9 of 9 for this tutorial (#4) both the Russian and the German divisions are quite different from the corps/army/army group sized units. In fact, I rely on the color more than I do the number of x's above the NATO symbol when looking at units in high resolution.

Not that I want to remove the unit size. It is just that I don't think it will be detectable/helpful at zoom level 2. At that level, the numbers are hard to read on medium resolution units. If I added the x's, they would be 1/4 the size of the numbers - just a blur.



(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 69
RE: Tutorial #4 - 10/22/2006 3:37:10 PM   
Neilster


Posts: 2782
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Last in the series. This screen shot did not have to be modified to fit on the page.





Perhaps the bit about the Rumanians could be put as something like...

"Try to identify the Rumanian HQ and militia units and the 4 types of terrain in the picture."

As it is currently written, someone who can't identify said units might feel a bit foolish and disheartened.

Cheers, Neilster


< Message edited by Neilster -- 10/22/2006 3:38:47 PM >

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 70
RE: Tutorial #4 - 10/22/2006 3:43:55 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

On a more serious note, I can't tell one bit of difference between the division and corps sized units on 9 of 9. Color and brightness look the same. I don't think it's a big deal, though, since you can zoom in to count the xxxs or wave the cursor over the unit to see it in the unit screen on the bottom. Also, memory comes into play.

I (not color blind) can tell the DIV and corps appart from the color.

quote:

Still, I'm surprised a little that you dumped all the detail even at this zoom level. I haven't been following it too closely so I guess you had your reasons.


I asked this already, and Steve answered :
***************************
Patrice,

The player will be able to assign the default unit resoultion for each zoom level. And override (or change) those settings whenever he wants. That was what I was trying to say somewhere in there. Since I have plenty of room for more text, I'll make it clearer.
***************************

(in reply to pak19652002)
Post #: 71
RE: Tutorial #4 - 10/22/2006 9:11:39 PM   
trees trees

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 6/6/2006
From: Manistee, MI
Status: offline
won't the computer enforce stacking limits anyway? that should sort out most corps/division questions? for pretty much everything except 2d10 blitz bonuses I would think, and choice of combat table. I would hope the computer by default would place division sized units on top of a given land stack, with the option to change default stacking priorities to suit the players' taste.

The Morocco TERRitorial should have an "MOR" on it if abbreviated, not "MAR".

And the Seoul MIL probably shouldn't have a "KOR" on it as it is a Japanese unit for all purposes.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 72
RE: Tutorial #4 - 10/22/2006 10:15:14 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21068
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: trees trees
won't the computer enforce stacking limits anyway? that should sort out most corps/division questions? for pretty much everything except 2d10 blitz bonuses I would think, and choice of combat table. I would hope the computer by default would place division sized units on top of a given land stack, with the option to change default stacking priorities to suit the players' taste.

The Morocco TERRitorial should have an "MOR" on it if abbreviated, not "MAR".

And the Seoul MIL probably shouldn't have a "KOR" on it as it is a Japanese unit for all purposes.


I took the 3 letter abbreviations for all the countries (100+) from some official document - I'll look up which. There are many countries with similar names so the abbreviations aren't always what you would expect at first.

If Korea is conquered and the Seoul Militia destroyed, isn't it removed from the force pool?

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to trees trees)
Post #: 73
RE: Tutorial #4 - 10/23/2006 12:16:42 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
quote:

ORIGINAL: trees trees
won't the computer enforce stacking limits anyway? that should sort out most corps/division questions? for pretty much everything except 2d10 blitz bonuses I would think, and choice of combat table. I would hope the computer by default would place division sized units on top of a given land stack, with the option to change default stacking priorities to suit the players' taste.
The Morocco TERRitorial should have an "MOR" on it if abbreviated, not "MAR".

And the Seoul MIL probably shouldn't have a "KOR" on it as it is a Japanese unit for all purposes.


I took the 3 letter abbreviations for all the countries (100+) from some official document - I'll look up which. There are many countries with similar names so the abbreviations aren't always what you would expect at first.

You took it from the International Olympic Committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IOC_country_codes)
Morocco is abbreviated MAR.

quote:

If Korea is conquered and the Seoul Militia destroyed, isn't it removed from the force pool?


Quote from RAW :
*******************************
19.13 MIL units
All MIL that arrive in cities in an aligned minor country are units of that minor county. All other MIL are major power units.
*******************************
So the Korean MIL is a Korean Unit, because Korea is an Aligned Minor Country of Japan.
Same for Manchurian MIL.
Same for the Burmese MIL.

On the other hand, the Paris German MIL on the other hand, is a German unit, as France is usually a conquered country, not aligned.
The INA MIL is the same, Japanese unit, as it comes in a conquered Calcutta.

When Korea is conquered, it is completely conquered (as Korea controls no Minor Country), so all Korean units are removed from the game during the conquest Phase. The Korean MIL cannot survive to Korea conquest, it is removed from the game, even if defending Truk.

< Message edited by Froonp -- 10/23/2006 12:26:33 AM >

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 74
RE: Tutorial #4 - 10/23/2006 12:17:29 AM   
jesperpehrson


Posts: 706
Joined: 7/29/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: trees trees
won't the computer enforce stacking limits anyway? that should sort out most corps/division questions? for pretty much everything except 2d10 blitz bonuses I would think, and choice of combat table. I would hope the computer by default would place division sized units on top of a given land stack, with the option to change default stacking priorities to suit the players' taste.

The Morocco TERRitorial should have an "MOR" on it if abbreviated, not "MAR".

And the Seoul MIL probably shouldn't have a "KOR" on it as it is a Japanese unit for all purposes.


I took the 3 letter abbreviations for all the countries (100+) from some official document - I'll look up which. There are many countries with similar names so the abbreviations aren't always what you would expect at first.

If Korea is conquered and the Seoul Militia destroyed, isn't it removed from the force pool?


In most European languages Morrocko is written Mar* (Marrocko, Marruecos, Maroc, Marokko, Marocco and so on) so maybe this would be the official abbreviation. Either way it matters very little no?

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 75
RE: Tutorial #4 - 10/23/2006 2:11:38 AM   
Mziln


Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline
All the sites I have checked use a 2 character country codes and Morocco is MA.

(in reply to jesperpehrson)
Post #: 76
RE: Tutorial #4 - 10/23/2006 6:00:44 AM   
trees trees

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 6/6/2006
From: Manistee, MI
Status: offline
sigh. 2 games a year for a long time now and I'm still learning rules. one of the last in the book, a tough one to recall.

(in reply to Mziln)
Post #: 77
RE: Tutorial #4 - 10/23/2006 8:09:47 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln

All the sites I have checked use a 2 character country codes and Morocco is MA.

We are using a 3-metter abbreviation.

(in reply to Mziln)
Post #: 78
RE: Tutorial #4 - 10/23/2006 8:10:23 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: trees trees

sigh. 2 games a year for a long time now and I'm still learning rules. one of the last in the book, a tough one to recall.

And so am I.

(in reply to trees trees)
Post #: 79
RE: Tutorial #4 - 10/23/2006 9:49:44 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
Statistics about MWiF Land Units.





Attachment (1)

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 80
RE: Tutorial #4 - 10/23/2006 10:58:04 PM   
CBoehm

 

Posts: 113
Joined: 10/31/2005
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline
Does MWIF run in windows? ...how about creating a small online manual with more indepth playersnotes & statistics ...and have appropriate links from the tutorial?? or something to that effect?? I like to think Im a quite skilled player and know a lot of the small "tricks of the trade" so I wouldnt mind contributing some playersnotes ...ofcause all that could also be done via a FAQ / Strategy section of this forum ...

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 81
RE: Tutorial #4 - 10/24/2006 12:26:43 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21068
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CBoehm

Does MWIF run in windows? ...how about creating a small online manual with more indepth playersnotes & statistics ...and have appropriate links from the tutorial?? or something to that effect?? I like to think Im a quite skilled player and know a lot of the small "tricks of the trade" so I wouldnt mind contributing some playersnotes ...ofcause all that could also be done via a FAQ / Strategy section of this forum ...

This sounds interesting but it is out of scope for what I am doing for MWIF product 1. I really don't even have the time to coordinate such a thing.

However, since it is outside my area of involvement, that means others could do this in a manner they think is reasonable.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to CBoehm)
Post #: 82
RE: Tutorial #4 - 10/24/2006 12:35:02 AM   
SamuraiProgrmmr

 

Posts: 338
Joined: 10/17/2004
From: Paducah, Kentucky
Status: offline
Can I write the section on 'Stupid Things Not To Do Or You Will Lose'?

I think my experience at this game would be good for that



_____________________________

Bridge is the best wargame going .. Where else can you find a tournament every weekend?

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 83
RE: Tutorial #4 - 10/24/2006 12:53:40 AM   
Greyshaft


Posts: 2249
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
quote:

ORIGINAL: CBoehm

Does MWIF run in windows? ...how about creating a small online manual with more indepth playersnotes & statistics ...and have appropriate links from the tutorial?? or something to that effect?? I like to think Im a quite skilled player and know a lot of the small "tricks of the trade" so I wouldnt mind contributing some playersnotes ...ofcause all that could also be done via a FAQ / Strategy section of this forum ...

This sounds interesting but it is out of scope for what I am doing for MWIF product 1. I really don't even have the time to coordinate such a thing.

However, since it is outside my area of involvement, that means others could do this in a manner they think is reasonable.


Player Notes are quite useful. Perhaps it would be simpler if the MWIF tutorial included links to existing MWiF sites which already host those sort of articles. There are quite a few superb sites already existing. I appreciate that some MWiF sites come and go, but there are a few that have been around for many years.

_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 84
RE: Tutorial #4 - 10/24/2006 1:34:46 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21068
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
quote:

ORIGINAL: CBoehm
Does MWIF run in windows? ...how about creating a small online manual with more indepth playersnotes & statistics ...and have appropriate links from the tutorial?? or something to that effect?? I like to think Im a quite skilled player and know a lot of the small "tricks of the trade" so I wouldnt mind contributing some playersnotes ...ofcause all that could also be done via a FAQ / Strategy section of this forum ...

This sounds interesting but it is out of scope for what I am doing for MWIF product 1. I really don't even have the time to coordinate such a thing.

However, since it is outside my area of involvement, that means others could do this in a manner they think is reasonable.


Player Notes are quite useful. Perhaps it would be simpler if the MWIF tutorial included links to existing MWiF sites which already host those sort of articles. There are quite a few superb sites already existing. I appreciate that some MWiF sites come and go, but there are a few that have been around for many years.


I doubt that I will include links from within the program - for the reason you gave.

But the player's manual should definitely contain a section on "for more information on ... see ...", which could point to books as well as websites.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Greyshaft)
Post #: 85
RE: Tutorial #4 - 10/24/2006 9:52:18 AM   
Neilster


Posts: 2782
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline
Are the players' notes from WiFFE being included? They would be a good start. I must have read them (in an earlier version) dozens of times and they gave me a good feel for the best style of play and what's possible.

Cheers, Neilster

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 86
RE: Tutorial #4 - 10/24/2006 10:43:22 AM   
CBoehm

 

Posts: 113
Joined: 10/31/2005
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

Are the players' notes from WiFFE being included? They would be a good start. I must have read them (in an earlier version) dozens of times and they gave me a good feel for the best style of play and what's possible.

Cheers, Neilster



Funny ...I always wondered how much Harry and his bunch actually played the game

edit: ok to be fair I guess in an abstract way they are ok to give a general introduction to the game ...

< Message edited by CBoehm -- 10/24/2006 11:07:30 AM >

(in reply to Neilster)
Post #: 87
RE: Tutorial #4 - 10/24/2006 12:15:37 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21068
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster
Are the players' notes from WiFFE being included? They would be a good start. I must have read them (in an earlier version) dozens of times and they gave me a good feel for the best style of play and what's possible.

Cheers, Neilster


I will try to do that.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Neilster)
Post #: 88
RE: Tutorial #4 - 10/24/2006 5:27:04 PM   
Mziln


Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline
What Neilster is referring to is found at the ADG site in DOWNLOADS\Scenariotxt.doc.



25.1 Players’ notes

In 1985 it was difficult to provide notes on good play in a few paragraphs because of the large number of variables in World in Flames. Since then, the game has changed markedly, making up-to-date strategy notes even harder. Fortunately, this final edition has been heavily play tested for the last 10 years, giving me some idea of how to play (of course, I could be wrong). I’ve also added bits and pieces to help you out with some of the more difficult new rules.

First off, you will have noticed the players’ notes at the end of the scenarios. Those notes cover the strategies for each of those campaigns. The following notes deal more generally with handling the systems (and their interaction) in World in Flames.

Grand strategy

etc...



My note: And the player notes for a scenario, which could be included, for example, as part of: MWiF Tutorial\Page 4\Steve’s post 102



24.2.1 Barbarossa ~ “One Kick...”: May/Jun 1941~Jan/Feb 1942


Players’ notes: This is the ideal scenario to try first because it deals mainly with the parts of the game most commonly used in general play, the land and air systems.

My note: Unless you choose the "Unrestricted Setup" option.

USSR: You are forced into the dangerous front-line, historical set up that Stalin was caught with in the summer of 1941 ~ but don’t despair, Russia won that war and you can, too.

etc...


< Message edited by Mziln -- 10/24/2006 6:22:37 PM >

(in reply to Neilster)
Post #: 89
RE: Tutorial #4 - 10/26/2006 5:05:55 PM   
c92nichj


Posts: 440
Joined: 1/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Quote from RAW :
*******************************
19.13 MIL units
All MIL that arrive in cities in an aligned minor country are units of that minor county. All other MIL are major power units.
*******************************


This is interesting as we had a small disagreement in a previous game of mine where Japan became neutral after China surrendered, she only had Kunming left in play.

When a major power becomes neutral all it's Militia units are lost, but since the Korean unit is not a Japaneese unit, but an Korean unit it will not be removed like the the Tokyo militia right?

The japaneese player argued that the Korean unit would not be lost and the Allies that it should be removed like the normal japaneese militia. What further complicated things was that the japaneese player had missed FTC and placed the Militia from Formosa in Korea.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Tutorial #4 Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.151