Turn Off/On options during a Solitaire game

[Auchinleck]

First, I want to acknowledge the helpful feedback from the veteran and novice players out there. The variety of perspectives are enlightening, to say the least. I don't know if I've made a fundamental mistake, but playing a Global War, I decided to turn all options on, except for the one that was explained you can only have one or the other On. Which I can't even remember at this point. Anyway, I want to turn off Partisans. The reason, when the game prompts me to place a Communist Chinese Partisan, in a specified set up area, all possible areas seem to be X, not allowing placement of the Partisan anywhere. Which of course keeps me from moving to the next phase. Is that a bug? Or is there a flaw in something I have done? I'm playing version 1.6.0, (I don't know if I typed that correctly).[&:]

[Orm]

The Partisan should be placed in a Japanese controlled hex, not in enemy ZOC, in China.

If you still have trouble with this then I can look at it if you upload a save to the forum.

You can also bypass the partisan by loading a autosave from a earlier step and then turn on die control. That allows you to decide on the partisan roll so that there is no partisan in China.

[WarHunter]

You might like to visit the 2 links in WiF school forum. Good discussions on options and a list of options you may like to try. There are a couple of options that most players would steer you away from using 1st time playing.

Did Orm's suggestion help with the partisan problem?

Absolute Minimum
tm.asp?m=3527647

Absolute Maximum
tm.asp?m=3529486

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Auchinleck

First, I want to acknowledge the helpful feedback from the veteran and novice players out there. The variety of perspectives are enlightening, to say the least. I don't know if I've made a fundamental mistake, but playing a Global War, I decided to turn all options on, except for the one that was explained you can only have one or the other On. Which I can't even remember at this point. Anyway, I want to turn off Partisans. The reason, when the game prompts me to place a Communist Chinese Partisan, in a specified set up area, all possible areas seem to be X, not allowing placement of the Partisan anywhere. Which of course keeps me from moving to the next phase. Is that a bug? Or is there a flaw in something I have done? I'm playing version 1.6.0, (I don't know if I typed that correctly).[&:]

As you move the cursor over the map, the bottom panel of the Main form shows the northernmost location where the partisan can be placed.

[Auchinleck]

Ok. I was able to place the partisan counter. Thanks. Now on to my next roadblock in my latest thread!

[joshuamnave]

I wouldn't object to being able to turn on/off certain optional rules in the middle of a solitaire game. I was a few hours into a game once before realizing I hadn't turned on extended aircraft rebasing. That was a bit of a bummer. In a solitaire game, I don't see any harm in letting players change options on the fly - but it's not something I would fight for one way or the other.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

I wouldn't object to being able to turn on/off certain optional rules in the middle of a solitaire game. I was a few hours into a game once before realizing I hadn't turned on extended aircraft rebasing. That was a bit of a bummer. In a solitaire game, I don't see any harm in letting players change options on the fly - but it's not something I would fight for one way or the other.

Deleted my positve reply here after I read your UI post [:(]

Bo

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

I wouldn't object to being able to turn on/off certain optional rules in the middle of a solitaire game. I was a few hours into a game once before realizing I hadn't turned on extended aircraft rebasing. That was a bit of a bummer. In a solitaire game, I don't see any harm in letting players change options on the fly - but it's not something I would fight for one way or the other.

Another good idea... Don't know if it can be build in. Probably not. Imagine turning of the territorial or divisional rules in a game with territorials. Such things will need an awful lot of code, I'm afraid...

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

I wouldn't object to being able to turn on/off certain optional rules in the middle of a solitaire game. I was a few hours into a game once before realizing I hadn't turned on extended aircraft rebasing. That was a bit of a bummer. In a solitaire game, I don't see any harm in letting players change options on the fly - but it's not something I would fight for one way or the other.

Deleted my positve reply here after I read your UI post [:(]

Bo

Why not? It's a good idea. Same with all the things he's saying about the UI. Never smack someone for suggestion good things. Problem is only: are those ideas possible? That's the question and I've got my doubts. To bad Mr. Zartacla wasn't around when the UI was build. He would have been an asset...

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

I wouldn't object to being able to turn on/off certain optional rules in the middle of a solitaire game. I was a few hours into a game once before realizing I hadn't turned on extended aircraft rebasing. That was a bit of a bummer. In a solitaire game, I don't see any harm in letting players change options on the fly - but it's not something I would fight for one way or the other.

Optional rules drive a lot of the code. I set up toggling some of them ON/OFF for the beta testers but even then only for maybe half of the optional rules. It is just too easy to have changes mess up the game's internal variables completely.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

I wouldn't object to being able to turn on/off certain optional rules in the middle of a solitaire game. I was a few hours into a game once before realizing I hadn't turned on extended aircraft rebasing. That was a bit of a bummer. In a solitaire game, I don't see any harm in letting players change options on the fly - but it's not something I would fight for one way or the other.

Deleted my positve reply here after I read your UI post [:(]

Bo

Why not? It's a good idea. Same with all the things he's saying about the UI. Never smack someone for suggestion good things. Problem is only: are those ideas possible? That's the question and I've got my doubts. To bad Mr. Zartacla wasn't around when the UI was build. He would have been an asset...

He has great ideas but every time he brings up the 100 dollar problem I tune him out, and besides the new me is less argumenitive [;)]

Bo

[Dabrion]

That's a way of handling valid points.. tuning them out.. hope it works out for you

[joshuamnave]

ORIGINAL: bo

He has great ideas but every time he brings up the 100 dollar problem I tune him out, and besides the new me is less argumenitive [;)]

Bo

And you're welcome to keep tuning me out if you like. I bring up the 100 dollars because to me, it's relevant. I have different expectations for a game at this price point than I do for one that costs less, and I don't think that's at all unreasonable.

[joshuamnave]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Why not? It's a good idea. Same with all the things he's saying about the UI. Never smack someone for suggestion good things. Problem is only: are those ideas possible? That's the question and I've got my doubts. To bad Mr. Zartacla wasn't around when the UI was build. He would have been an asset...

I'm not sure I would have been all that helpful back then. I'm not a UI designer. I can point at things that don't work for me, or don't work as well as they could, but that doesn't mean I know how to fix them. Which is why my original point in that thread was that one of the things Matrix could have said that would have helped smooth things over is that they are bringing in someone who is a GUI specialist to work on it. I don't expect that it will happen, but the question someone posed was "What could Erik have said that would have satisfied you" and that was one of my answers.

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Why not? It's a good idea. Same with all the things he's saying about the UI. Never smack someone for suggestion good things. Problem is only: are those ideas possible? That's the question and I've got my doubts. To bad Mr. Zartacla wasn't around when the UI was build. He would have been an asset...

I'm not sure I would have been all that helpful back then. I'm not a UI designer. I can point at things that don't work for me, or don't work as well as they could, but that doesn't mean I know how to fix them. Which is why my original point in that thread was that one of the things Matrix could have said that would have helped smooth things over is that they are bringing in someone who is a GUI specialist to work on it. I don't expect that it will happen, but the question someone posed was "What could Erik have said that would have satisfied you" and that was one of my answers.

Fair enough.

[Mike Parker]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

I wouldn't object to being able to turn on/off certain optional rules in the middle of a solitaire game. I was a few hours into a game once before realizing I hadn't turned on extended aircraft rebasing. That was a bit of a bummer. In a solitaire game, I don't see any harm in letting players change options on the fly - but it's not something I would fight for one way or the other.

Optional rules drive a lot of the code. I set up toggling some of them ON/OFF for the beta testers but even then only for maybe half of the optional rules. It is just too easy to have changes mess up the game's internal variables completely.

Some optionals like the one mentioned extended rebasing should be easy to impliment, probabl limited overseas also things like that. Anything that changes the counters would be well nigh impossible I would think. The danger would be making the game unstable. I would love to have toggleable optionals just for no other reason as to be able to take a situation and say use the 1d10 blitz then the 2d10 and get the feel for the difference.

BUT with that said I would not suggest using one iota of time working on this. Got plenty else on your plate!

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

ORIGINAL: bo

He has great ideas but every time he brings up the 100 dollar problem I tune him out, and besides the new me is less argumenitive [;)]

Bo

And you're welcome to keep tuning me out if you like. I bring up the 100 dollars because to me, it's relevant. I have different expectations for a game at this price point than I do for one that costs less, and I don't think that's at all unreasonable.

When I said I tune you out that was pooly said and I have a habit of doing that please forgive me, I do read all your posts, IMO you have two kinds of posts, one with good ideas on what things should look like and be like. Usually an intelligent post. The 100 dollar posts are also intelligent but, it represents to me some bitterness towards Matrix and I feel it dampens the impact of what you say, nothing evil Zartacla in that, in fact I thought it was complimentary to you.


I know this if I had paid that kind of money and got what you got, I would be screaming so loudly that I would have been banned from here or the police would have to come to my house and arrest me.

Bo

[Dabrion]

We get it, people only want to hear the nice stuff.. Also does it mean you didn't pay for the game or someone else paid for you?

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Dabrion

We get it, people only want to hear the nice stuff.. Also does it mean you didn't pay for the game or someone else paid for you?

I stand behind the fifth amendment on that one otherwise know here as my NDA[:(]

Bo

[Dabrion]

United States of Amendment? What kind of police state are you living in that you need an NDA for yourself