Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week: Command Ops goes half price!New Fronts are opening up for Commander: The Great WarCharacters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer CorpsNew Strategy Titles Join the Family
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game

 
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: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game Page: <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 10/3/2008 9:37:45 AM   
yvesp


Posts: 1254
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
Is there somewhere a resume of which WiF extensions that are supported by MWIF ?
And which will be supported in the follow up release ?

Yves

(in reply to micheljq)
Post #: 511
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 10/3/2008 10:29:44 AM   
Eichenblatt

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 8/18/2008
Status: offline
See post #23 of this thread (I think/hope its still correct):

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1082338

(in reply to yvesp)
Post #: 512
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 10/3/2008 12:18:49 PM   
yvesp


Posts: 1254
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Eichenblatt

See post #23 of this thread (I think/hope its still correct):

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1082338



Thanks!
Exactly what I was looking for.

I think it should be copied an stickied in a new thread as a reference for those like me who wonder about the exact scope of MWiF.

Yves

(in reply to Eichenblatt)
Post #: 513
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 12/17/2008 10:39:21 PM   
jarlgeir

 

Posts: 2
Joined: 12/15/2008
Status: offline
Counter Mix available??

Will we be stuck with the same countermix as in the ADG game?
The only reason we have so few counters in ADG's WIFFE is the cost of printing counters, so no reason not to increase the counter mix somewhat in a PC game.
In quite a few games I run out of counters to build when the game do not proceed as the war did historically.
For example, the Chinese should have a much larger force pool of land units - after all there were 419 000 000 chinese in 1935 not counting Manchuria or Taiwan - no shortage of recruits.
While we're at it I also want to see more subs in the Chinese force pool.

Also, I would like to see an option where the ChiComs or ChiNats can restart their civil war early. If the Japs had been chasen out of China before 1945, they would have restarted the civil war which was postponed by the Japanese invasion of China.

(in reply to HansHafen)
Post #: 514
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 12/18/2008 5:17:56 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18172
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jarlgeir

Counter Mix available??

Will we be stuck with the same countermix as in the ADG game?
The only reason we have so few counters in ADG's WIFFE is the cost of printing counters, so no reason not to increase the counter mix somewhat in a PC game.
In quite a few games I run out of counters to build when the game do not proceed as the war did historically.
For example, the Chinese should have a much larger force pool of land units - after all there were 419 000 000 chinese in 1935 not counting Manchuria or Taiwan - no shortage of recruits.
While we're at it I also want to see more subs in the Chinese force pool.

Also, I would like to see an option where the ChiComs or ChiNats can restart their civil war early. If the Japs had been chasen out of China before 1945, they would have restarted the civil war which was postponed by the Japanese invasion of China.


Units are defined in a CSV (comma separated value) data file that can be edited with NotePad (for instance). You can add as many new units as you like, and they can be any of the 80 unit types.

Starting units for each scenario is not accessible for modification, so these would all have to be new builds.
===
A Chinese civil war is not modelled by WIF, so it is not part of MWIF.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to jarlgeir)
Post #: 515
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 12/18/2008 1:21:37 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 1629
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
A lot of people that play WiF feel that there are now more than enough counters. I know several groups that have gone back to playing Classic, each with slightly different tweaks to that regarding planes, ships, or divisions. New counters seem like a great fun idea, until you reach 1944...

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 516
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 12/18/2008 9:45:02 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7895
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Units are defined in a CSV (comma separated value) data file that can be edited with NotePad (for instance). You can add as many new units as you like, and they can be any of the 80 unit types.

I'd add that there might be problems adding units with graphics (planes and ships). I think that you will have difficulties adding some of this kind. They will come out with no graphics (or low res generic graphics ?).

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 517
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 12/19/2008 12:06:38 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18172
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Units are defined in a CSV (comma separated value) data file that can be edited with NotePad (for instance). You can add as many new units as you like, and they can be any of the 80 unit types.

I'd add that there might be problems adding units with graphics (planes and ships). I think that you will have difficulties adding some of this kind. They will come out with no graphics (or low res generic graphics ?).


True.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 518
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 12/19/2008 4:10:01 AM   
macgregor


Posts: 968
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

A lot of people that play WiF feel that there are now more than enough counters. I know several groups that have gone back to playing Classic, each with slightly different tweaks to that regarding planes, ships, or divisions. New counters seem like a great fun idea, until you reach 1944...

Too many for a glass-topped table with tweezers, or magnetic wall-mount. When did that addon stuff come out? like fifteen years ago? The PiF, SiF, and MiF anyway. I've never wanted to go back. But I'll admit it's been since that time I've been waiting for a computerized version. I miss the social interaction of the 4 player games, though I'm content having to email that interaction. Back in those days you couldn't screengrab, jump into MSpaint and display your plan with better graphics than they actually used in the war. There are some great, perhaps even more realistic, strategy games out there. Matrix has most of them. But there aren't many designed for 4-6 players. To me, that is where WiF has the edge. Does anyone agree with me?

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 519
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 12/20/2008 5:28:15 PM   
Yohan

 

Posts: 1045
Joined: 10/7/2002
From: Toronto
Status: offline
Which WWII strategy game do you think is better than WiF macgregor?

(in reply to macgregor)
Post #: 520
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 12/20/2008 6:55:54 PM   
macgregor


Posts: 968
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline
Well, I'm a big fan of TOAW3, which lacks the strategic -level(and for now, naval combat) that WiF has, though has much more detail. For example in WiF, an armored corps moving 300km has the same strength as one that is attacking directly from it's assembly area. It gives WiF a chess-like quality that's extremely enjoyable, but perhaps not as realistic as a game that takes into account fuel, time, and energy expended. TOAW3 may be too much for some to handle. For WiF to tackle the PBEM/AI arena, it's only option as I see it is to become more TOAW-like.I've met Wiffers that don't like TOAW3, but mainly it seems because they prefer the 4-6 player, all encompassing aspect of WiF.

< Message edited by macgregor -- 12/20/2008 6:59:23 PM >

(in reply to Yohan)
Post #: 521
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 1/23/2009 11:55:33 PM   
arehb

 

Posts: 7
Joined: 1/23/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Units are defined in a CSV (comma separated value) data file that can be edited with NotePad (for instance). You can add as many new units as you like, and they can be any of the 80 unit types.

Starting units for each scenario is not accessible for modification, so these would all have to be new builds.


I really look forward to MWIF but there are two things putting me off. I want mwif to be a computer version of the board game, not a game on its own. The board game has low playability because you need alot of space, time and people. WIFFE classic has higher playability than if you add expansions - less maps, less counters, less rules. The playability bottleneck for mwif, I think, will be the fact that it is alot more difficult to keep the overview of the maps and counters on a computer game. Having the entire world on european map scale aggravates this issue.

So, in order to make mwif as playable as it can get, and in order to make the experiences there relevant for board game play and vice versa -

1. I would lke to be able to play MWIF with only the WIFFE classic units. No PiF or SiF - or siberians or divisions for that matter.

2. I would like to be able to play with the standard WIFFE maps - classic only, and with the scandinavia, africa and AiF maps as optionals.

As I understand SiF and PiF wont be optional in mwif, and there will only be the european map scale world map. Implementing the classic units should be very easy, but I am guessing making WIFFE maps an option wont be, since the AIs would need to be modified somewhat. Thus I don't see myself playing mwif much - but hopefully I will be wrong :-P

Cheers,

Are-Harald

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 522
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 1/24/2009 1:32:49 AM   
abj9562


Posts: 787
Joined: 7/8/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: arehb

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Units are defined in a CSV (comma separated value) data file that can be edited with NotePad (for instance). You can add as many new units as you like, and they can be any of the 80 unit types.

Starting units for each scenario is not accessible for modification, so these would all have to be new builds.


I really look forward to MWIF but there are two things putting me off. I want mwif to be a computer version of the board game, not a game on its own. The board game has low playability because you need alot of space, time and people. WIFFE classic has higher playability than if you add expansions - less maps, less counters, less rules. The playability bottleneck for mwif, I think, will be the fact that it is alot more difficult to keep the overview of the maps and counters on a computer game. Having the entire world on european map scale aggravates this issue.

So, in order to make mwif as playable as it can get, and in order to make the experiences there relevant for board game play and vice versa -

1. I would lke to be able to play MWIF with only the WIFFE classic units. No PiF or SiF - or siberians or divisions for that matter.

2. I would like to be able to play with the standard WIFFE maps - classic only, and with the scandinavia, africa and AiF maps as optionals.

As I understand SiF and PiF wont be optional in mwif, and there will only be the european map scale world map. Implementing the classic units should be very easy, but I am guessing making WIFFE maps an option wont be, since the AIs would need to be modified somewhat. Thus I don't see myself playing mwif much - but hopefully I will be wrong :-P

Cheers,

Are-Harald

Due to realistic PC issues it was decided early on to use the single map scale for the entire world. However the game should be a very close experience to the original. People like Steve, Patrice and many others have overseen and corrected misperceptions to keep this game as faithful as possible to the original. All within the constraints of writing a computer program though. Keep in mind that even CWiF was not an exact copy. I would suggest you get Vassel or Aide de Camp for an exact reproduction of the classic version.

For people who may not know WiF has been released in many editions with many addons and optional kits from ADG. MWiF was a community effort to debate and decide the inclusion and exclusion of the optional kits and rules. There is already serious discussion of a possible MWiF product 2 which will probably be additional addons already released by ADG. The majority of addons and optional rules included in this first release are optional and can be turned on or off. Map scale helped determine the need for PiF and SiF from very early on. (Steve or Patrice correct me if I am wrong, as I am getting older every year and my memory is not what it used to be).

_____________________________

Integrity is what you do when nobody is watching.

(in reply to arehb)
Post #: 523
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 1/24/2009 10:06:45 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7895
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
You can also play WiF FE through Vassal, this would fit your needs.
quote:

ORIGINAL: arehb

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Units are defined in a CSV (comma separated value) data file that can be edited with NotePad (for instance). You can add as many new units as you like, and they can be any of the 80 unit types.

Starting units for each scenario is not accessible for modification, so these would all have to be new builds.


I really look forward to MWIF but there are two things putting me off. I want mwif to be a computer version of the board game, not a game on its own. The board game has low playability because you need alot of space, time and people. WIFFE classic has higher playability than if you add expansions - less maps, less counters, less rules. The playability bottleneck for mwif, I think, will be the fact that it is alot more difficult to keep the overview of the maps and counters on a computer game. Having the entire world on european map scale aggravates this issue.

So, in order to make mwif as playable as it can get, and in order to make the experiences there relevant for board game play and vice versa -

1. I would lke to be able to play MWIF with only the WIFFE classic units. No PiF or SiF - or siberians or divisions for that matter.

2. I would like to be able to play with the standard WIFFE maps - classic only, and with the scandinavia, africa and AiF maps as optionals.

As I understand SiF and PiF wont be optional in mwif, and there will only be the european map scale world map. Implementing the classic units should be very easy, but I am guessing making WIFFE maps an option wont be, since the AIs would need to be modified somewhat. Thus I don't see myself playing mwif much - but hopefully I will be wrong :-P

Cheers,

Are-Harald


(in reply to arehb)
Post #: 524
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 1/26/2009 2:44:24 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2121
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline
The other thing to note is that the unified map scale was incorporated into CWiF at the behest of Harry Rowland (WiF's designer) in addition to any practical coding issues raised by multiple map scales. I believe he is on record stating that he'd have made WiF the boardgame that way if it was at all feasible.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 525
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/12/2009 2:44:53 PM   
fallgelb

 

Posts: 28
Joined: 5/8/2007
Status: offline
I read in the thread about the rules that the CAP Subphases can be "deactivated" in the sequence of play. I think it would be fasten the gameplay if all phases, respective some subphases, can be deactivated also. The system used in the screenshot concerning the CAP-possibilities would fit.
Example: In most games the chinese player will not make naval air or starategic bombardement.
I think experienced players will be able to decide at the beginning of a turn if they want to have a distict phase/subphase in the sequence of play.

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 526
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/12/2009 7:56:30 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18172
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fallgelb

I read in the thread about the rules that the CAP Subphases can be "deactivated" in the sequence of play. I think it would be fasten the gameplay if all phases, respective some subphases, can be deactivated also. The system used in the screenshot concerning the CAP-possibilities would fit.
Example: In most games the chinese player will not make naval air or starategic bombardement.
I think experienced players will be able to decide at the beginning of a turn if they want to have a distict phase/subphase in the sequence of play.

An interesting idea. Thanks.

EDIT: Does someone want to propose which phases might be skipped by individual major powers? Note that if there are no units capable of moving, then the program 'skips' the phase/subphase/sub-subphase automatically. E.g., China is not going to be asked about naval moves.

< Message edited by Shannon V. OKeets -- 3/12/2009 8:43:33 PM >


_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to fallgelb)
Post #: 527
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/12/2009 10:18:17 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7895
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: fallgelb

I read in the thread about the rules that the CAP Subphases can be "deactivated" in the sequence of play. I think it would be fasten the gameplay if all phases, respective some subphases, can be deactivated also. The system used in the screenshot concerning the CAP-possibilities would fit.
Example: In most games the chinese player will not make naval air or starategic bombardement.
I think experienced players will be able to decide at the beginning of a turn if they want to have a distict phase/subphase in the sequence of play.

An interesting idea. Thanks.

EDIT: Does someone want to propose which phases might be skipped by individual major powers? Note that if there are no units capable of moving, then the program 'skips' the phase/subphase/sub-subphase automatically. E.g., China is not going to be asked about naval moves.

Carpet and Strat bombings are good candidates. China will do very few, as well as Italy. Japan will do some Strat, but never Carpet. Germany will do strat as well but very rarely carpet.

Air resupply also is a good candidate, as few countries will have both the resource needed (precious & rare ATRs), and the urging need to do it. Only the USA, the CW, the USSR and Germany will do this often. Japan will do it sometimes. Italy, France & China almost never, but will do it occasionaly.

HQ emergency supply also could be "deactivated" for most of the countries all the time. It is sometimes used, but never more than half a dozen time over the whole 250 impulses of the game. The major power who wants to do it often plans this ahead of time, and so the player can reactivate it if needed.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 528
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/12/2009 10:58:56 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18172
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: fallgelb

I read in the thread about the rules that the CAP Subphases can be "deactivated" in the sequence of play. I think it would be fasten the gameplay if all phases, respective some subphases, can be deactivated also. The system used in the screenshot concerning the CAP-possibilities would fit.
Example: In most games the chinese player will not make naval air or starategic bombardement.
I think experienced players will be able to decide at the beginning of a turn if they want to have a distict phase/subphase in the sequence of play.

An interesting idea. Thanks.

EDIT: Does someone want to propose which phases might be skipped by individual major powers? Note that if there are no units capable of moving, then the program 'skips' the phase/subphase/sub-subphase automatically. E.g., China is not going to be asked about naval moves.

Carpet and Strat bombings are good candidates. China will do very few, as well as Italy. Japan will do some Strat, but never Carpet. Germany will do strat as well but very rarely carpet.

Air resupply also is a good candidate, as few countries will have both the resource needed (precious & rare ATRs), and the urging need to do it. Only the USA, the CW, the USSR and Germany will do this often. Japan will do it sometimes. Italy, France & China almost never, but will do it occasionaly.

HQ emergency supply also could be "deactivated" for most of the countries all the time. It is sometimes used, but never more than half a dozen time over the whole 250 impulses of the game. The major power who wants to do it often plans this ahead of time, and so the player can reactivate it if needed.

Patrice,

Those are all good candidates.

For those of you who need a refresher on the MWIF phases and subphases, here is the current Pascal code:
// ****************************************************************************
// Phases and subphases.
// ****************************************************************************
  TPhase = (
    pSetup,                   // RAW 24.
    pReinforcement,           // RAC 4 - phase module exists.
    pLending,                 // RAC 5 - phase module exists.
    pInitiative,              // RAC 6. - phase module exists
    pWeather,                 // RAC 8.
    pDeclareWar,              // RAC 9 - phase module exists.
    pChooseAction,            // RAC 10 - phase module exists.
    pPortAttack,              // RAC 11.2 - phase module exists.
    pNavalAir,                // RAC 11.3 - phase module exists.
    pNavalMovement,           // RAC 11.4 - phase module exists.
// ****************************************************************************
// RAC 11.4.6; pNavalInterception was replaced with digNavalInterception, which
// is called when moving naval units during: 
// (1) phases: pNavalMovement, pReturnToBaseA, pReturnToBaseD,
// (2) digressions: digOverrun, digReturnToBase, digNavalCombatAbort.
//
// RAC 11.5.2; pNavalCombatI was replaced with code that executes only as an
// outcome of digNavalInterception.
// ****************************************************************************
    pNavalCombatA,            // RAC 11.5 - phase module exists.
    pNavalCombatD,            // RAC 11.6 - phase module exists.
    pStrategicBombardment,    // RAC 11.7 - phase module exists.
    pCarpetBombing,           // RAC 11.8 - phase module exists.
    pGroundStrike,            // RAC 11.9 - phase module exists.
    pRailMovement,            // RAC 11.10 - phase module exists.
    pLandMovement,            // RAC 11.11 - phase module exists.
    pAirTransport,            // RAC 11.12 - phase module exists.
    pUnloadLandUnits,         // RAC 11.13 - phase module exists.
    pInvasion,                // RAC 11.14 - phase module exists.
    pParadrop,                // RAC 11.15 - phase module exists.
    pLandCombatDeclaration,   // RAC 11.16.1. - phase module exists
    pIgnoreNotional,          // RAC 11.14 - phase module exists.
    pEmergencyHQSupply,       // RAC 2.4.3 - phase module exists.
    pShoreBombardmentD,       // RAC 11.16.2 - phase module exists.
    pShoreBombardmentA,       // RAC 11.16.2 - phase module exists.
    pHQSupportD,              // RAC 11.16.3 - phase module exists.
    pHQSupportA,              // RAC 11.16.3 - phase module exists.
    pGroundSupport,           // RAC 11.16.4 - phase module exists.
    pLandCombatResolution,    // RAC 11.16.5 & 11.16.6 - phase module exists.
    pAirRebase,               // RAC 11.17 - phase module exists.
    pAirSupply,               // RAC 11.18.1 - phase module exists.
    pHQReorganization,        // RAC 11.18.2 - phase module exists.
    pTRSSupply,               // RAC 11.18.3 - phase module exists.
    pEndOfAction,             // RAC 12 - phase module exists.
    pPartisan,                // RAC 13.1 - phase module exists.
    pEntry,                   // RAC 13.2 - phase module exists.
    pUSEntry,                 // RAC 13.3 - phase module exists.
    pProductionPlanning,      // RAC 13.6.1 & 13.6.2 - phase module exists.
    pStayAtSeaA,              // RAC 13.4 - phase module exists.
    pStayAtSeaD,              // RAC 13.4 - phase module exists.
    pReturnToBaseA,           // RAC 13.4 - phase module exists.
    pReturnToBaseD,           // RAC 13.4 - phase module exists.
    pUseOil,                  // RAC 13.5.1 - phase module exists.
    pFinalReorganization,     // RAC 13.5 - phase module exists.
    pBreakDown,               // RAC 22.4.1 - phase module exists.
    pNavalRepair,             // RAC 13.6.5 - phase module exists.
    pProduction,              // RAC 13.6.3 -> 13.6.9 - phase module exists.
    pReform,                  // RAC 22.4.1 - phase module exists.
    pIntelligence,            // RAC 22.1 - phase module exists.
    pUkraine,                 // RAC 19.12 - phase module exists.
    pConquest,                // RAC 13.7.1 - phase module exists.
    pMinorSupport,            // RAC 13.7.2 - phase module exists.
    pMutualPeace,             // RAC 13.7.3 - phase module exists.
    pVichy,                   // RAC 13.7.4 - phase module exists.
    pLiberation,              // RAC 13.7.5 - phase module exists.
    pSurrender,               // RAC 13.7.6 - phase module exists.
    pFactoryDestruction,      // RAC 22.2 - phase module exists.
    pVictory,                 // RAC 13.8 - phase module exists.
    pGameEnd,                 // RAC 13.8 & RAW 30 - phase module exists.

    pDestroyUnits,              {remove once Overstacked & FTC are cleaned up}
    pOverstacked,               {replace with digression called multiple times}
    pCollapseVichy,             {change to digression}
    pQuit, pNone);

  TPhaseSet = set of TPhase;
  TSubPhaseType = (sptReinforce, sptDOW, sptAir, sptNC, sptLCR, sptVichy);
// ****************************************************************************
// Reinforcement SubPhases.
// ****************************************************************************
  TReinforceSubPhase = (
    RspAnnualAdds,          // RAC 4.1.1 & 4.1.2.
    RspScrap,               // RAC 4.1.3.
    RspReplacements,        // RAC 4.1.4.
    RspAirReserve,          // RAC 14.6.1.
    RspPlaceUnits,          // RAC 4.2.
    RspRemoveAir,           // RAC 14.6.1.
    RspDone, RspWait);
// ****************************************************************************
// DOW SubPhases.
// ****************************************************************************
  TDOWSubPhase = (
    DspDOWMajor,            // RAC 9.2 & 9.3.
    DspDOWMinor,            // RAC 9.2, 9.3, 9.10, & 13.3.2 (#7 & #44).
    DspUSEntry,             // RAC 9.4.
    DspNeutralityPacts,     // RAC 9.5.
    DspReserves,            // RAC 9.6.
    DspChooseAligner,       // RAC 9.7.
    DspSetupAttackedMinor,  // RAC 9.7.
    DspAlignMinor,          // RAC 9.8.
    DspSetupAlignedMinor,   // RAC 9.8.
    DspDone, DspWait);
// ****************************************************************************
// Air subphases are for air missions; some air missions do not use all
// subphases.
// ****************************************************************************
  TAirSubPhase = (
    AspCAP,                 // RAC 14.2.1.
    AspFlyA,                // RAC 14.2.2, 14.2.3, & 14.2.1.
    AspFlyD,                // RAC 14.2.2, 14.2.3, & 14.2.1.
    AspInterceptD,          // RAC 14.2.1.
    AspInterceptA,          // RAC 14.2.1.
    AspSurprise,            // RAC 11.5.6.
    AspAirAir,              // RAC 14.3.
    AspAntiAirD,            // RAC 11.5.9.
    AspAntiAirA,            // RAC 11.5.9.
    AspAttack,              // RAC 11.5.9, 11.7, 11.8, 11.9, 11.12, 11.15,
                            //     11.16.4, & 11.8.1.
    AspReturnA,             // RAC 14.2.
    AspReturnD,             // RAC 14.2.
    AspNone, AspDone);
// ****************************************************************************
// Air-to-air combat sub-subphases.
// ****************************************************************************
  TA2ASubSubPhase = (
    sspLocation,                // RAC 14.3.
    sspArrange,                 // RAC 14.3.1.
    sspRollDef,                 // RAC 14.3.2.
    ssp1stUnit,                 // RAC 14.3.3.
    ssp1stDisposition,          // RAC 14.3.3.
    sspRollAtt,                 // RAC 14.3.2.
    ssp2ndUnit,                 // RAC 14.3.3.
    ssp2ndDisposition,          // RAC 14.3.3.
    sspAttAbortStay,            // RAC 14.3.2.
    sspDefAbortStay,            // RAC 14.3.2.
    sspBothStaying              // RAC 14.3.2.
    );
// ****************************************************************************
// Naval Movement Occasions.
// 1 - Most naval movement occurs during regular game phases.  If a naval
// interception occurs to one of these naval moves, then after the digression is
// over, the program restores the deciding major powers to what they were
// previously, restores the MovingStack for each player to what it was before
// the naval interception, enables the end of phase button (if the local major
// power is deciding), and then calls CentralControlOn.  This should restore the
// game state to what it was before the naval interception occurred.
// 2 - Some naval movement is caused by forced rebases due to 'overruns'.  When
// these naval interception digressions are completed, the program performs the
// same steps as for #1 above and also restores the working variables for the
// Overrun digression.
// 3 - Lastly, some naval movement is caused by naval units aborting from a
// naval combat, due to either a voluntary abort at the end of a naval combat
// round or an adverse combat result.  On these occasions, once the naval
// interception digression is over, the program performs the same steps as for
// overruns (see #2) except it is the working variables for the CombatAbort
// digression that are restored.
// 4 - Note that the only other time naval units move is during the Vichy
// subphase vspMoveFrenchAtSea, but those naval moves can not be intercepted.
// ****************************************************************************
  TNavalMovementOccasions = (NMOCurrentPhase, NMOOverrun, NMONavalCombatAbort);
// ****************************************************************************
// Naval combat subphases.
// ****************************************************************************
  TNavalCombatSubPhase = (
    NCspChooseSeaArea,      // RAC 11.5.2.
    NCspNavalAirSupportA,   // RAC 11.5.3.
    NCspNavalAirSupportD,   // RAC 11.5.3.
    NCspCommit,             // RAC 11.5.4.
    NCspSearch,             // RAC 11.5.5.
    NCspSurprise,           // RAC 11.5.6.
    NCspIncludeSeaBoxes,    // RAC 11.5.5.
    NCspIncludeUSUnits,     // RAC 13.3.2, US Entry Option #32.
    NCspChooseType,         // RAC 11.5.7 & 11.5.6.
    NCspAirAir,             // RAC 11.5.9 & 11.5.6.
    NCspAntiAirD,           // RAC 11.5.9 & 11.5.6.
    NCspNavalAirA,          // RAC 11.5.9 & 11.5.6.
    NCspAntiAirA,           // RAC 11.5.9 & 11.5.6.
    NCspNavalAirD,          // RAC 11.5.9 & 11.5.6.
    NCspSurfaceA,           // RAC 11.5.8 & 11.5.6.
    NCspSurfaceD,           // RAC 11.5.8 & 11.5.6.
    NCspASWD,               // RAC 11.5.10, 22.4.19, & 11.5.6.
    NCspSubA,               // RAC 11.5.10 & 11.5.6.
    NCspASWA,               // RAC 11.5.10, 22.4.19, & 11.5.6.
    NCspSubD,               // RAC 11.5.10 & 11.5.6.
    NCspEndRound,           // RAC 11.5.11.
    NCspAbortA,             // RAC 11.5.11 (voluntary abort by attacker).
    NCspAbortD,             // RAC 11.5.11 (voluntary abort by defender).
    NCspNextRound           // RAC 11.5.11.
    );
// ****************************************************************************
// Land combat resolution subphases.
// ****************************************************************************
  TLandCombatResSubPhase = (
    LCRspLandCombatSelection,  // RAC 11.16.5.
    LCRspDefSnowUnits,         // RAC 8.2.7.
    LCRspAttSnowUnits,         // RAC 8.2.7.
    LCRspChooseCombatType,     // RAC 11.16.5 & 11.16.6.
    LCRspLandCombatResolution, // RAC 11.16.5 & 11.16.6.
    LCRspConvertShattered,
    LCRspAssignLosses,         // RAC 11.16.5.
    LCRspHexControl,           // RAC 11.11.6 (overruns)
    LCRspRetreats,             // RAC 11.16.5.
    LCRspAdvanceAfterCombat    // RAC 11.16.5.
    );   


_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 529
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/13/2009 12:45:13 AM   
ullern


Posts: 1752
Joined: 5/28/2006
Status: offline
quote:

HQ emergency supply


pPortAttack, // RAC 11.2 - phase module exists.
pNavalAir, // RAC 11.3 - phase module exists.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen USSR or China do any of these two.
Also it turns out that in most games Germany and Italy does port attacks only for a short period of time, but when the western allies eventually gets too powerful in the air or controll of the Med gets too important for Italy’s survival they won’t continue port striking.

pStrategicBombardment, // RAC 11.7 - phase module exists.
pCarpetBombing, // RAC 11.8 - phase module exists.

I agree with FroonP that these may be skipped often.

pAirSupply, // RAC 11.18.1 - phase module exists.

I agree with FroonP that Italy will often skip this step even though they are able to use air supply. I think all other countries will use air supply if they have option.

I am sceptical to enable skipping emergency HQ supply for any country. A good player would need this step very seldom, but when he needs it is usually in defence because of unexpected actions by the opponent or extreme weather set him out of supply. (On the other hand using emergency HQ supply to make an attack during your own impulse is very rare I think. But I have seen it.)

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 530
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/13/2009 5:55:57 AM   
coregames


Posts: 469
Joined: 8/12/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ullern
(On the other hand using emergency HQ supply to make an attack during your own impulse is very rare I think. But I have seen it.)


Indeed... in our last game over the board it enabled the Russians to completely undermine the Axis position in the middle east, allowing him to detach a task force from Bagdad that forced fatal weaknesses in their position, eventually drawing supply by the end of the turn from the Red Sea coast.

_____________________________

"The creative combination lays bare the presumption of a lie." -- Lasker

Keith Henderson

(in reply to ullern)
Post #: 531
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/13/2009 8:10:08 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7895
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ullern
I am sceptical to enable skipping emergency HQ supply for any country. A good player would need this step very seldom, but when he needs it is usually in defence because of unexpected actions by the opponent or extreme weather set him out of supply. (On the other hand using emergency HQ supply to make an attack during your own impulse is very rare I think. But I have seen it.)


Then either he does not desactivate it, or he re activate it before using it.
But if the game proposes smergency supply each turn for each HQ just before the land combat step, then this is going to be very tiring indeed.

(in reply to ullern)
Post #: 532
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/13/2009 8:50:04 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18172
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: ullern
I am sceptical to enable skipping emergency HQ supply for any country. A good player would need this step very seldom, but when he needs it is usually in defence because of unexpected actions by the opponent or extreme weather set him out of supply. (On the other hand using emergency HQ supply to make an attack during your own impulse is very rare I think. But I have seen it.)


Then either he does not desactivate it, or he re activate it before using it.
But if the game proposes smergency supply each turn for each HQ just before the land combat step, then this is going to be very tiring indeed.

Emergency HQ supply is an odd duck, in that players can use it at any time. MWIF just has this 'reminder' phase.

It isn't for every HQ, but is it for every major power that has an HQ out of supply.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 533
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/14/2009 8:59:12 AM   
praem


Posts: 214
Joined: 12/15/2007
Status: offline
If the phase only shows when you have a HQ out of supply, I dont see the point in deactivating it - most of the time you would not get the phase anyway.
But in generel in would be a nice feature to be able to skip every turn/phase for all major powers. If you know in advance you do not want to sail your ships as Japan, why not skip the phase? Next impulse you could re-activate it...

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 534
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/14/2009 5:20:30 PM   
Zorachus99


Posts: 935
Joined: 9/15/2000
From: Palo Alto, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: praem

If the phase only shows when you have a HQ out of supply, I dont see the point in deactivating it - most of the time you would not get the phase anyway.
But in generel in would be a nice feature to be able to skip every turn/phase for all major powers. If you know in advance you do not want to sail your ships as Japan, why not skip the phase? Next impulse you could re-activate it...


Because the HQ cannot provide supply to itself instead I would propose it only be offered when OOS units are within range of an organized HQ.

Practically, I've snuck Ground Strikes through to HQ's flipping them, and then put units OOS, before my opponent was wise to my Shenanigans .

(Shenanigans ... Shannon... hmmm....)

_____________________________

Most men can survive adversity, the true test of a man's character is power. -Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to praem)
Post #: 535
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/14/2009 6:58:58 PM   
Orm


Posts: 5649
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

Because the HQ cannot provide supply to itself instead I would propose it only be offered when OOS units are within range of an organized HQ.



The HQ providing Emergency HQ Supply can provide supply to itself but it then counts against the number of units it can supply.

(in reply to Zorachus99)
Post #: 536
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/14/2009 7:11:34 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7895
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

Because the HQ cannot provide supply to itself instead I would propose it only be offered when OOS units are within range of an organized HQ.



The HQ providing Emergency HQ Supply can provide supply to itself but it then counts against the number of units it can supply.

Unfortunately this is wrong.

********************************
2.4.3 Option 13: Non-HQ units that are out of supply can operate as if they were in supply this impulse if they can trace a basic supply path to a face-up HQ they may co-operate with. You can only do this with as many units as the HQ’s reorganisation value.
********************************

The HQ is not a "Non-HQ unit".

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 537
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/14/2009 7:58:27 PM   
Orm


Posts: 5649
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

Because the HQ cannot provide supply to itself instead I would propose it only be offered when OOS units are within range of an organized HQ.



The HQ providing Emergency HQ Supply can provide supply to itself but it then counts against the number of units it can supply.

Unfortunately this is wrong.

********************************
2.4.3 Option 13: Non-HQ units that are out of supply can operate as if they were in supply this impulse if they can trace a basic supply path to a face-up HQ they may co-operate with. You can only do this with as many units as the HQ’s reorganisation value.
********************************

The HQ is not a "Non-HQ unit".


I stand corrected.

Note to self. Always check RAW before commenting rules. Not just FAQ.

< Message edited by Orm -- 3/14/2009 8:03:09 PM >

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 538
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/14/2009 10:28:13 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7895
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

Because the HQ cannot provide supply to itself instead I would propose it only be offered when OOS units are within range of an organized HQ.



The HQ providing Emergency HQ Supply can provide supply to itself but it then counts against the number of units it can supply.

Unfortunately this is wrong.

********************************
2.4.3 Option 13: Non-HQ units that are out of supply can operate as if they were in supply this impulse if they can trace a basic supply path to a face-up HQ they may co-operate with. You can only do this with as many units as the HQ’s reorganisation value.
********************************

The HQ is not a "Non-HQ unit".


I stand corrected.

Note to self. Always check RAW before commenting rules. Not just FAQ.

As a note, I would have thought that they should be allowed to be put in supply, even in self supply. That's why I said "unfortunately".

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 539
RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC... - 3/14/2009 11:20:28 PM   
ullern


Posts: 1752
Joined: 5/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

Because the HQ cannot provide supply to itself instead I would propose it only be offered when OOS units are within range of an organized HQ.



The HQ providing Emergency HQ Supply can provide supply to itself but it then counts against the number of units it can supply.

Unfortunately this is wrong.

********************************
2.4.3 Option 13: Non-HQ units that are out of supply can operate as if they were in supply this impulse if they can trace a basic supply path to a face-up HQ they may co-operate with. You can only do this with as many units as the HQ’s reorganisation value.
********************************

The HQ is not a "Non-HQ unit".


I stand corrected.

Note to self. Always check RAW before commenting rules. Not just FAQ.

As a note, I would have thought that they should be allowed to be put in supply, even in self supply. That's why I said "unfortunately".


About this. I used to think this was unfortunate too, so we simply housed ruled to allow HQ units to receive emergency HQ supply. But this simple house rule soon turned out to be a bit too powerful because a HQ could then supply emergency HQ supply and HQ support at the same time. (This is especially powerful with the 2D10, game play adapted, and I've never seen so many use emergency HQ supply also in offense.)

_ Well we couldn't let go of the house rule to allow HQ unit to receive emergency HQ supply , so we just had to make a house rule amendment: To explicitly disallow HQ support and emergency HQ supply from the same HQ in the same impulse.


(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 540
Page:   <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game Page: <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   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

0.121