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: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November 2017

 
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: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November 2017 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 8/8/2018 10:16:53 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8239
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: juntoalmar

How is the situation regarding solitary game?

I remember there were some issues with production and with air combat not being able to finish (sometimes the button to close the A2A form was missing). Is this fixed?

Cheers!


Air to air combat should be running smoothly, I believe. If there are still any problems there, I've not seen them.
Production planning still does have some issues which mainly have to do with selecting which factory is producing the build points which are traded overseas.

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to juntoalmar)
Post #: 31
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 8/8/2018 11:45:55 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 7805
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
AFAIK solitaire has very few bugs and the A2A issues have been fixed.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to juntoalmar)
Post #: 32
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/9/2018 10:11:44 AM   
vonpaul


Posts: 174
Joined: 8/5/2004
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
another year almost done without any work on the missing scenarios :(

(in reply to juntoalmar)
Post #: 33
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/9/2018 2:40:16 PM   
davidachamberlain

 

Posts: 282
Joined: 1/21/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vonpaul

another year almost done without any work on the missing scenarios :(


That won't happen until AFTER they get the relatively bug free version 3.0 out. That could be next month assuming everything goes well.

After that, the scenarios and optional rules are prioritized.

I understand that there was previous work for the scenarios that was already done, so that may not take very long to do once things are stable.

Dave

(in reply to vonpaul)
Post #: 34
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/9/2018 2:58:12 PM   
juntoalmar


Posts: 524
Joined: 9/29/2013
From: Valencia
Status: offline
As far as I remember the half map scenarios are "half baked", so they won't need to be developed from scratch.

But I'm kind of concerned of the amount of bugs and time to fix them. It is not unreasonable to think that optional rules and scenarios could increase the number of bugs greatly.

_____________________________

(my humble blog about wargames, in spanish) http://cabezadepuente.blogspot.com.es/

(in reply to davidachamberlain)
Post #: 35
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/9/2018 5:42:17 PM   
GrizzlyKt


Posts: 82
Joined: 5/25/2018
Status: offline
solitaire please please sir

(in reply to juntoalmar)
Post #: 36
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/9/2018 8:16:16 PM   
davidachamberlain

 

Posts: 282
Joined: 1/21/2014
Status: offline
I would not expect a lot of rework to be created with the scenarios, but obviously some mistakes may make the force pools or locations for placing units incorrect.

The optional rules will have a bigger impact.

I expect that the impacts will affect both Solitaire and Netplay.

Dave

(in reply to juntoalmar)
Post #: 37
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/9/2018 9:59:39 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8239
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: davidachamberlain

quote:

ORIGINAL: vonpaul

another year almost done without any work on the missing scenarios :(


That won't happen until AFTER they get the relatively bug free version 3.0 out. That could be next month assuming everything goes well.

After that, the scenarios and optional rules are prioritized.

I understand that there was previous work for the scenarios that was already done, so that may not take very long to do once things are stable.

Dave


Far too positive, I believe... If I look at the problems with Vichy collapse without Free France existing which have popped up and the problems with AA fire in Netplay, I don't think it will be a month. It will take longer...

< Message edited by Centuur -- 11/9/2018 10:00:42 PM >


_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to davidachamberlain)
Post #: 38
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/10/2018 11:40:36 PM   
Gar-Dog


Posts: 80
Joined: 1/10/2018
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur


quote:

ORIGINAL: juntoalmar

How is the situation regarding solitary game?

I remember there were some issues with production and with air combat not being able to finish (sometimes the button to close the A2A form was missing). Is this fixed?

Cheers!


Air to air combat should be running smoothly, I believe. If there are still any problems there, I've not seen them.
Production planning still does have some issues which mainly have to do with selecting which factory is producing the build points which are traded overseas.


The Air-to-Air has some bugs with CVs when not using Planes in Flames... Every now and again it'll pretend my CVs aren't present... But overall, yes, the solitaire is quite playable!

< Message edited by Gar-Dog -- 11/10/2018 11:41:08 PM >

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 39
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/11/2018 9:08:21 AM   
michaelbaldur


Posts: 4568
Joined: 4/6/2007
From: denmark
Status: offline

the only thing I know, is that things take 10 times longer then they predict

I dont expect a finished netplay this year. but, there are only 50 days left of the year.

_____________________________

the wif rulebook is my bible

I work hard, not smart.

beta tester and Mwif expert

if you have questions or issues with the game, just contact me on Michaelbaldur1@gmail.com

(in reply to Gar-Dog)
Post #: 40
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/11/2018 10:45:57 AM   
TeaLeaf


Posts: 400
Joined: 11/5/2014
Status: offline
How's the convoy system managing the routes nowadays (especially those of the CW, France and the USA)?

Last time I tried to get away from version 2.7.5 (a good working, stable convoy system), I noticed the most annoying bug (for me anyway) returned: mainly that the program does not accept player corrections whenever it messes up some of the routes.

Last version I was trying my 2.7.5 save on, was version 2.9.0.4 and that didn't go very well so I switched back to using 2.7.5.
Since I haven't seen any patch notes related to convoy routing on any later versions so far, I haven't tried any later version yet and I'm wondering how the current state of the game handles convoy routing? Any complaints/praises regarding this from CW-fanatics?

(in reply to michaelbaldur)
Post #: 41
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/11/2018 11:08:07 AM   
Centuur


Posts: 8239
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: TeaLeaf

How's the convoy system managing the routes nowadays (especially those of the CW, France and the USA)?

Last time I tried to get away from version 2.7.5 (a good working, stable convoy system), I noticed the most annoying bug (for me anyway) returned: mainly that the program does not accept player corrections whenever it messes up some of the routes.

Last version I was trying my 2.7.5 save on, was version 2.9.0.4 and that didn't go very well so I switched back to using 2.7.5.
Since I haven't seen any patch notes related to convoy routing on any later versions so far, I haven't tried any later version yet and I'm wondering how the current state of the game handles convoy routing? Any complaints/praises regarding this from CW-fanatics?


The fewer manual changes you make, the better it is for convoy routing. Thing is: the program remembers your default routes and wants to do them first, messing up things totally if you lose convoys. I let the program run things for me. I sometimes even eliminate all default routes, let the program recompute the lot back to basic and start from scratch again. That seems to be the trick for me...

But it's still a lot of work, that's true.

I know of only one real bug still present in the game (that is, I can't get it right) and that's the fact that you can't say which factory will provide a lent build point...

< Message edited by Centuur -- 11/11/2018 11:09:44 AM >


_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to TeaLeaf)
Post #: 42
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/11/2018 9:05:29 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 17636
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

The fewer manual changes you make, the better it is for convoy routing. Thing is: the program remembers your default routes and wants to do them first, messing up things totally if you lose convoys. I let the program run things for me. I sometimes even eliminate all default routes, let the program recompute the lot back to basic and start from scratch again. That seems to be the trick for me...

But it's still a lot of work, that's true.
I would be willing to accept that (i.e., letting the program handle all convoy routing) except for one very frustrating feature, which I can best describe by giving two examples. Example #1. I've got full use of all resources (i.e., production & saved oil), full production and the program shows that I've got unused CP's at sea. I then return those "unused" CP's to port and all of a sudden I no longer have full production and have idle resources because one or more of their sister resources "decided" to take a different route than they were using to get to their factories. Example #2. I have 1 idle factory in Great Britain, 1 idle resource say in Africa/South America/Canada (doesn't really matter) and a route at sea for that RP shy by 1 RP in some sea area (e.g., Central Atlantic). I then move 1 CP to the Central Atlantic expecting now to have full production but the program decides to now use that 1 CP just moved to sea to route the Trinidad through the Central Atlantic (a different way than before) to Great Britain meaning that I still have the idle resource and factory.

So my wish for production, which I hold very little hope out for, is either "fix" the program to properly handle the cases illustrated by the two examples above or give the option to the player to fully control how resources are routed to factories.

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 11/11/2018 9:09:50 PM >


_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 43
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/12/2018 10:23:48 AM   
juntoalmar


Posts: 524
Joined: 9/29/2013
From: Valencia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958
or give the option to the player to fully control how resources are routed to factories.


I would go for this one. A toggle that allows to switch off the AI and let the player decide 100% of his routes, which are stored statically. If a convoy is sunk, the route that was using it (and only that one) would be affected. Automatic convoy routes are not a part of WiF and I think it shouldn't be imposed to the player.


_____________________________

(my humble blog about wargames, in spanish) http://cabezadepuente.blogspot.com.es/

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 44
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/12/2018 11:14:06 AM   
Centuur


Posts: 8239
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: juntoalmar


quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958
or give the option to the player to fully control how resources are routed to factories.


I would go for this one. A toggle that allows to switch off the AI and let the player decide 100% of his routes, which are stored statically. If a convoy is sunk, the route that was using it (and only that one) would be affected. Automatic convoy routes are not a part of WiF and I think it shouldn't be imposed to the player.



An AI needs an automatic convoy route system...

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to juntoalmar)
Post #: 45
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/12/2018 12:34:08 PM   
TeaLeaf


Posts: 400
Joined: 11/5/2014
Status: offline
I agree with Ronnie and juntoalmar.
Either solve the erratic behavior or give the player 100% control.

I really like/support juntoalmar's remark that WiF never imposed convoy routing to the player so why do we have to have it in MWiF?
Indeed an AI needs an automatic convoy route system, but will we ever actually see an AI opponent? At least shut it down as long as there is no AI opponent and it can't get our routes correctly. Furthermore, if the automatic convoy routing is for the AI, then why is it also for the player?

Last but not least:
WiF is a game where resourcemanagement is very important to win (yes, also to the very little details!).
If the AI can't get it right for us, it should indeed be abandoned (at least for the player), because if we can't manage our resources as intented we can lose the game if our convoy routing malfunctions.

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 46
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/12/2018 1:11:37 PM   
juntoalmar


Posts: 524
Joined: 9/29/2013
From: Valencia
Status: offline
+1

_____________________________

(my humble blog about wargames, in spanish) http://cabezadepuente.blogspot.com.es/

(in reply to TeaLeaf)
Post #: 47
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/12/2018 5:11:07 PM   
Aranthus

 

Posts: 138
Joined: 4/6/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: juntoalmar

How is the situation regarding solitary game?

I remember there were some issues with production and with air combat not being able to finish (sometimes the button to close the A2A form was missing). Is this fixed?

Cheers!


I haven't had a problem with A2A in a long time, so I think that issue has been resolved. Production is still an issue in several ways. Hopefully Steve will have time to work on that once Netplay is fully operational.

(in reply to juntoalmar)
Post #: 48
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/14/2018 2:03:09 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21532
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
Giving the player 100% control of the convoy routes - as I understand what that means to the players - would enable them to violate the rules.

The most common problem I see when I look into routing problems (as reported in Tech Support) is that the player wants to have resources going through a lot of sea areas and getting to his factories for full production. Which is a good and noble thing.

1 - But what about trade agreements? According to the rules a player has to fulfill those first.

2 - And if he uses oil for reorganizing units, then those oil points won't be available for use in factories (or for being shipped to a different location and saved). This often happens when the player is planning on using oil from trade agreements to reorganize his units [which isn't permitted]. So the player mistakenly uses oil which had been routed to factories for production to reorganize units. Then after the Use Oil phase, he wants to change what happens to the trade agreement oil - which is sitting there unused - but the program won't let him change destinations/usage/routes for resources received in trade agreements after the Return to Base phases. That restriction is imposed because of the Search and Seizure rules [yeah, I know, that isn't coded yet; I'm waiting for the controversy about Production planning to quiet down before finishing that code].

3 - And if resources are being shipped through congested sea areas, then there might not be enough convoys to ship build points [after the factories produce them].

4 - And then there are the limits on how many resources (including build points) can pass through a minor port. If you are shipping resources to the USSR through Murmansk, you might tap out the maximum and not be able to get any build points through that minor port.

5 - Plus there are the rules about using convoys from friendly major powers.

All in all, the rules of the game limit how the player implements production and saving oil/build points. When playing over the board, or with other methods that don't check the rules, the player can get away with anything his opponent doesn't 'catch'. My objective was (and is) to have the program play the game according to the Rules As Coded.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Aranthus)
Post #: 49
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/14/2018 7:44:40 AM   
Joseignacio


Posts: 1963
Joined: 5/8/2009
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline
OMG.

The way I see it you could make fix the Trade Agreement convoys and liberate the rest. When someone wants to use resources busy with treaties, pop up a warning that the agreement wont be fulfilled and the upcoming penalization (IIRW there is, or maybe in newer versions?)

However I am unable to determine how this may affect programming, considering all the new possibilities that making fix things variable, can bring.

< Message edited by Joseignacio -- 11/14/2018 7:47:51 AM >

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 50
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/14/2018 11:54:48 AM   
juntoalmar


Posts: 524
Joined: 9/29/2013
From: Valencia
Status: offline
I'm not an expert in MWiF (or WiF as I've never played the board version). But all those issues it seems to me that exist in the board game as well. And I think the answer to (almost) of all them is the same: if the player does something wrong, like:

1. after trade agreements not all his factories have resources
2. he uses the oil for reorganizing preventing it being used in a factory (he can choose what resource he uses when reorganizing after all)
3. not enough convoys in a sea area
4. trying to send to many resources to a minor port
5. whatever rules with major powers

well, then he doesn't get the BP corresponding to the broken route/unused factory. But it's his fault, he will learn from the rules how to do it properly and fix it (hopefully) for next turn. I don't think any player would get upset if he losses a BP because he calculated wrongly the amount of convoys in a sea area or maximum resources that go through a minor port. It's a wargame, we do wrong calculations all the time when trying an amphibious operation. But it's probably more annoying when the player knows what to do but the program changes the routes for him or misses something.

Still, if routes could be set manually, ideally the program should prevent to create routes wrongly (like through a sea area with no available convoy). That kind of checking is already done currently, somehow, I guess.



_____________________________

(my humble blog about wargames, in spanish) http://cabezadepuente.blogspot.com.es/

(in reply to Joseignacio)
Post #: 51
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/14/2018 3:06:59 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3021
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
Many players play World in Flames for decades and never use the Search & Seizure rule. Though it survives into the Collector's Edition rules, I think it would be fairly safe to leave it at the very bottom of any and all To Do lists and just move forward with no plans to ever use it as if it were an Optional rule. If it was, the most common vote on using it or not would be "don't care."

Most players also play face-to-face and enforce the Resource transportation rules just fine. I don't understand why the program can't allow a player to designate what each of his Convoy Points is doing with a resource-by-resource and BP-by-BP click chain through the sea areas needed. If Trade Agreements are not met at the end of the process, the program could display a message and not allow the player to advance the phase. The player would be forced to "Recompute", not the program. This would be frustrating, but the players would learn the rules, and eventually ace all the rules procedures, and have 100% control over all of the decision making. If the Oil use phase burns up an oil they thought they could use in production, they just learn the hard way to make that decision during the Re-org phase, as the rules work already. It is a common mistake to think oil coming in from Trade Agreement can be used in Re-org, sure. With rules enforcement, most players should learn that on the first turn.

Multiple Major Powers participating in a convoy chain would be challenging. Each time it is done, for each sea area, an MP and rarely a 3rd MP would have to be queried for approval. Unless the program knows it is running in a "2 Player" environment. Programming for that could be done first, with Multi-Player permissions coming along later. Players in a multi-player game could handle the permissions amongst themselves to get started.

Then there are Neutral Major Powers and US Entry Options. Many, many programming headaches there I am sure. I haven't played them yet, but I believe the Collector's Edition rules carefully cleaned up some 'edge cases' in rare game situations with these rules; perhaps the CE language could be used where needed to make rules procedure work most simply. US Refutes Naval War Zones would be especially challenging; rather than worry about designating what a US CP is doing _before_ any Naval Combat phases, go with the CE rules technique of including them in combat if they "could" be carrying resources to an MP at war with the Axis. Or simplify it further and just put USA CPs into any naval combats that occur on the map, anywhere, if this option is picked. This would theoretically allow a US CP in the Pacific to be attacked while there would be no connection to China or the USSR or a CW port incapable of storing Oil - but I think that incredibly rare condition would be tolerated by players in exchange for full control of their convoy points, which they don't have currently.

Resource and Build Point "lending" are one of the true hearts of the game. How much to support your Ally is one of the key decisions in a game designed to be a multi-player game, but with just one winner. Until MWiF allows 100% player control over the process, I won't play the game.

(in reply to juntoalmar)
Post #: 52
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/14/2018 4:48:11 PM   
TeaLeaf


Posts: 400
Joined: 11/5/2014
Status: offline
If an oil is set up for production in, say, London and the player uses this oil for reorg, there could be a red notification in the production screen for this oil resource, saying something like : 'resource expended for reorg'. The CW has 1 less PP during preliminary but the player can understand why and with a little luck can designate a different resource (maybe a saved one or one previously designated for saving) for production if going through the same convoy line or other free convoys. If the player is not so lucky, no such alternative oil (or free convoys) can be found and the CW loses the PP.

During the reorganization phase you could also add a warning sign on every oil already designated for production: 'Designated for production'. If someone still tries to use that oil for reorg, then a popup can add a last warning: 'if you use this oil a PP will be lost. This may or may not be repairable during production'.
Personally I never have to make this mistake, as I try to use only saved oil for reorg. In the rare occasion I do have to use a real oilresource for reorg, I only pick ones that are designated to be saved anyway (90% if not more of my oil is for reorg only).

Resources set up for trade should indeed be locked. The game could be halted as soon as a trade is set up and all Major Powers should then designate the resource(s), the route(s) that must be taken and the destination(s). MWiF must obey. Such designated routes can be colored differently. IF a designated route is no longer possible, due to whatever reason, the game is interrupted, asking the Major Power owning the resource how to proceed. The player must input a new resource (or the same again), the route to be taken and the destination. If no route is possible at all, a warning can be popped up. Again, MWiF must obey, and only ask for a new route if the old one is no longer possible. And the player should be able to voluntarily enter the process of setting up different resources and their routes to a desired destination...

Seriously, the biggest concern I have is MWiF not accepting player corrections, when clearly MWiF got it wrong and the player did not. See post #43 from Ronnie for some good examples.

If it can at least be made so that MWiF gives a reason for refusing to take a player correction, then it also becomes a LOT easier to find convoy route related bugs and kill them. If MWiF says something like: 'impossible to do that, because trade between MP X and MP Y would be violated,' then it's a lot easier to understand for a player if he made a mistake or to report a bug. Likewise it is a lot easier for the programmer to know where to look for the root of the error.

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 53
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/14/2018 4:51:35 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8239
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Many players play World in Flames for decades and never use the Search & Seizure rule. Though it survives into the Collector's Edition rules, I think it would be fairly safe to leave it at the very bottom of any and all To Do lists and just move forward with no plans to ever use it as if it were an Optional rule. If it was, the most common vote on using it or not would be "don't care."

Most players also play face-to-face and enforce the Resource transportation rules just fine. I don't understand why the program can't allow a player to designate what each of his Convoy Points is doing with a resource-by-resource and BP-by-BP click chain through the sea areas needed. If Trade Agreements are not met at the end of the process, the program could display a message and not allow the player to advance the phase. The player would be forced to "Recompute", not the program. This would be frustrating, but the players would learn the rules, and eventually ace all the rules procedures, and have 100% control over all of the decision making. If the Oil use phase burns up an oil they thought they could use in production, they just learn the hard way to make that decision during the Re-org phase, as the rules work already. It is a common mistake to think oil coming in from Trade Agreement can be used in Re-org, sure. With rules enforcement, most players should learn that on the first turn.

Multiple Major Powers participating in a convoy chain would be challenging. Each time it is done, for each sea area, an MP and rarely a 3rd MP would have to be queried for approval. Unless the program knows it is running in a "2 Player" environment. Programming for that could be done first, with Multi-Player permissions coming along later. Players in a multi-player game could handle the permissions amongst themselves to get started.

Then there are Neutral Major Powers and US Entry Options. Many, many programming headaches there I am sure. I haven't played them yet, but I believe the Collector's Edition rules carefully cleaned up some 'edge cases' in rare game situations with these rules; perhaps the CE language could be used where needed to make rules procedure work most simply. US Refutes Naval War Zones would be especially challenging; rather than worry about designating what a US CP is doing _before_ any Naval Combat phases, go with the CE rules technique of including them in combat if they "could" be carrying resources to an MP at war with the Axis. Or simplify it further and just put USA CPs into any naval combats that occur on the map, anywhere, if this option is picked. This would theoretically allow a US CP in the Pacific to be attacked while there would be no connection to China or the USSR or a CW port incapable of storing Oil - but I think that incredibly rare condition would be tolerated by players in exchange for full control of their convoy points, which they don't have currently.

Resource and Build Point "lending" are one of the true hearts of the game. How much to support your Ally is one of the key decisions in a game designed to be a multi-player game, but with just one winner. Until MWiF allows 100% player control over the process, I won't play the game.


Which than means that if the program will enforce the rules and gives you an automatic system which runs 100 % OK, you don't play the game because of what?

I don't get this last remark at all. The computer should allow one to play the game without you making all kinds of time consuming unnecessary calculations and decisions. If it can do so, it should do so...

< Message edited by Centuur -- 11/14/2018 4:52:14 PM >


_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 54
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/14/2018 10:24:27 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 7805
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Giving the player 100% control of the convoy routes - as I understand what that means to the players - would enable them to violate the rules.

The most common problem I see when I look into routing problems (as reported in Tech Support) is that the player wants to have resources going through a lot of sea areas and getting to his factories for full production. Which is a good and noble thing.

1 - But what about trade agreements? According to the rules a player has to fulfill those first.

2 - And if he uses oil for reorganizing units, then those oil points won't be available for use in factories (or for being shipped to a different location and saved). This often happens when the player is planning on using oil from trade agreements to reorganize his units [which isn't permitted]. So the player mistakenly uses oil which had been routed to factories for production to reorganize units. Then after the Use Oil phase, he wants to change what happens to the trade agreement oil - which is sitting there unused - but the program won't let him change destinations/usage/routes for resources received in trade agreements after the Return to Base phases. That restriction is imposed because of the Search and Seizure rules [yeah, I know, that isn't coded yet; I'm waiting for the controversy about Production planning to quiet down before finishing that code].

3 - And if resources are being shipped through congested sea areas, then there might not be enough convoys to ship build points [after the factories produce them].

4 - And then there are the limits on how many resources (including build points) can pass through a minor port. If you are shipping resources to the USSR through Murmansk, you might tap out the maximum and not be able to get any build points through that minor port.

5 - Plus there are the rules about using convoys from friendly major powers.

All in all, the rules of the game limit how the player implements production and saving oil/build points. When playing over the board, or with other methods that don't check the rules, the player can get away with anything his opponent doesn't 'catch'. My objective was (and is) to have the program play the game according to the Rules As Coded.

I support most of these as real issues that bring a lot of complexity into the programming. Another one is that since trade agreements must be satisfied, then space for lent BPs has to be reserved - even to the extent that reserving that space prevents resources reaching the factories that might be producing them!

Also if a lending CP chain is broken by subs or bad weather on some simple route like USA to Murmansk, there "could" be a convoluted one from USA to the Persian Gulf via the Caribbean then down the coast of Brazil and around Africa (or even going across the Pacific). But that route which is mandatory (and mandatory overrides other Allies' CP assignments) could do more harm to production than would result from just RTBing one or two CPs that then make that route impossible.

The one issue I disagree with is Search and Seizure (S&S) as this was a design decision to enhance the impact of S&S when in fact the rules of the game allow a player to alter the flow of resources and BPs to compensate - as long as all lends are prioritized. AAMOF I'd say the "lends must get thru" clause in the rules mandate a player to do so, if possible, when a lend is S&S'd. This in turn, over the board, serves to even lessen the situations where S&S takes place - why risk the US entry if the item will get through anyway? And the fact that S&S has yet to be implemented in the game, makes the design decision all the more ironic. If the design is going to change the game rules, then I submit an easier choice is just to delete S&S.

It's interesting reading all the posts suggesting all the automatic pop-ups and warnings and fixes for when a player goofs (or is forced to give up production because re-org is more important that turn - which means the warning will be dismissed anyway). If all those suggestions were to be implemented, we are most likely talking more coding effort than fixing the existing issues.

I'd say allow the players to do anything they want in both preliminary and final production phases, but then enforce the lending rules at the end of the turn, and provide a simple pop-up saying "production lost due to convoy chain constriction" and let the player learn from what happened. If he can't see why, then he can post a save and the brain trust here can check if it's due to him or to a bug.


< Message edited by paulderynck -- 11/14/2018 10:32:15 PM >


_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 55
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/15/2018 12:12:12 AM   
Omnius


Posts: 711
Joined: 6/22/2012
From: Salinas, CA
Status: offline
My biggest problem with convoy routing has always been the UK when it tries to lend oil to China. I was always so frustrated that after resetting changed convoy routes as well as setting up the new oil lending route the program would always change things and mess up too many of my convoys. It always seemed to change the oil lending route first, forcing the long way from London to China and messing up convoys heading from Australia. I've been patiently waiting for years to see us get the actual oiler units to improve the convoy routing problem.


Centuur mentioned not being able to allocate which factory does the lend build point, can't remember how that worked but it would be good for bookkeeping purposes for us to know which factory is being used for lending build points even if they originate from the nation's capital for routing purposes.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 56
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/15/2018 1:10:58 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8239
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: online
The allocating of which resources have to go to which major powers works fine at the moment...

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to Omnius)
Post #: 57
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/15/2018 1:16:06 PM   
peskpesk


Posts: 2009
Joined: 7/17/2003
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
...
I'd say allow the players to do anything they want in both preliminary and final production phases, but then enforce the lending rules at the end of the turn, and provide a simple pop-up saying "production lost due to convoy chain constriction" and let the player learn from what happened. If he can't see why, then he can post a save and the brain trust here can check if it's due to him or to a bug.
...

I like a check box "Use automatic convy system" On/Off. If it's Off then the rules should as Paul said be enforce at the end of the turn with info messages on what happened.
if it's On Steves automatic convoy route system handles everything.


_____________________________

"'Malta - The Thorn in Rommel's Side"

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 58
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/16/2018 4:41:09 PM   
TeaLeaf


Posts: 400
Joined: 11/5/2014
Status: offline
Plus (correct me if I see things too simple), if there is no automatic convoy system at all, players should still not be able to violate the rules:
There can only be as much resources going through each sea zone as the number of convoys in each such zone...
Furthermore, I doubt it will be tough to program that each oil used in reorg cannot be used again for production (and in fact gets a status 'used for reorg' visible somewhere).

A non-automatic system can be simple and effective:
The player plans, and MWiF obeys. Where the Player plans incorrectly, MWiF cannot obey. Because, for example, it is impossible to ship 2BP + 4oil + 5 other resources + 1 traded resource (12 total) through a sea zone that has only 10 convoy points.
If the player must A) as priority one, designate which TRADED resource goes where AND through which sea zones
and B) designate all other (lower priority) resources and their destinations and routes, then I think everything runs smoothly without enforced automation.

EDIT: it's a little bit more work for the player but at least the Wallies no longer need to lose the game because of enforced resource mismanagement... which really frustrates me sometimes.

< Message edited by TeaLeaf -- 11/16/2018 4:43:08 PM >

(in reply to peskpesk)
Post #: 59
RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November ... - 11/17/2018 5:47:17 AM   
joshuamnave

 

Posts: 967
Joined: 1/8/2014
Status: offline
Are you freaking kidding me? The only thing preventing manual control of convoy chains is that some players might accidentally cheat? I'll GLADLY take that over the disaster that the convoy system is currently. Right now the computer cheats us out of resources regularly, and even when we get it to work right, it's a frustrating nightmare.

The convoy system as it is coded DOES NOT WORK. I'll take one that does not enforce the rules but works over one that is just plain broken. And it's not even remotely a difficult choice.

_____________________________

Head Geek in Charge at politigeek.net - the intersection of politics and all things geeky

(in reply to TeaLeaf)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November 2017 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

0.246