From: Hoorn (NED).
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 >