PBEM Non-Action Stages

[composer99]

ORIGINAL: coregames

Steve, be careful not to skip the air reorganization phase when you do this (planes can be reorganized by HQs at the end of the land phase and then reorganize other units).

Actually, you can't if you folow strict sequence of play. You perform air re-org first, followed by naval re-org, followed by HQ re-org.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: composer99

ORIGINAL: coregames
Steve, be careful not to skip the air reorganization phase when you do this (planes can be reorganized by HQs at the end of the land phase and then reorganize other units).

Actually, you can't if you folow strict sequence of play. You perform air re-org first, followed by naval re-org, followed by HQ re-org.

Actually, this is not the right order. The right order is :
11.18.1 Air supply
11.18.2 HQ reorganisation
11.18.3 TRS supply

Also, 11.18.4 says something VERY important :
Quote of RAW :
"11.18.4 Reorganising
You can only reorganise a unit that started the step face-down. This means you can’t reorganise an ATR that flew an air supply mission in this step."

But, I agree with composer99 that this order of reorg MUST be strictly abided by the game.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: pak19652002
Let me ask you all this: After the RTB phase is over, would you allow players to RTB a unit that was left in a sea zone inadvertantly. We do this all the time. An allied plane is flipped in Baltic 3 box and clearly would be returned to base for reorg. It's pretty lonely up there and he was simply overlooked. Before any action takes place during the next turn but after production and reinforcement, the player asks to return the plane to base, flip it and expend oil as necessary.

I've seen this done over and over again and I don't mind it a bit. I don't think that the solutions proposed thus far would allow this sort of correction to be made. With the edit function, it is easily taken care of. It's even easier to correct in CB and cardboard, of course.

Now, I know this shouldn't happen in MWiF (or CWiF) since a player can cycle through all moves. But it still happens. Again, I am not arguing computer wargame philosophy here. That's like arguing religion! If people want to play without such accommodations, that's OK with me. It's a matter of choice. I believe that players should have the ability to choose to make such corrections if they want. Apart from the bug issue, why deny them this option if it is already part of the game?

Peter

I think there are better solutions to players forgetting to perfrom tasks. All of the following would be easier to implement:
1 - cycle through the units still capable of moving, or otherwise performing the current task
2 - add "are you sure" messages (which the player can have active or not - by phase)
3 - have a popup list of eligible units available for the player to review
4 - use notes (assigned to each unit) for keeping track of stray lambs, or otherwise marking units for specific tasks; units with notes can be selected using a filter

#1 is standard stuff.

I like #3 and intend to use popup lists of units in other places. For example, all air units capable of reaching a strategic bombing target; all air units that can reach a target hex for ground support; all air units that can reach a target hex for interception; ...

Simply jumping out of what is going on at the present (the impulse, phase, subphase, player on move) and rearranging units on the map, removes all the checks for legality. Lines of supply, in the presence of the enemy, movement allowances and ranges, activity limits, ... the list is endless. You want to give the players the ability to blow by all the rules and just do what ever they feel like at any time.

There are an insufferable number of restrictions on players actions as defined in the WIF FE rules. To implement that long list of rules, there is an enormous amount of code - all of which is carefully interconnected to the impulse, phase, subphase, player on move, and the current state of the game.

I am getting close to declaring a second primary directive for developing MWIF. You have seen the first one frequently:

I. I am implementing WIF FE for the computer, not a WIF design kit.

II. I am implementing WIF FE for the computer, not WIF FE augmented by a "edit the unit locations" capability.

Personally I consider this acceptance of "oh gee, I forgot to ..." modification of game status as a house rule. It certainly isn't part of RAW, is it?

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Personally I consider this acceptance of "oh gee, I forgot to ..." modification of game status as a house rule. It certainly isn't part of RAW, is it?

The refusal of MWiF to allow for that rule will affect all players equally so it certainly isn't a play balance issue. There are countless examples in war of commanders who intended to issue an order but didn't and they suffered the consequences. In real life if the Allies hadn't bought the landing craft to Britain in time then Overlord would have been delayed and I can't imagine Hitler would have allowed them to redo their Jan/Feb RTB. This will make a more realistic game and take away the stress of deciding whether to grant that concession to your enemy.

On the bright side, it should force us all to sharpen up our game [:)]

[Incy]

I have logged a LOT of hours on cwif and I really agree with pak19652002.

The ability to fix stuff after the fact is something I used a lot, and it's really something I'll miss in the game. Our group tends to be very reasonable with mulligans, and often it's unpractical to go back when fixing stuff. If dice have ben rolled since the proposed change it will also often not be an option to go back...
Example: You'll not want to reroll EOT because someone forgot an obscure move and you want to mulligan it.

If the cheat mode is not included, I strongly suggest the ability to dictate dicerolls still be left in. This will make it much more viable to go back and fix some issue without affecting everything else that happened inbetween. It will also allow players to set up and examine "what if" scenarios, or use the game for practice/solitaire (example: play out a complex situation assumingng reasonably average dice, certan ewvents, or whatever).

Also, let's assume that by some miracle (I know it's unlikely[:)]) a bug or two will make it into the gold version. It would be extremely annoying to throw away several months of playtime because the game got stuck on some minor issue. In CWiF, such a "stuck" game could often be salvaged by going back a little and experimenting with the cheat feature.

[pak19652002]

Steve:

I know you are the boss and can dictate whatever directives you want. But, let's analyze why the first directive was created and see if the second meaures up. The first commandment avoided the creation of a huge amount of extra work on a function that was not related to playing the game. The second pending directive would veto a feature already implemented; is used by a fair portion of your public already; and relates directly to giving the players a means to play the way they want. Of course you have the right to veto this proposal. But, don't declare it a second commandment. It doesn't merit such high standing, in my opinion.

As far as your final statement, yes, it is a kind of "super" house rule and therefore you would be justified in not including the feature on that ground alone. But, you won't stop people from going back to an earlier saved game and doing a step over if all the players agree. Players always will find a way. Why not just admit that this goes on, embarce it as legitimate, and make it easy on them?

Peter

I am getting close to declaring a second primary directive for developing MWIF. You have seen the first one frequently:

I. I am implementing WIF FE for the computer, not a WIF design kit.

II. I am implementing WIF FE for the computer, not WIF FE augmented by a "edit the unit locations" capability.

Personally I consider this acceptance of "oh gee, I forgot to ..." modification of game status as a house rule. It certainly isn't part of RAW, is it?

[pak19652002]

Graham:

We all understand about errors in war and wargames. It is an obvious point. And I know you don't really mean that the guys you play against are your enemies. That is rhetoric that clouds the main issue. This debate has nothing to do with Hitler, landing craft or Overlord. It has to do with granting players freedom to choose to play a computer game the way they want to. If the feature already exists and does not hurt anyone, why eliminate it? Almost all of the arguments against my proposal are based on what appears to be a philosophical, almost paternalistic, desire by some to control what other players can and cannot do. Who is to say that my proposal, which reflects the reality of how WiF is played by many, is less worthy than any other way?

Regarding your other point about the stress of deciding whether to grant a concession, I personally don't view it as stressful. I actually feel good when I grant someone a concession...I've gotten more than a few in my time and it makes me feel like I am forging friendships. But that's just me. I'm not out to force anybody to do anything. Let me do what I (and my fellows) want to do and the rest can do what they want to do. It's a simple, elegant and fair solution for all.

Peter

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Personally I consider this acceptance of "oh gee, I forgot to ..." modification of game status as a house rule. It certainly isn't part of RAW, is it?

The refusal of MWiF to allow for that rule will affect all players equally so it certainly isn't a play balance issue. There are countless examples in war of commanders who intended to issue an order but didn't and they suffered the consequences. In real life if the Allies hadn't bought the landing craft to Britain in time then Overlord would have been delayed and I can't imagine Hitler would have allowed them to redo their Jan/Feb RTB. This will make a more realistic game and take away the stress of deciding whether to grant that concession to your enemy.

On the bright side, it should force us all to sharpen up our game [:)]

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: pak19652002
Steve:

I know you are the boss and can dictate whatever directives you want. But, let's analyze why the first directive was created and see if the second meaures up. The first commandment avoided the creation of a huge amount of extra work on a function that was not related to playing the game. The second pending directive would veto a feature already implemented; is used by a fair portion of your public already; and relates directly to giving the players a means to play the way they want. Of course you have the right to veto this proposal. But, don't declare it a second commandment. It doesn't merit such high standing, in my opinion.

As far as your final statement, yes, it is a kind of "super" house rule and therefore you would be justified in not including the feature on that ground alone. But, you won't stop people from going back to an earlier saved game and doing a step over if all the players agree. Players always will find a way. Why not just admit that this goes on, embarce it as legitimate, and make it easy on them?

Peter

The feature is not implemented. It crashes the system under about a dozen different situations that I have identified so far. If you place a unit from a neutral country on the map, "Hello, Access violation". Haven't you noticed that the large red font on the debug screen says:
"WARNING: Use this dialog box carefully. Placing units illegally can cause the program to crash."

Open the rule book at random, and point to a line of the rules with your eyes closed. This feature you want violates that rule. MWIF would have to be programmed to accept that violation even though the entire game design is constructed to enforce the rules. What you are asking for is the abilty to bypass all the rules, from the front page to the back.

To implement a super optional rules that does away with the rules is not easy to do. It is not "done already" and would require a lot of work and a truly enormous amount of testing. And for what? Convenience to play the game any way the player feels like?

[wworld7]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


To implement a super optional rules that does away with the rules is not easy to do. It is not "done already" and would require a lot of work and a truly enormous amount of testing. And for what? Convenience to play the game any way the player feels like?

I see both sides to this discussion. But if I were God, which I am not, I would try to avoid any significant extra programming/testing for ANY feature along these lines.

My first desire is to see this project completed in the not too distant future. And that means choices have to be made, some I will like and some I will not. But nothing is going to stop me from buying this game!

Flipper

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: pak19652002
And I know you don't really mean that the guys you play against are your enemies.

Of course not! Opponent... fellow player... call them what you will. No offence meant.

That is rhetoric that clouds the main issue. This debate has nothing to do with Hitler, landing craft or Overlord. It has to do with granting players freedom to choose to play a computer game the way they want to. If the feature already exists and does not hurt anyone, why eliminate it?

Does that feature exist? I don't know any published computer game that lets you intentionally break the rules (and I know that we're talking about a situation where both players are happy for that rule to be broken on that particular occasion).

Who is to say that my proposal, which reflects the reality of how WiF is played by many, is less worthy than any other way?

I play cardboard WiF that way also, but we're now talking about computer WiF. I'm not trying to be smart with semantics here. I'm just pointing out that moving the game into the computer medium creates a different reality and one of the axioms of that reality is that the computer always does it 'by the book'. It doesn't make mistakes in counting production points and it doesn't allow mulligans.

Regarding your other point about the stress of deciding whether to grant a concession, I personally don't view it as stressful.

That can depend on your opponent and what they're asking. I agree most mulligans are OK and in the spirit of the game but there's always one or two people who want to push the boundary.

Let me do what I (and my fellows) want to do and the rest can do what they want to do. It's a simple, elegant and fair solution for all.

Fortunately it's not up to me [:)]. I don't mind mulligans in cardboard Wif. I've taken and given more than a few in my time. However MWiF is a computer game and (like I said before) I don't know any other computer game that lets you do that.

[pak19652002]

The argument that it has never been done before is not convincing. A good idea is a good idea regardless. Everything ever accomplished was tried by somebody the first time.

As for the rest, I don't know what an "axiom" of computer "reality" is. Computers do what WE tell them to do--nothing more or less.

Peter

[pak19652002]

Now you are moving the argument into an area that is fair game, i.e., technical. All I know is that I've played CWiF almost every day for 18 months and the debugging feature has never caused the game to crash from its limited use as I've described it. I don't mess around with adding minor units or anything like that. I only use it for the specific purposes described earlier.

The game has crashed dozens of times for other reasons, but not that one. However, if you assert that leaving the feature in the game would require lots of time and energy to progam, then I believe you. But, it works fine now for my purposes and that's all I will ever be able to say about it.

Peter

[Froonp]

If the cheat mode is not included, I strongly suggest the ability to dictate dicerolls still be left in. This will make it much more viable to go back and fix some issue without affecting everything else that happened inbetween. It will also allow players to set up and examine "what if" scenarios, or use the game for practice/solitaire (example: play out a complex situation assumingng reasonably average dice, certan ewvents, or whatever).

For me, the ability to load a game from a previous step is enough to deal with mulligans.
No need for the "place units" or "pick dice" feature for that.

Or, if those features are left in the game, there will be a warning that says that the game can crash and that this feature is not supported. Why not.

[lomyrin]

As a for instance in CWif the only way to use the Russian GBA units is by using the edit feature to replace a unit that has won an upgrade. The internment of the Polish planes also requires the use of the edit function in CWiF.
 
A know that these functions will be implemented in MWiF and thus the above type of action will not be needed for MWiF play. On the other hand there are bound to be instances where it could be very useful to have the edit function available.
 
Cince the CWiF code does include this edit function, could it not be made into an option toggle on/off in the game setup screen? Warning words could be included.
 
Lars

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

As a for instance in CWif the only way to use the Russian GBA units is by using the edit feature to replace a unit that has won an upgrade. The internment of the Polish planes also requires the use of the edit function in CWiF.

A know that these functions will be implemented in MWiF and thus the above type of action will not be needed for MWiF play. On the other hand there are bound to be instances where it could be very useful to have the edit function available.

Cince the CWiF code does include this edit function, could it not be made into an option toggle on/off in the game setup screen? Warning words could be included.

Lars

I have no intention of releasing a product that I know will crash under numerous conditions. That is simply not professional.

As for needing this feature to work around program bugs, if the program doesn't work correctly, then it is my responsibility to fix it so it does. That task I accept completely.

---

I do not want to spend the time that would be required to make this a functioning (i.e., non-crashing) optional rule.

How can I make it clear that enabling the player to by-pass the entire game structure/simulation design has ramifications in the thousands if not the tens of thousands?

---

The "Gee, I only use it for this" argument seems to rely on every other purchaser of the product only using this all powerful rule the same way. Can't you see that a product that lets you do anything you want, but may crash when you do some of those things is likely to generate a few negative comments from the people who purchase it? "I wouldn't mind" isn't the same as "No one who buys the product would complain."

---

My answer is still no. Furthermore, that's enough on this topic.

[pak19652002]

Steve:

I accept your decision, but I urge you to institute the other functions discussed earlier to provide players with as much flexibilty as possible.

However, I do not appreciate your quote below ordering us not discuss this issue. I have been measured, respectful, and thoughtful in making my arguments and have not violated any forum code of conduct of which I am aware.

You may not like my opinion and you certainly have the power to ignore it. But, I think it is wrong to censor a legitimate and earnest discussion. It sends the wrong message to people who have different opinions.

Peter

My answer is still no. Furthermore, that's enough on this topic.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: pak19652002

Steve:

I accept your decision, but I urge you to institute the other functions discussed earlier to provide players with as much flexibilty as possible.

However, I do not appreciate your quote below ordering us not discuss this issue. I have been measured, respectful, and thoughtful in making my arguments and have not violated any forum code of conduct of which I am aware.

You may not like my opinion and you certainly have the power to ignore it. But, I think it is wrong to censor a legitimate and earnest discussion. It sends the wrong message to people who have different opinions.

Peter

My answer is still no. Furthermore, that's enough on this topic.

Sorry if I offended you, especially you, who has contributed so much to MWIF.

I rarely ignore posts that are clearly directed to me. When it does happen, it is usually by accident. So I have these conflicting goals: I want to reply to forum members who post to me & I do not want to spend any more time discussing topic X, since the decision has been made.

I'll phrase this differently in the future
From:
"That's enough on this topic."
To:
"I have nothing more to say on this topic."

The implication of the later is that I will not answer future posts on the topic.

[pak19652002]

Fair enough and thank-you. I did my best advocating for something I believed in and that's all one can do. Now it's time to move on...

Everything else is progressing wonderfully, BTW. Don't want you to think I only speak up when I have a "complaint".

Peter

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: pak19652002
Fair enough and thank-you. I did my best advocating for something I believed in and that's all one can do. Now it's time to move on...

Everything else is progressing wonderfully, BTW. Don't want you to think I only speak up when I have a "complaint".

Peter

Thanks. I am pushing hard to get version 3.01 uploaded next week. 6 more bugs to kill off.

[Ballista]

Get some "Raid" and an extra shoe squash them Bugs Maybe the debug thing can be done for MWIF2, but for now its not going to happen. Keep up the good work......