Tutorial #4

[CBoehm]

Does MWIF run in windows? ...how about creating a small online manual with more indepth playersnotes & statistics ...and have appropriate links from the tutorial?? or something to that effect?? I like to think Im a quite skilled player and know a lot of the small "tricks of the trade" so I wouldnt mind contributing some playersnotes ...ofcause all that could also be done via a FAQ / Strategy section of this forum ...

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: CBoehm

Does MWIF run in windows? ...how about creating a small online manual with more indepth playersnotes & statistics ...and have appropriate links from the tutorial?? or something to that effect?? I like to think Im a quite skilled player and know a lot of the small "tricks of the trade" so I wouldnt mind contributing some playersnotes ...ofcause all that could also be done via a FAQ / Strategy section of this forum ...

This sounds interesting but it is out of scope for what I am doing for MWIF product 1. I really don't even have the time to coordinate such a thing.

However, since it is outside my area of involvement, that means others could do this in a manner they think is reasonable.

[SamuraiProgrmmr]

Can I write the section on 'Stupid Things Not To Do Or You Will Lose'?
 
I think my experience at this game would be good for that
 
[:D]

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: CBoehm

Does MWIF run in windows? ...how about creating a small online manual with more indepth playersnotes & statistics ...and have appropriate links from the tutorial?? or something to that effect?? I like to think Im a quite skilled player and know a lot of the small "tricks of the trade" so I wouldnt mind contributing some playersnotes ...ofcause all that could also be done via a FAQ / Strategy section of this forum ...

This sounds interesting but it is out of scope for what I am doing for MWIF product 1. I really don't even have the time to coordinate such a thing.

However, since it is outside my area of involvement, that means others could do this in a manner they think is reasonable.

Player Notes are quite useful. Perhaps it would be simpler if the MWIF tutorial included links to existing MWiF sites which already host those sort of articles. There are quite a few superb sites already existing. I appreciate that some MWiF sites come and go, but there are a few that have been around for many years.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: CBoehm
Does MWIF run in windows? ...how about creating a small online manual with more indepth playersnotes & statistics ...and have appropriate links from the tutorial?? or something to that effect?? I like to think Im a quite skilled player and know a lot of the small "tricks of the trade" so I wouldnt mind contributing some playersnotes ...ofcause all that could also be done via a FAQ / Strategy section of this forum ...

This sounds interesting but it is out of scope for what I am doing for MWIF product 1. I really don't even have the time to coordinate such a thing.

However, since it is outside my area of involvement, that means others could do this in a manner they think is reasonable.

Player Notes are quite useful. Perhaps it would be simpler if the MWIF tutorial included links to existing MWiF sites which already host those sort of articles. There are quite a few superb sites already existing. I appreciate that some MWiF sites come and go, but there are a few that have been around for many years.

I doubt that I will include links from within the program - for the reason you gave.

But the player's manual should definitely contain a section on "for more information on ... see ...", which could point to books as well as websites.

[Neilster]

Are the players' notes from WiFFE being included? They would be a good start. I must have read them (in an earlier version) dozens of times and they gave me a good feel for the best style of play and what's possible.

Cheers, Neilster

[CBoehm]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

Are the players' notes from WiFFE being included? They would be a good start. I must have read them (in an earlier version) dozens of times and they gave me a good feel for the best style of play and what's possible.

Cheers, Neilster

Funny ...I always wondered how much Harry and his bunch actually played the game [:D]

edit: ok to be fair I guess in an abstract way they are ok to give a general introduction to the game ...

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Neilster
Are the players' notes from WiFFE being included? They would be a good start. I must have read them (in an earlier version) dozens of times and they gave me a good feel for the best style of play and what's possible.

Cheers, Neilster

I will try to do that.

[Mziln]

What Neilster is referring to is found at the ADG site in DOWNLOADS\Scenariotxt.doc.



25.1 Players’ notes

In 1985 it was difficult to provide notes on good play in a few paragraphs because of the large number of variables in World in Flames. Since then, the game has changed markedly, making up-to-date strategy notes even harder. Fortunately, this final edition has been heavily play tested for the last 10 years, giving me some idea of how to play (of course, I could be wrong). I’ve also added bits and pieces to help you out with some of the more difficult new rules.

First off, you will have noticed the players’ notes at the end of the scenarios. Those notes cover the strategies for each of those campaigns. The following notes deal more generally with handling the systems (and their interaction) in World in Flames.

Grand strategy

etc...



My note: And the player notes for a scenario, which could be included, for example, as part of: MWiF Tutorial\Page 4\Steve’s post 102



24.2.1 Barbarossa ~ “One Kick...”: May/Jun 1941~Jan/Feb 1942

Players’ notes: This is the ideal scenario to try first because it deals mainly with the parts of the game most commonly used in general play, the land and air systems.

[:D] My note: Unless you choose the "Unrestricted Setup" option. [:D]

USSR: You are forced into the dangerous front-line, historical set up that Stalin was caught with in the summer of 1941 ~ but don’t despair, Russia won that war and you can, too.

etc...

[c92nichj]

Quote from RAW :
*******************************
19.13 MIL units
All MIL that arrive in cities in an aligned minor country are units of that minor county. All other MIL are major power units.
*******************************

This is interesting as we had a small disagreement in a previous game of mine where Japan became neutral after China surrendered, she only had Kunming left in play.

When a major power becomes neutral all it's Militia units are lost, but since the Korean unit is not a Japaneese unit, but an Korean unit it will not be removed like the the Tokyo militia right?

The japaneese player argued that the Korean unit would not be lost and the Allies that it should be removed like the normal japaneese militia. What further complicated things was that the japaneese player had missed FTC and placed the Militia from Formosa in Korea.

[Froonp]

When a major power becomes neutral all it's Militia units are lost, but since the Korean unit is not a Japaneese unit, but an Korean unit it will not be removed like the the Tokyo militia right?

Korean units are not Japanese units, that's granted, but when Japan goes Neutral, I think that Korea also goes Neutral. So, its MIL disappear too.

[trees trees]

what's the status of Formosa lately? It's not listed as aligned with Japan...did they take away the capital status for Taihoku? I forgot.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: trees trees

what's the status of Formosa lately? It's not listed as aligned with Japan...did they take away the capital status for Taihoku? I forgot.

Aligned with Japan, as Korea and Manchuria.
Taihoku is still the capital.

[c92nichj]

Korean units are not Japanese units, that's granted, but when Japan goes Neutral, I think that Korea also goes Neutral. So, its MIL disappear too.

But that is not what the rules say:
If you are now a neutral major power, remove any MIL units you
have on the map or on the production circle.

If a minor makes peace the following is stated:
If a minor makes peace and is now not at war with anyone, remove
all its land and aircraft units from the game until it is next at war,

But that seems strange as an Italian aligned Somalia would then loose her TERR on the first peace step unless Italy declares war during the first turn of the global war scenario.

Maybe this is something for Peters list

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

Korean units are not Japanese units, that's granted, but when Japan goes Neutral, I think that Korea also goes Neutral. So, its MIL disappear too.

But that is not what the rules say:
If you are now a neutral major power, remove any MIL units you
have on the map or on the production circle.

If a minor makes peace the following is stated:
If a minor makes peace and is now not at war with anyone, remove
all its land and aircraft units from the game until it is next at war,

But that seems strange as an Italian aligned Somalia would then loose her TERR on the first peace step unless Italy declares war during the first turn of the global war scenario.

Maybe this is something for Peters list

Humm, first you write that "that is not what the rules say" when I write that the Neutral's MIL are removed from the game, and then you quote a rule (13.7.3 Mutual peace) that say that all minor's units are removed from the game. So the MIL are removed from the game, why write that the rule do not say that ?

Anyways, as to Somalia (and all Italian East Africa indeed), you're right that there seems to be a problem here. This makes the rule about a minor going neutral and the setup, seems being non consistent within each other. All Italian East Africa is Neutral (as Italy is Neutral at setup), but the setup rules say that you have to pick up 2 TERR in these areas.

I take it that it is an exception to the rule, and the that setup must be right, and that the rule applies to Minor that are at war and then go to peace. Italian East Africa may have been considered as a special case as it starts the game at peace (it does not become neutral, it is neutral), but still have units at setup.

I'll ask Harry's opinion.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

Korean units are not Japanese units, that's granted, but when Japan goes Neutral, I think that Korea also goes Neutral. So, its MIL disappear too.

But that is not what the rules say:
If you are now a neutral major power, remove any MIL units you
have on the map or on the production circle.

If a minor makes peace the following is stated:
If a minor makes peace and is now not at war with anyone, remove
all its land and aircraft units from the game until it is next at war,

But that seems strange as an Italian aligned Somalia would then loose her TERR on the first peace step unless Italy declares war during the first turn of the global war scenario.

Maybe this is something for Peters list

Humm, first you write that "that is not what the rules say" when I write that the Neutral's MIL are removed from the game, and then you quote a rule (13.7.3 Mutual peace) that say that all minor's units are removed from the game. So the MIL are removed from the game, why write that the rule do not say that ?

Anyways, as to Somalia (and all Italian East Africa indeed), you're right that there seems to be a problem here. This makes the rule about a minor going neutral and the setup, seems being non consistent within each other. All Italian East Africa is Neutral (as Italy is Neutral at setup), but the setup rules say that you have to pick up 2 TERR in these areas.

I take it that it is an exception to the rule, and the that setup must be right, and that the rule applies to Minor that are at war and then go to peace. Italian East Africa may have been considered as a special case as it starts the game at peace (it does not become neutral, it is neutral), but still have units at setup.

I'll ask Harry's opinion.

My guess is that Italy was at war with Ethiopia not too long before the start of the game so the territorials are lingering on.

A more blatant mistake in the setups is for Missed the Bus. The Italians get those same territorials, which are to set up in East Africa, even though they no longer control any of the countires in East Africa. I decided to simply remove the units from the setup in Missed the Bus.

[Neilster]

My guess is that Italy was at war with Ethiopia not too long before the start of the game so the territorials are lingering on.

A more blatant mistake in the setups is for Missed the Bus. The Italians get those same territorials, which are to set up in East Africa, even though they no longer control any of the countires in East Africa. I decided to simply remove the units from the setup in Missed the Bus.

I've only skimmed this discussion (exam in 10 hours) but Ethiopia was conquered in 1935 and the Italians attacked British Somaliland on August 3rd 1940 from Italian East Africa (Ethiopia, Eritria and Italian Somaliland). Doesn't "Missed the bus" start in Jul/Aug 1940?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Afric ... _War_II%29

Cheers, Neilster

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

My guess is that Italy was at war with Ethiopia not too long before the start of the game so the territorials are lingering on.

A more blatant mistake in the setups is for Missed the Bus. The Italians get those same territorials, which are to set up in East Africa, even though they no longer control any of the countires in East Africa. I decided to simply remove the units from the setup in Missed the Bus.

I've only skimmed this discussion (exam in 10 hours) but Ethiopia was conquered in 1935 and the Italians attacked British Somaliland on August 3rd 1940 from Italian East Africa (Ethiopia, Eritria and Italian Somaliland). Doesn't "Missed the bus" start in Jul/Aug 1940?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Afric ... _War_II%29

Cheers, Neilster

You are right. Perhaps I have the wrong scenario - I last worked on trying to get all the scenario entered just about 1 year ago (8 1/2 done 2 1/2 to go).

[c92nichj]

Anyways, as to Somalia (and all Italian East Africa indeed), you're right that there seems to be a problem here. This makes the rule about a minor going neutral and the setup, seems being non consistent within each other. All Italian East Africa is Neutral (as Italy is Neutral at setup), but the setup rules say that you have to pick up 2 TERR in these areas.

I take it that it is an exception to the rule, and the that setup must be right, and that the rule applies to Minor that are at war and then go to peace. Italian East Africa may have been considered as a special case as it starts the game at peace (it does not become neutral, it is neutral), but still have units at setup.

With Global war that can be explained but considering a DoD scenario where Uk is not at war would she not be able to build the Burma units or any of the African minors TERR?

How about Libya it is an aligned minor and italy can get units there.

Same applies to the USSR aligned mongolian CAV, can it be built/setup prior to a USSR war and will it be free when war is declared?

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

I've only skimmed this discussion (exam in 10 hours)...

So how did you fare in the exam?