MWIF Game Interface Design

[Froonp]

I am of the opinion that the pilot (only) should be placed in the internment pool and given to the CW as a reinforcement once Germany and the USSR are at war. Technically the air units should be handled like the land units, but I can't see any reason for the CW ever adding one of those terrible Polish air units to its force pool. Might just as well eliminate the decision (and code) from the game.
===========
On another note, should the CW AIO fly all the Polish air units into Lithuania at the first opportunity (in order to give the CW free pilots)? Or is the presence of the Polish air units a signiifcant hindrance to Germany conquering Poland?

Well, I think that the Russians have interned whatever war material the Poles have allowed them to grab by leaving them in Eastern Poland. Thus, this should be the same between an HQ-I, for example, and the planes. Both should be handed to the CW when the war spurs between Russia and the Nazis. Then the CW has the choice to take them or not, and above that, the CW has the choice to leave the plane in the reserve pool if wanted. So where is the problem ? Let's have them all coherent and coded the same way : Interned when Eastern Poland is taken by Russia, and all realeased to the CW when the Nazis attack Russia.

About the AIO, I think that definitely the Poles pilots should NEVER try to defend their doomed nation, and should ALWAYS try to flee to Britain where they will have a real fight against their enemy.
The presence of the Polish air units NEVER is a signiifcant hindrance to Germany conquering Poland, baring extreme plays, for example when Germany does not attack Poland, but even then, the arrival of the Poles into the RAF is such an important thing (as it was historicaly) that for the CW player this is a no brainer normaly.

[mlees]

I am of the opinion that the pilot (only) should be placed in the internment pool and given to the CW as a reinforcement once Germany and the USSR are at war.

Why is this? Polish squadrons were formed in France and Britain in 1940.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Air ... at_Britain

I think that the special nature of the Partition of Poland is a unique event, and the pilots in this case should be treated special (and historically)...

I would release the pilots to the CW pool immediately, the Land units to the internment pool...

Were am I mistaken?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

How about putting it in at the end of the lending phase? After the US/CW commits to lending RPs to China for a turn, Japan has the option of closing the Burma Road (if circumstance permit them to). I think that addresses your concern that the US/CW be stuck with losing any RPs it is sending/lending to China for the turn.

It's not bad, but it is less good than the right click command on the Burma Road. The full winged trick also allow to cut the road after the US has already chosen their US Entry Action, so this prevent them from immediately re open it if they are at the right level (24).

Don't forget also that the Burma Road is diplayed in a special way, that will attract attraction all by itself. Also, people aware of WWII might be familliar with the Burma Road importance, and might be attracted by right clicking on it to see what action they can start.
Also, there is the documentation, and the tutorials to show the command to people.

How about I just insert a restriction that the US can not reopen the Burma Road as a US Entry Option the same turn that the Japanese closed it as a US Entry Action (using political pressure). That would have the same effect as if Japan waited until the precise moment in the sequence of play that you are referring to. Although I guess the draw for the US Entry chit as a consequence of the Japanese action would occur earlier.

I do like having the decision made during the Lending Phase since it is directly related to lending resources. It would remind the Japanese player that the option is available, and remove the burden of him having to remember to take the action later in the turn.

I think of this as two steps that can be separated: Japan decides & the consequential action is implemented. Over the board these two are combined into one, but they needn't be in MWIF.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: mlees

I am of the opinion that the pilot (only) should be placed in the internment pool and given to the CW as a reinforcement once Germany and the USSR are at war.

Why is this? Polish squadrons were formed in France and Britain in 1940.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Air ... at_Britain

I think that the special nature of the Partition of Poland is a unique event, and the pilots in this case should be treated special (and historically)...

I would release the pilots to the CW pool immediately, the Land units to the internment pool...

Were am I mistaken?

The article you reference makes a good aagrument for your position on this.

[Neilster]

The Polish soldiers and airmen who escaped into Rumania etc typically had long, difficult journeys to the west, often taking months. Perhaps they should turn up after a 1 turn delay.

Cheers, Neilster

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

The Polish soldiers and airmen who escaped into Rumania etc typically had long, difficult journeys to the west, often taking months. Perhaps they should turn up after a 1 turn delay.

Cheers, Neilster

Well, the pilot wouldn't be assigned an air unit until the next turn's reinforcement phase.

[Froonp]

How about I just insert a restriction that the US can not reopen the Burma Road as a US Entry Option the same turn that the Japanese closed it as a US Entry Action (using political pressure). That would have the same effect as if Japan waited until the precise moment in the sequence of play that you are referring to. Although I guess the draw for the US Entry chit as a consequence of the Japanese action would occur earlier.

Exactly.
For me this is no burden for the Japanese player to have to right click the Burma Road to politicaly close it, so while your solution can be a good compromise, IMO this compromise is not needed.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

How about I just insert a restriction that the US can not reopen the Burma Road as a US Entry Option the same turn that the Japanese closed it as a US Entry Action (using political pressure). That would have the same effect as if Japan waited until the precise moment in the sequence of play that you are referring to. Although I guess the draw for the US Entry chit as a consequence of the Japanese action would occur earlier.

Exactly.
For me this is no burden for the Japanese player to have to right click the Burma Road to politicaly close it, so while your solution can be a good compromise, IMO this compromise is not needed.

The reason this doesn't work is that as the CW is working on naval moves, you want Japan to be able to click on the Burma Road and institute a US Entry Action. Or when the USSR is allocating fighter interceptors for ground support missions; or when in the middle of an anti-aircraft combat over Birmingham; or as Italy decides advance after combet moves in North Africa. Giving Japan the ability to pop this event into the middle of the sequence of play at any time would require hundreds, if not thousands, of lines of code. This event has to be placed into the sequence of play, not an event that floats free to be instigated at the Japanese player's whim.

[Incy]

can't you just have the "event" set a flag, and then when the correct time in sequence of play comes, the game engine checks the status of the flag?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Incy
can't you just have the "event" set a flag, and then when the correct time in sequence of play comes, the game engine checks the status of the flag?

Yes, that is what I meant by splitting this US Entry Action into 2 parts: (I) the Japanese player makes the decision and (II) the consequences of that decision are implemented later.

I could have the implementation delayed until just after US Entry in the End of Turn sequence. I think that does what Patrice wants, in that the US player does not gain the benefit of the associated die roll for US Entry until then, nor can he 'undo' the Action during the same turn by choosing to Reopen the Burma Road.

I still find having the decision (part I) locked into the sequence of play (during the lending phase) desirable, because it serves as a reminder to the Japanese player and, more importantly, I do not need code to monitor whether the Japanese player has just decided (in the middle of who knows what) that he wants to Close the Burma Road.

This monitor stuff is already annoying me in other places - and it is quite necessary in those other places. For example, changing who controls each hex whenever a player moves a land unit, and redetermining supply in the immediate vicinity whenever a unit moves. I am still puzzling over how best to do the latter. I would like the displayed supply status for each unit to be continuously correct, yet I do not want to have to redetermine supply for every unit on the map every time a unit moves. For instance, theoretically, moving a unit on one continent could put units on another continent out of supply.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Incy
can't you just have the "event" set a flag, and then when the correct time in sequence of play comes, the game engine checks the status of the flag?

Yes, that is what I meant by splitting this US Entry Action into 2 parts: (I) the Japanese player makes the decision and (II) the consequences of that decision are implemented later.

I could have the implementation delayed until just after US Entry in the End of Turn sequence. I think that does what Patrice wants, in that the US player does not gain the benefit of the associated die roll for US Entry until then, nor can he 'undo' the Action during the same turn by choosing to Reopen the Burma Road.

I still find having the decision (part I) locked into the sequence of play (during the lending phase) desirable, because it serves as a reminder to the Japanese player and, more importantly, I do not need code to monitor whether the Japanese player has just decided (in the middle of who knows what) that he wants to Close the Burma Road.

I think that you're right, and that it is probably the best way to do this.
Congratulations !
[&o]

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Eventually we work our way around to solutions for these little things.

=======================

This week I am gathering into one source code module the disparate pieces of code concerning DOW.

Two days a go I had this epiphany about how game phases should be coded. Instead of having a simple variable record the current phase, there should be an entire 'Object' (as in object oriented programming) for each phase. Each phase/object should have initialization, process, and termination routines as well as associated variables just used during the phase. For the DOW Phase, there are subphases, so I added another routine for changing from one DOW subphase to the next.

I have only implemented this structure for the DOW phase, though it is how it should be done for all the phases in the game. When I get around to the code for declaring Vichy France, I will apply the same structure (the Vichy France Phase has quite a few subphases). I don't know if it is worth the bother to transform all the phases into Objects - if the code works, I'll leave it alone. But when the code is confusing, this transformation into an Object certainly clarifies everything (that has been my experience with the DOW code).

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I have only implemented this structure for the DOW phase, though it is how it should be done for all the phases in the game. When I get around to the code for declaring Vichy France, I will apply the same structure (the Vichy France Phase has quite a few subphases). I don't know if it is worth the bother to transform all the phases into Objects - if the code works, I'll leave it alone. But when the code is confusing, this transformation into an Object certainly clarifies everything (that has been my experience with the DOW code).

For the Vichy code, you'll have to write it from scratch I believe as Vichy was not implemented in CWiF [:D].

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I have only implemented this structure for the DOW phase, though it is how it should be done for all the phases in the game. When I get around to the code for declaring Vichy France, I will apply the same structure (the Vichy France Phase has quite a few subphases). I don't know if it is worth the bother to transform all the phases into Objects - if the code works, I'll leave it alone. But when the code is confusing, this transformation into an Object certainly clarifies everything (that has been my experience with the DOW code).

For the Vichy code, you'll have to write it from scratch I believe as Vichy was not implemented in CWiF [:D].

There actually is a lot of code (~1000 lines) related to Vichy France already in the program. I will start by making the declaration of Vichy France a Phase Object with a fixed set of subphases. Then I will transfer the existing code into those subphases. For example, there is code related to: returning French units not in French possessions to base, rolling dice to determine which French possessions go Vichy versus Free French, selecting the new home country, and so forth.

[lomyrin]

There were only a few aspects of the VIchy stuff that was not implemented or functioning correctly in the latest CWiF.
 
Lars

[c92nichj]

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

There were only a few aspects of the VIchy stuff that was not implemented or functioning correctly in the latest CWiF.

Lars

I had a lot of issues with Vichy when playing the CWiF version.

[lomyrin]

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

There were only a few aspects of the VIchy stuff that was not implemented or functioning correctly in the latest CWiF.

Lars

I had a lot of issues with Vichy when playing the CWiF version.

Among the problems were how to place the surviving French units inside Vichy and that the Vichy units were later free to leave Metro Vichy into Occupied France etc. Also the Dakar Mil showed up in the CW force pool.
The rolls for whether they would fight or not when facing Allied units did not fucntion.

Lars

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

There were only a few aspects of the VIchy stuff that was not implemented or functioning correctly in the latest CWiF.

Lars

I had a lot of issues with Vichy when playing the CWiF version.

Among the problems were how to place the surviving French units inside Vichy and that the Vichy units were later free to leave Metro Vichy into Occupied France etc. Also the Dakar Mil showed up in the CW force pool.
The rolls for whether they would fight or not when facing Allied units did not fucntion.

Lars

Thanks for the information.
==========
In going through the DOW subphases I have had to change over half of that code to bring it into line with the sequence of play as defined in RAW.

[c92nichj]

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

Among the problems were how to place the surviving French units inside Vichy and that the Vichy units were later free to leave Metro Vichy into Occupied France etc. Also the Dakar Mil showed up in the CW force pool.
The rolls for whether they would fight or not when facing Allied units did not fucntion.

Lars

I also had issues with liberation on france and vichy minors

[dale1066]

Re Bugs in CWif code for Vichy France, saved Vichy build points in metropolitan france would not be captured but would appear to be available to the free french player  in their resources production tab.