optional activity limits?

[wosung]

Another heretic thought:

While playing around with CWIF, sometimes I found the rather restricted activity limits quite annoying, frex for GER navy in the Summer turns. This point is discussed even in the WIF mailing list (se below). I know these strict limts are central part of the finesse of WIF. I know you can partly get around them by offensive chits.

Any chances for an option system that widens the allowed activties, say from +1 to +3?

In the end this, too, might be a question of how much work to program it, so this might be an idea for add-ons.

And before you scream, "No, this is not true WIF!!" Well:

-It only would be an option to make the game adjustable to personal playing style, BTW an aspect the ACW game "Forge of Freedom" is highly praised for here in the Matrix forum. Thus maybe it could help to make MWIF more attractive not only for the, eehr, "traditionalists" but also for newbees. If variable action limits for players/countries would be implemented, this also would allow vets and newbees playing together.

-Even WIF never had been written in stone.

Regards

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/wif ... sage/91835

Re: Turn length/Weather

I agree with Devin and would point out it's exactly the activity
limits that cause any number of long standing problems in the game:

It's the activity limits themselves that discourage "land" powers with
bothering with the naval war by building many or any ships/subs and
then being rewarded by not having to worry about getting any naval
moves in non land impulses.

Moreover, you might see a German player (frex) build 1+ sub a turn but
then decide due to activity limits not to do a combined in M/J, J/A
and maybe even S/O too. This lest 3 turns worth of production pop out
on the board along with all the repaired subs in the pipeline so you
end up with a large stack of German subs. At this point the German
player sends them out and some allied players then complain about
German subs being too powerful when the real issue is activity limits
decreasing attrition when you decide not to send them out.

Rebase missions are a subset of air moves. Not having enough rebase
missions means many things. Attrition is lowered because some portion
of your air force is often if not always out of the fight. Having to
rebase back to your HC including possibly TRS missions to, lets you
lose the use of the pilot for that movement time, an extra turn, and
then the time needed to get back to the front. Because of this some
MP's will rarely if ever bother with this procedure and for 2 more
BP's just put out another plane on the board and save all the needed
rebase and transport missions- it almost pays for itself given the
activity limits to keep putting more and more aircraft on the board.
That dynamic cause a whole host of issues.

The activity limits are part of the heart and soul of the game but
they cause any number of negative consequences. They are not perfect
but merely what we are used to. In some instances they should
increase over time for some things for some MP's. There should be
other mechanisms besides a supercombined to occasionally do more
(HQ's, mini-ochits, etc.)

The system is great. Variable EOT is great. Variable weather is
great. Variable USE is great. That said the system is too
restrictive in activity limits at least in some areas later in the
game. When turns end and a side gets only 1 impulse it's not great
and IMO it's bad. Watching a good game go down the tubes over freak
weather is not from my perspective fun. USE was too extreme and that
has been recently adjusted with new USE counters. These things can
and will change over time. Master Edition changes many of these far
more than I believe ever gets suggested on this list.

Lane

[Neilster]

I agree this is worth looking at. It doesn't seem that it would require major code addition (although I could be wrong). As such, it may represent considerable "bang for the buck" as regards user-base happiness, prevention of some problems and game flexibility.

Cheers, Neilster

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Neilster
I agree this is worth looking at. It doesn't seem that it would require major code addition (although I could be wrong). As such, it may represent considerable "bang for the buck" as regards user-base happiness, prevention of some problems and game flexibility.

Cheers, Neilster

This is a small change - in its simplest form. I doubt that the people who would applaud this change would be happy with the simplest form though. Just making the table available for adjustment by the players (e.g., in a CSV file) before they start the game would be the simplest form.

But in reading that post by Lane, I believe he also mentions having the activity limits table different for different major powers. And for it to change over time. He also is sensitive to when very few impulses occur in a turn, which makes me think he might want some rule like "for 1 impulse in a turn the activity limits are more flexible in that ...". He also mentioned mini-offensive chits. The list of propsed changes to WIF by players is pretty much endless.

Even in its simplest form, this change would be what I consider part of a "WIF Design Kit" product and not WIF FE. I am not emotionally opposed to changes in WIF; they occur all the time. However, I do not have the inclination to add more optional rules to the 81 that are already part of my task list for MWIF product 1.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: wosung

Another heretic thought:

While playing around with CWIF, sometimes I found the rather restricted activity limits quite annoying, frex for GER navy in the Summer turns. This point is discussed even in the WIF mailing list (se below). I know these strict limts are central part of the finesse of WIF. I know you can partly get around them by offensive chits.

Any chances for an option system that widens the allowed activties, say from +1 to +3?

In the end this, too, might be a question of how much work to program it, so this might be an idea for add-ons.

Once upon a time, we were talking about that with Harry Rowland, and he proposed this :

*****************************
ACTIVITY LIMITS
Each major power at a PM above 1 gets an increase on Activity Limits based on their production e.g. 1.25 = 25% increase (rounded to nearest), 1.5 = 50% increase and so on.
*****************************

I would applaude to such an OPTIONAL rule in MWiF.

[Froonp]

Just making the table available for adjustment by the players (e.g., in a CSV file) before they start the game would be the simplest form.

I think that this would be simply GREAT !!!! Do you realize how happy you would make WiF players ?
A little refinement would be for this table to be variable with years, (1939 activity limits, 1940 activity limits, and so on...).

[Froonp]

Even in its simplest form, this change would be what I consider part of a "WIF Design Kit" product and not WIF FE. I am not emotionally opposed to changes in WIF; they occur all the time. However, I do not have the inclination to add more optional rules to the 81 that are already part of my task list for MWIF product 1.

I would not describe editable CSV files as a WiF design kit.

A WiF design kit would be some form of user friendly software that allows to twick MWiF in many aspects of the map, counters, and especially rules and charts.

Having just CSV files is just letting people modifying some variable. It's kind of letting the people modifying Windows registry directly, and not providing thelm with an utility that does modify the registry through user friendly forms and dialogs. MWiF already have such CSV files for the units & map, and they are great once you get used to them, but they are far from what I would describe as a WiF design kit.

I would have thought that most of the Charts of WiF FE should be in CSV editable formats, because I would have thought that thies would be the best and cleanest way for the program to use them, and it adds the capacity for the learned people to modify them. You not even have to publish documentation for them, just a few hints, and the people with the will to understand them will do it and be able to twick the charts, and this is great.

There are other charts that people would want to twick, these are the Weather chart, and the Strat bombing Chart (viewed as too much effective for raids with 1 or 2 strat factors).

Having most of the charts in CSV format would be the best.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Even in its simplest form, this change would be what I consider part of a "WIF Design Kit" product and not WIF FE. I am not emotionally opposed to changes in WIF; they occur all the time. However, I do not have the inclination to add more optional rules to the 81 that are already part of my task list for MWIF product 1.

I would not describe editable CSV files as a WiF design kit.

A WiF design kit would be some form of user friendly software that allows to twick MWiF in many aspects of the map, counters, and especially rules and charts.

Having just CSV files is just letting people modifying some variable. It's kind of letting the people modifying Windows registry directly, and not providing thelm with an utility that does modify the registry through user friendly forms and dialogs. MWiF already have such CSV files for the units & map, and they are great once you get used to them, but they are far from what I would describe as a WiF design kit.

I would have thought that most of the Charts of WiF FE should be in CSV editable formats, because I would have thought that thies would be the best and cleanest way for the program to use them, and it adds the capacity for the learned people to modify them. You not even have to publish documentation for them, just a few hints, and the people with the will to understand them will do it and be able to twick the charts, and this is great.

There are other charts that people would want to twick, these are the Weather chart, and the Strat bombing Chart (viewed as too much effective for raids with 1 or 2 strat factors).

Having most of the charts in CSV format would be the best.

That is quite a list of changes. There is more than 1 table in WIF FE, and absolutely none of them has the same data field structure. A separate routine would be needed for each table.

I wrote thousands of lines of code to read in the unit and map tables as CSV files (CWIF did not have code for that). Each one of those routines had to be debugged, for none of them was trivial.

Instead of having the tables as givens, the AIO would have to deal with any possible variations players made. Not something I want to contemplate, even if only thinking about the combat tables.

My main point here is that just because some feature is easy to visualize and understand, that does not make it easy to code. And as more of these "easy to do" features are added, yes you are creating a WIF Design Kit. It might be an ugly one that is difficult to work with (e.g., user hostile) but if the functionality for making the changes are there, then the player is redesigning the game.

[wosung]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Neilster
I agree this is worth looking at. It doesn't seem that it would require major code addition (although I could be wrong). As such, it may represent considerable "bang for the buck" as regards user-base happiness, prevention of some problems and game flexibility.

Cheers, Neilster

This is a small change - in its simplest form. I doubt that the people who would applaud this change would be happy with the simplest form though. Just making the table available for adjustment by the players (e.g., in a CSV file) before they start the game would be the simplest form.

But in reading that post by Lane, I believe he also mentions having the activity limits table different for different major powers. And for it to change over time. He also is sensitive to when very few impulses occur in a turn, which makes me think he might want some rule like "for 1 impulse in a turn the activity limits are more flexible in that ...". He also mentioned mini-offensive chits. The list of propsed changes to WIF by players is pretty much endless.

Even in its simplest form, this change would be what I consider part of a "WIF Design Kit" product and not WIF FE. I am not emotionally opposed to changes in WIF; they occur all the time. However, I do not have the inclination to add more optional rules to the 81 that are already part of my task list for MWIF product 1.

Better only selected adjustibility in its' simplest form than none at all. AFIR Paradox games frex are simply editable through txt-files and are broadly modded.

Given the history, versions, house rules of WIF and even the modding-tendency of PC strategy gamers, perhaps a modding/design-kit could indeed be a worthy future MWIF product: Perhaps from a marketing POV this would work, because modding might add to a lively stable forum culture, like ours. This in turn would be good advertising for all the other cool WIF related Matrix products Steve for sure has in pipeline.

But that's future talk.

Regards

[Neilster]

It's tweak, Patrice, tweak. A funny word to be sure. [:)]

Cheers, Neilster

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Neilster
It's tweak, Patrice, tweak. A funny word to be sure. [:)]

Cheers, Neilster

Thanks Neilster !

[composer99]

Activity limits seem to be built on playing WiF Classic. When you have half as many ships & planes, the activity limits are a lot more reasonable.
 
The activity limit system is, in general, fine. But it runs into trouble when you add in a lot of the optionals. Germany playing with CX units, for example, could really stand to use extra naval moves on combineds. Everyone could use more air limits on combineds & lands by the late war (well, Germany & the Allies, and maybe even only the Allies) when playing with PiF and adding in air units from other kits (not as much of a problem in MWiF when, say, the America in Flames stuff isn't going in).
 
Finally, it really is kind of silly that when you call specific impulses that you get no activities of other types whatsoever, as if the armed branches take days off in the middle of a war so the other guys can strut their stuff. However, it probably is out of the ambit of MWiF product 1 to muck around with this stuff, much as it could probably do with some mucking around.

[michaelbaldur]

I have a ideer . a perfekt combind ...... it is all most the same as you have sugested.... but you  get the choice of a normal combind or a combind where you choise the activiti limits ..... but only to the maximal limits .... a  move for a  move ...... a land attack for 2 moves .... 2 moves for a land attack ..... eksampel .....  italy have 3 air + 1 naval + 2 land moves + 1 land attack ....... when you choice the combind you can choice to alter the activities ..... altered to  1 air + 3 naval + 3 land moves + 1 land attack .... for a 3 unit invasion on gribra (3 land moves) .... with  naval units from 2 ports and a combat fleet in the 4 sea box and the trans in the 3 sea box (3 naval moves)..... in a normal combind italy can only invade with 2 units and all of the naval units have to come from the same port and end in the same sea box ......  germany can convert land moves for naval moves ..... usa can make many invasion with out using offencive ... a combind where you choise the activiti limits makes the combind more like a combind....

[Zorachus99]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Even in its simplest form, this change would be what I consider part of a "WIF Design Kit" product and not WIF FE. I am not emotionally opposed to changes in WIF; they occur all the time. However, I do not have the inclination to add more optional rules to the 81 that are already part of my task list for MWIF product 1.

I would not describe editable CSV files as a WiF design kit.

A WiF design kit would be some form of user friendly software that allows to twick MWiF in many aspects of the map, counters, and especially rules and charts.

Having just CSV files is just letting people modifying some variable. It's kind of letting the people modifying Windows registry directly, and not providing thelm with an utility that does modify the registry through user friendly forms and dialogs. MWiF already have such CSV files for the units & map, and they are great once you get used to them, but they are far from what I would describe as a WiF design kit.

I would have thought that most of the Charts of WiF FE should be in CSV editable formats, because I would have thought that thies would be the best and cleanest way for the program to use them, and it adds the capacity for the learned people to modify them. You not even have to publish documentation for them, just a few hints, and the people with the will to understand them will do it and be able to twick the charts, and this is great.

There are other charts that people would want to twick, these are the Weather chart, and the Strat bombing Chart (viewed as too much effective for raids with 1 or 2 strat factors).

Having most of the charts in CSV format would be the best.

That is quite a list of changes. There is more than 1 table in WIF FE, and absolutely none of them has the same data field structure. A separate routine would be needed for each table.

I wrote thousands of lines of code to read in the unit and map tables as CSV files (CWIF did not have code for that). Each one of those routines had to be debugged, for none of them was trivial.

Instead of having the tables as givens, the AIO would have to deal with any possible variations players made. Not something I want to contemplate, even if only thinking about the combat tables.

My main point here is that just because some feature is easy to visualize and understand, that does not make it easy to code. And as more of these "easy to do" features are added, yes you are creating a WIF Design Kit. It might be an ugly one that is difficult to work with (e.g., user hostile) but if the functionality for making the changes are there, then the player is redesigning the game.

MWIF Feature request. The oil system inherently has logic to it. The problem was game mechanic complexity. Humans had to do the work for an oil system; a chore at best. Perhaps in the future, units will be able to perform tasks that require oil, which is immediately deducted from the stockpile. Computer can keep track of the entire thing easily.

Additionally, there would be a need for operational oil, a need to trace to oil within 20 hexes or so for proper operational restriction. Historically supply depots were required in WWII. I'd love to see the need for transporting oil into North Africa, stockpiles in the area of operations, etc.

I'm often perturbed by the simple fact that historically Rommel decimated the British at 1:10 odds while capturing oil & supplies to continue their push to Egypt. Some analysts have speculated that Hitler had become jealous of Rommel and his considerable popularity at the time.

[ezzler]

I would love a change to the activity limits rule , and oil seems a good 'computer game way'
see all the endless discussion on offensive chts ... and they are an optonal rule ... mainly to get round activity limits.
i would welcome a complete overhaul and rethink of activity limits ... but not now ..
release first / modify later.

[freeboy]

As someone who has only see nthe game in pix here and elsewhere, is the issue not enough "points" to take your offensive turns as aggressive player? maybe something that actually was simple to code.. Add more "points" for solitaire players. easy moderate hard etc... would that be a hard to code issue? if it is as simple as adjusting a table one might think the majority of gamers at this level could do that as well. just a thought.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

As someone who has only see nthe game in pix here and elsewhere, is the issue not enough "points" to take your offensive turns as aggressive player? maybe something that actually was simple to code.. Add more "points" for solitaire players. easy moderate hard etc... would that be a hard to code issue? if it is as simple as adjusting a table one might think the majority of gamers at this level could do that as well. just a thought.

Possilbly the most innovative aspect of WIF is that a player cannot move all of his units during an impulse. There are mulitple impulses per turn (sides alternate) but the number of impulses is random, driven mostly by the time of year/weather.

Air, land, and naval action choices each allow unlimited movement of the given movement type (air, land, naval), with a few extra moves for the other 2 branches of service. A combined provides rather more for each branch of the service, but well less than unlimited.

To modify these numbers radically alters the play balance. There is constant tension for the CW and Germany, as well as the USA once they enter the war, when choosing whether to press/defend against a land attack, attack/defend at sea (or redeploy the merchant marine), or an all out attack with the air force (or redeploy them en masse). All planning for each turn revolves around which action the player will choose for each impulse. Since major powers on a side can choose different actions during an impulse, it is typical for the Italians to choose naval or air, while the Germans choose land. And there are many other combinations.

If the system is changed without a ton of analysis about the consequences, the WIF aspect of the game more or less disappears. You might consider it analogous to changing how many strikes , balls, and outs there are in baseball. If those numbers are changed, is it still baseball?[;)]

[brian brian]

it does seem odd that the army stops when the navy leaves port, but on the other hand the amount of distance the ground units can cover in a variable-length impulse is perhaps higher than they could in real life through enemy territory. so part of the time of the 'naval' impulse is also part of the time of the 'land' impulse is one way to look at it.

one of the best examples of action limits I have ever read was some reasoning attributed to German Admiral Raeder, who ordered the Bismarck/Prinz Eugen mission to sea despite the original plan calling for a simultaneous sortie of the Scharnhorst/Gneisenau from Brest. They weren't ready due to minor damage from a British port strike (successful "A" results maybe), but Raeder ordered the Bismarck to sail regardless on the grounds that he knew Barbarossa was about to begin and if he delayed any longer the mission wouldn't be possible. That of course relates to the inherently illogical German command structure perhaps, but I thought it was interesting after playing so much WiF.

I do look forwad to 'Master Edition' and some small changes to the activity limit system though.

[wosung]

Well, sometimes WIF shows beauti- and meaningful abstraction of the war itself. Sometimes the rules are more about making it managable as a boardgame. Difficult to draw the line, when transforming it into a PC-game.

Master edition perhaps really contains a useful mechanism of smaller offensive chits, so to make the gains of production investment towards activity limits more gradual.

For Raeder's decision: I wouldn't call it illogical. There was rational thinking behind it: The Kriegsmarine, esp. its battleship advocats, wanted badly more publicity and funding in competition with their bigger sister services. Before the Heer and the Luftwaffe again got all the glory (in Russia), the admirals forcibly wanted to show, what their service was capable of. This again could be interpreted as a typical result of decision-making in Nazi Germany. No democratic or "soviet" joint committee decisions, but social-darwinist struggle of institutions and sub-leaders for success and ressources.

Regards

[brian brian]

I didn't mean the decision was illogical. I just meant the German command structure in WWII was, uhh, different than several of the other powers.