optional rules

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: GordianKnot

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


My next task for this page, now that it exists, is to highlight those optional rules that are On for the current game.

Looks like color coding the active options is going to be your best bet since you have almost no room for some sort of 'checkmark' icon.

Maybe White for active and the current color for inactive?

Yes, the yellow on green are just a temporary place-holder colors.

This form uses the current major power's theme colors.

I think I may have to define a set of "selected colors". Those would be both for the background and the font color. Perhaps I'll just reverse them? Probably not, the brown on black here wouldn't look very good.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

This is the type of chart I'll end up spending time visually searching for a particular option, possibly frequently.  Try to make the form colors easy enough to stare at without making your eyes bleed. [:D]

As I just said in the above post, this form uses the theme colors. And so, yes, I am very concerned that the colors not be garish - they are used throughout the game for whichever major power you are playing.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Froonp

What does "RAW 68" means for the Siberians here ?
Seems that it means RAW Option 68. Maybe it would be better it it was written RAW Option 68 ?

I'll tidy this up then. As I recall, I wasn't sure about all the cross references and just put in my best guess when I was compiling the list.

A playtester can do that for you I guess.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Froonp

What does "RAW 68" means for the Siberians here ?
Seems that it means RAW Option 68. Maybe it would be better it it was written RAW Option 68 ?

I'll tidy this up then. As I recall, I wasn't sure about all the cross references and just put in my best guess when I was compiling the list.

A playtester can do that for you I guess.

Ah, yes. That was my hope.

Mziln found one mistake in the cross references, though I haven't gotten around to fixing that yet. I had mistakenly thought the cross reference stuff was being omitted from the player's display. Looking at it now, I think it might be useful to some experienced WIF players, so I decided to leave it in - but that means it needs to be checked for accuracy.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Proposed Optional Rules Interdependencies
as of (October 13, 2007)

There are actually a lot of interdependencies between the 81 optional rules. Here I am only concerned with when an optional has a prerequisite optional rule. For example, Artillery divisions can only be selected if Divisions are also selected.

Optional rule: Prerequisite

Artillery: Divisions
Combat engineers: Divisions
Construction engineers: Divisions
Ski units: Divisions
Unlimited breakdown: Divisions
Partisan HQs: Partisans
Rough seas: Cruisers in Flames
Oil tankers: Convoys in Flames
Blitz bonus: Included in 2D10CRT, so only meaningful when that rule is off
Variable carrier plane searching: Carrier planes
SCS transport: Amphibious rules
Naval offensive chit: Offensive chits

Factory construction and destruction: None

The last consideration is what prompted me to review these. Comments? Opinions?

[brian brian]

I have a hard time thinking about using Pilots without the Planes in Flames counters ??? - which leads me to think that perhaps the Planes/Ships/Mech/Politics in Flames kit decisions could perhaps be handled with the optional rules?

(iirc Ships in Flames will be mandatory?)

(and Mech in Flames would have - ALL ??? - of it's pieces covered in optionals)

(but Politics in Flames has some regular units, like additional HQs and minor country corps, not covered by an optional - maybe it would be easier to ignore this separate kit/counter-sheet and pretend it is part of standard WiF?)

Might some of the aircraft optionals only come in to play if using the Planes in Flames pieces?


Those are the only caveats I can think of that go with your list of dependant optionals. I guess the dependant ones would need a header explaining they can only be selected after selecting the pre-requisite. Doesn't seem too tough to program?

The other day I had a thought that with MWiF will probably be the first time I go back to trying WiF Classic, since when I can get together ftf to play WiF none of us can resist trying most every bell and whistle. I am OK with WiF Classic with Ships in Flames though.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: brian brian
The other day I had a thought that with MWiF will probably be the first time I go back to trying WiF Classic, since when I can get together ftf to play WiF none of us can resist trying most every bell and whistle. I am OK with WiF Classic with Ships in Flames though.

SiF and PiF are mandatory in MWiF. There is no way to play without them. Unless I am severely mistaken.

[brian brian]

ahh, PiF too. couldn't recall. prolly best that way.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I have a hard time thinking about using Pilots without the Planes in Flames counters ??? - which leads me to think that perhaps the Planes/Ships/Mech/Politics in Flames kit decisions could perhaps be handled with the optional rules?

(iirc Ships in Flames will be mandatory?)

(and Mech in Flames would have - ALL ??? - of it's pieces covered in optionals)

(but Politics in Flames has some regular units, like additional HQs and minor country corps, not covered by an optional - maybe it would be easier to ignore this separate kit/counter-sheet and pretend it is part of standard WiF?)

Might some of the aircraft optionals only come in to play if using the Planes in Flames pieces?


Those are the only caveats I can think of that go with your list of dependant optionals. I guess the dependant ones would need a header explaining they can only be selected after selecting the pre-requisite. Doesn't seem too tough to program?

The other day I had a thought that with MWiF will probably be the first time I go back to trying WiF Classic, since when I can get together ftf to play WiF none of us can resist trying most every bell and whistle. I am OK with WiF Classic with Ships in Flames though.

Probably the easiest way to answer this is that the list of optional rules identifies the rules that are optional[;)].

WIF has had many variations over its long life, with numerous add-on countersheets/maps and changes to the rules. Depending on when you first played WIF and when you last played WIF, you will have a different perspective on what rules are 'new' and which are 'optional'. It's quite impossible to address all those possiblities one question at a time.

Instead, WMIF will simply state what the rules are in RAC (Rules as Coded) and the optional rules text descriptions.

As for which units are included, that I will leave for the player to determine by examining the units in the Units Review form. New players will not care which countersheet the units come from, and experienced WIF players can find their favorites there (units are rarely missing - mostly just duplicates). We are using the most recent countersheets (circa 2007).

[mlees]

Just curious:

Why consider Artillery dependant on and requiring the Divisions optional rule?

You cant break corps (or whatever regular land unit that power uses) down into artillery.

Artillery has it's own gearing limit, seperate from the infantry and armor limits. But IIRC, the Inf/Arm divisions count against their respective limits.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: mlees

Just curious:

Why consider Artillery dependant on and requiring the Divisions optional rule?

You cant break corps (or whatever regular land unit that power uses) down into artillery.

Artillery has it's own gearing limit, seperate from the infantry and armor limits. But IIRC, the Inf/Arm divisions count against their respective limits.

Philosophy.[8D] I (me, myself) consider Divisions the fundamental concept of which ski, artillery, and engineers are specialized subsets. I don't see players using any of the later 3 without using divisions. And I (me, myself) think it would distort play balance.

[bj_rohde]

ORIGINAL: mlees

Just curious:

Why consider Artillery dependant on and requiring the Divisions optional rule?

You cant break corps (or whatever regular land unit that power uses) down into artillery.

Artillery has it's own gearing limit, seperate from the infantry and armor limits. But IIRC, the Inf/Arm divisions count against their respective limits.

Artillery are divisions, and the divisions optional rule increases the stacking limit from two to three if the third unit is a division.

[mlees]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: mlees

Just curious:

Why consider Artillery dependant on and requiring the Divisions optional rule?

You cant break corps (or whatever regular land unit that power uses) down into artillery.

Artillery has it's own gearing limit, seperate from the infantry and armor limits. But IIRC, the Inf/Arm divisions count against their respective limits.

Philosophy.[8D] I (me, myself) consider Divisions the fundamental concept of which ski, artillery, and engineers are specialized subsets. I don't see players using any of the later 3 without using divisions. And I (me, myself) think it would distort play balance.

Hmmp. I I play with artillery without the rest of the subsets.

But I guess since I only play solotaire, I dont count. *walks off in a huff and a pout* [;)]

Why do you think it would distort play balance?

[mlees]

ORIGINAL: bj_rohde

ORIGINAL: mlees

Just curious:

Why consider Artillery dependant on and requiring the Divisions optional rule?

You cant break corps (or whatever regular land unit that power uses) down into artillery.

Artillery has it's own gearing limit, seperate from the infantry and armor limits. But IIRC, the Inf/Arm divisions count against their respective limits.

Artillery are divisions, and the divisions optional rule increases the stacking limit from two to three if the third unit is a division.

That really doesn't explain why artillery needs to have divisions included. You can have the same stacking limit in force without having to have the divisions ingame.

In RAW, Divisions (including Infantry type, Armoured, Cavalry, engineers, and ski) are 24.4.1. Artillery is seperated out in 24.4.2. Frogmen are next, etc.

Clearly ADG originally intended that they may be considered a seperate option.

[Froonp]

I think that Mlees is right, but I think that the choice of Steve is OK anyway.

[composer99]

Here's a question unrelated to the previous topic:
 
How does MWiF calculate which countries are subject to Partisans?
 
WiF:FE uses the Partisan table on the WiF chart. CWiF used some other table/system that allowed for countries that weren't subject to partisans on the WiF chart to be subject to partisans (e.g. a number of African countries).

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: composer99

Here's a question unrelated to the previous topic:

How does MWiF calculate which countries are subject to Partisans?

WiF:FE uses the Partisan table on the WiF chart. CWiF used some other table/system that allowed for countries that weren't subject to partisans on the WiF chart to be subject to partisans (e.g. a number of African countries).

A very good analysis of this was done for ADG, specifically for CWIF by J. Jeffery Donahue. It considered the populations of the countries during the war and the presence of trrops in the country (mostly colonial forces). I have read through his analysis and though I haven't cross checked or even trued to validate his conclusions, the quality of his work is clearly very fine.

Here are the numbers we are using in MWIF.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

2nd and last page in series.

Partisans is equivalent to the number printed on the WIF FE maps. Partisans Chance is the probability associated with the die rolling on the partisan table in WIF FE.

There are more entries of lower probability after Spanish Morocco, but they are all 1,0 too.

[composer99]

I assume that either the table or some other data also indicates whether or not a country is "green" pr "red" as per the WiF:FE partisan table.
 
Now, the partisan chance for a lot of countries, such as, say Upper Volta, is 0. Does that mean, despite having partisan numbers, that these countries have a 0% chance of being eligible for partisan activity? Or do they even then have some small chance (1%? 2%?) of being eligible for partisans despite not being on the WiF:FE table?

[lomyrin]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: composer99

Here's a question unrelated to the previous topic:

How does MWiF calculate which countries are subject to Partisans?

WiF:FE uses the Partisan table on the WiF chart. CWiF used some other table/system that allowed for countries that weren't subject to partisans on the WiF chart to be subject to partisans (e.g. a number of African countries).

A very good analysis of this was done for ADG, specifically for CWIF by J. Jeffery Donahue. It considered the populations of the countries during the war and the presence of trrops in the country (mostly colonial forces). I have read through his analysis and though I haven't cross checked or even trued to validate his conclusions, the quality of his work is clearly very fine.

Here are the numbers we are using in MWIF.

CWIF's partisan number for China was 20, not 30.

As for a lot of the African minors CWiF does have a possiblility of partisans there although I believe that is due to the newer scenarios from 45 forwards. During the actual war those Minors really did not seem to have much if any partisan activity.

Lars