What kind of manual(s) should we ask for?

[lomyrin]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: lomyrin
I have sent the color coded version of the 2D10 from 2002 in email. The 2003 version adds the city modifier limits and is in black and white.

Careful here.
You should only take the chart from this 2002 document.

The text on the color coded version of the 2d10 chart also have a minor differences with the latest 2003 chart :
- In the text describing how Fractional odds work with the 2d10 chart. There is the added reference to "odds of 1:1 and higher".
- The city modifiers are isolated in another module, so that we know that they globaly cap at 0.
- The penalty for factories is limited to printed factories in the latest chart.
- In the 2002 2d10 CRT, the white print SS are winterized while they are not in the latest 2003 2d10 CRT.
- The 2002 2d10 CRT don't have the exception for HQ support in the "halve attacking bonuses if attacking units are halved" rule.

Yes, as I noted the table is from 2002 and is not the latest but the changes, as you just listed, could easily be edited into the 2002 chart and then you have a nice color coded up to date table that does reflect the latest 2003 one.

And I do think the looks of this chart is far superior to the trial efforts earlier in this thread.

Lars

[Anendrue]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Well, the original 2d10 CRT is perfectly clear, why bother changing it ?

Respectfully, I absolutely disagree. The 2d10 table does not convey everything clearly to novices and beginners. As veterens we are used to what we see and know what to expect.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: lomyrin
Yes, as I noted the table is from 2002 and is not the latest but the changes, as you just listed, could easily be edited into the 2002 chart and then you have a nice color coded up to date table that does reflect the latest 2003 one.

And I do think the looks of this chart is far superior to the trial efforts earlier in this thread.

Lars

I agree on both points.
I was just giving a warning on the list of things that were different, not telling that the differences made this colored chart unsuitable.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: lomyrin
I have sent the color coded version of the 2D10 from 2002 in email. The 2003 version adds the city modifier limits and is in black and white.

Careful here.
You should only take the chart from this 2002 document.

The text on the color coded version of the 2d10 chart also have a minor differences with the latest 2003 chart :
- In the text describing how Fractional odds work with the 2d10 chart. There is the added reference to "odds of 1:1 and higher".
- The city modifiers are isolated in another module, so that we know that they globaly cap at 0.
- The penalty for factories is limited to printed factories in the latest chart.
- In the 2002 2d10 CRT, the white print SS are winterized while they are not in the latest 2003 2d10 CRT.
- The 2002 2d10 CRT don't have the exception for HQ support in the "halve attacking bonuses if attacking units are halved" rule.

Yes, as I noted the table is from 2002 and is not the latest but the changes, as you just listed, could easily be edited into the 2002 chart and then you have a nice color coded up to date table that does reflect the latest 2003 one.

And I do think the looks of this chart is far superior to the trial efforts earlier in this thread.

Lars

All I am looking for is the CRT image itself. The color version works well enough for that purpose.

I will redo the text (already started in some of the posts given above). Harry has some clarifications. The suggestion to make the notes associated with the chart complete so the body of the rules do not have to be referenced is an obvious improvement (in retrospect). Also, the grammar English correcting.[;)]

[composer99]

I was under the impression ADG had a copy of the latest 2d10 chart on its website for download, but I could not find it.
 
I myself find colour-coding superior to symbols in terms of expressing whether or not the attacker is wholly disorganized, half-organized, or wholly organized, especially on a plain-text style chart. The "+" symbol for the extra loss seems to me to be enough symbols on the chart.
 
As for whether the defender becomes disorganized or not, I think a sentence explaining what happens is superior to using symbols on the chart.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

At the risk of annoying people (again), here is what I currently intend to use for the 2 Die 10 Land CRT.

- The text still needs to be reworked.
- The black dot indicates that half of the attacking units (rounding up) do not become disorganized. I want that redundancy for players who have trouble with colors. It also lets someone copy the page as black and white without loss of information.
- I really like the 4+ indicating 4 or 5 (rather than spelling it out each time).
- But that makes the hyphen (-) unattractive becomes someone might think it is a minus and has some comparable meaning to the plus.
- I split the attacker and defender results into two columns because I find it easier to read, and it removes any confusion about the slash meaning divide.

[brian brian]

The "+" is excellent. I do kind of like how "~" implies conditionality by it's similarity to "≈", but not everyone even knows what "≈" means anyway, so I think the "+" is better. Combining the "0" and the "*" is also very good.

I've actually never liked the colored 2d10 table, the 2-tone results on 19 & 22 assault and 20 blitz discombobulate me (sorry non-native English speakers, but I picked that 49 cent word on purpose). And having the information basically on there twice, with the original '~' and the special color at times left me with this nagging thought that I was forgetting something when I was learning the 2d10, again especially on 19, 20 & 22.

I'm still not real keen on "D" and especially "(D)"; these have to be explained anyway, probably right near where you have to explain that an "R" result includes a "D" which isn't on the table. But if you are going to use "D" maybe you could use "d" for half-flip...

I think though that "R", "S", and "B" are enough letters on there already. They are the same ones as the 1d10 chart, which won't have any changes?

I like something a little more interesting than "•" ... how about "◊" ? I never liked "†" for this use, myself, not a good graphical symbol for use in war. "◊" differentiates from "*" a little better and it's hollowness has a certain implication as not quite as good as a solid "*" too.

I sure hope those symbols look the same on y'all's screen...

[Shannon V. OKeets]

There's a typo: 13 Blitz should be 1 instead of 0 for the defender.

[Anendrue]

I like the latest 2d10 chart posted by Steve.

[bredsjomagnus]

I really like the latest chart instead of the prior ones but...
 
...one thing though; now when the chart is divided into attacker defender columns (that i also like) the text in paragraf 3, "All losses expressed as attacker/defender", should also be changed. What I mean is that the slash "/" should be removed from the text too.
 
Magnus
 
 
 
 

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: bredsjomagnus

I really like the latest chart instead of the prior ones but...

...one thing though; now when the chart is divided into attacker defender columns (that i also like) the text in paragraf 3, "All losses expressed as attacker/defender", should also be changed. What I mean is that the slash "/" should be removed from the text too.

Magnus

I haven't rewritten the text to go with the revised chart - I just stuck in the new version. I'll redo all the text too, but I have to create the legend with the new symbols and colors first.

[composer99]

Looks much better. What I would suggest as a further improvement is that the half-flip results be in a single colour; the mixed colours had a meaning in the RAW 2d10 chart that is now no longer needed in the RAC chart.

[JagWars]

Original: abj9562
I like the latest 2d10 chart posted by Steve.

I agree, I like the new charts by Steve as well.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Here is my current version for the text to accompany the land 2 Die 10 CRT. Actually, I keep tweaking the text, so this is out of date already. I have split item (i) into (i) and (j), separating the explanations of D from (D) results.

Rather than do yet another screen shot (and then find something else to adjust), I decided to post this and see what you guys think.

[Anendrue]

looking good and I am glad you split (i)

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Here is the text for the portions I modified since my post yesterday.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Here is the current second page for the 2 Die 10 Land CRT.

[composer99]

I would suggest either changing the colour code used for "extra loss" results or doing away with it altogether. The "+" symbol itself seems good enough to me, and the pale yellow used doesn't show up well except when paired with the rusty half-organized result.

[brian brian]

lookin' good - a couple notes:

there is also the -1 for anti-tank assets

you might want to note which modifiers come into play by selecting an optional rule? (co-operation, at guns, territorials)

a general note on language for MWiF - WiF frequently uses imperative verbs and the table above supplies one example - "Destroy units that can't retreat." In the paper game, this language works good because you have to physically move the counter to the force pool. On the computer, it somewhat implies the player has to do something with the mouse, when actually they won't, so "Units that can't retreat are destroyed" might be more clear.

[brian brian]

you might also want to note in the City Mods that it is -1 per factory, giving a potential value of -1 to -3

I never knew ENG factors could be doubled by terrain. put the Royal Engineers in Calcutta and it will perhaps never be taken. if the Italian TRS slip past the Rock in Sep '39, perhaps a good French build would be their Engineer to deploy in Toulouse. and maybe I should protect Leningrad with Engineers in the summer, switched out with a night air-lifted SKI div in the winter. and China's last-ditch defense should be the ENG for Kunming.