WiFFE vs. MWiF

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: hakon

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Ok.

If Undoing X will affects the supply status of Y at the start of Y's movement, and Y has already moved, then I'll present the message:
"You can not undo this move for 'X' unless you first undo the move for 'Y'. Since this just affects land moves, the two units won't be that far apart on the map; the player should be able to find Y without much trouble.

I think it would allow for smoother play if you present a message like "3 that were placed in supply by the move you are trying to undo. Undoing this move will also undo the moves of those 3 units. Do you want to proceed (Y/N)?".

Do you plan to allow for undoing naval moves, too? In that case there is the complicating siutatons of placing a unit in suply (with a cp, for instance), and then moving that unit. If that units is then subject to an interception roll, undoing the move of that unit or the one that placed it in supply may be tricky.

Cheers
Hakon

Undoing naval moves is pretty much out of the question since the enemy has the choice of intercepting.

The specifics are:
Once the possibility of intercepting a naval move occurs, regardless of whether the enemy decides to intercept or not, no naval move that was made previously can be undone.

EDIT: As for undoing the moves for the player, I would prefer not to. This is part of my bias against automation. If the player has to undo the move(s) himself, then he will know exactly what happens. Having the computer undo moves on behalf of the player runs the risk that the player will be unaware of what exactly took place.

[Jimm]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
If unit X was in supply because another unit Y had already moved in the impulse (Y could have been an HQ, but could also have been another land unit that enabled X's supply path to pass through an enemy ZOC), then ...
1. I want to prevent the enabling unit Y's move from being undone should unit X decide to move.
2. I could either do that by telling the player that moving X 'fixes' unit Y's move (Y's move can no longer be undone if you move X), or
3. Return unit X to its starting position if unit Y's move is undone.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

The specifics are:
Once the possibility of intercepting a naval move occurs, regardless of whether the enemy decides to intercept or not, no naval move that was made previously can be undone.

EDIT: As for undoing the moves for the player, I would prefer not to. This is part of my bias against automation. If the player has to undo the move(s) himself, then he will know exactly what happens. Having the computer undo moves on behalf of the player runs the risk that the player will be unaware of what exactly took place.

This seems to make option 2 (above) preferable, doesnt it?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Jimm

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
If unit X was in supply because another unit Y had already moved in the impulse (Y could have been an HQ, but could also have been another land unit that enabled X's supply path to pass through an enemy ZOC), then ...
1. I want to prevent the enabling unit Y's move from being undone should unit X decide to move.
2. I could either do that by telling the player that moving X 'fixes' unit Y's move (Y's move can no longer be undone if you move X), or
3. Return unit X to its starting position if unit Y's move is undone.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

The specifics are:
Once the possibility of intercepting a naval move occurs, regardless of whether the enemy decides to intercept or not, no naval move that was made previously can be undone.

EDIT: As for undoing the moves for the player, I would prefer not to. This is part of my bias against automation. If the player has to undo the move(s) himself, then he will know exactly what happens. Having the computer undo moves on behalf of the player runs the risk that the player will be unaware of what exactly took place.

This seems to make option 2 (above) preferable, doesnt it?

There has been a lot of discussion on this over a period of a couple of years and I am not sure if I have a full understanding of all the possibilities. In the post you quoted, I obviously put a damper on other suggestions[:(] I didn't really mean to do that.

This is always a problem for me: when I inject my viewpoint into a discussion it comes across as a definitive position statement, rather than just another viewpoint. I make a lot of mistakes and I am rather insensitive to criticism, so having people state that I am wrong is not a problem for me. But cultural norms drive many decisions people make about posting their thoughts.

In this case the list of possible solutions is still open.

[bredsjomagnus]

Im sorry if this is a bit of topic but I just got a small shock and I just had to ask....
 

Rereading the land movement rules I just realized that it is illegal to allow 2 stacks to directly 'swap' units with each other (They would need a 3rd hex at least). Will MWiF prevent this as well? Not sure how I feel about it, I've played this wrong since for ever.

 
Can´t you do that!!??
 
but...
 

2.3.1 Limits
Units that can’t co-operate (see 18.1) can’t stack together in the same hex. They can stack together in the same sea-box. Stacking applies at the end of every step and after advance after combat (see 11.16.5). Stacking also affects how and if units retreat (see 11.16.5). You cannot voluntarily overstack, but if it happens (e.g., due to liberation), the owner of the hex must destroy enough of the overstacked units to comply with the stacking limits. You must destroy organized units before disorganized units.

 
...doesn´t that make it possible to swap positon without a third hex??
 

[mlees]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Ok.

If Undoing X will affects the supply status of Y at the start of Y's movement, and Y has already moved, then I'll present the message:
"You can not undo this move for 'X' unless you first undo the move for 'Y'. Since this just affects land moves, the two units won't be that far apart on the map; the player should be able to find Y without much trouble.

*whisper* Naval/overseas supply. Granted, the movement of naval units does not usually occur at the same exact phase/time you are moving your land units, but it can still happen in the same impulse...

Maybe I should crawl back to my lurking hole. i see you've already caught that.

[Jimm]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

There has been a lot of discussion on this over a period of a couple of years and I am not sure if I have a full understanding of all the possibilities. In the post you quoted, I obviously put a damper on other suggestions[:(] I didn't really mean to do that.

This is always a problem for me: when I inject my viewpoint into a discussion it comes across as a definitive position statement, rather than just another viewpoint. I make a lot of mistakes and I am rather insensitive to criticism, so having people state that I am wrong is not a problem for me. But cultural norms drive many decisions people make about posting their thoughts.

In this case the list of possible solutions is still open.

Good to know. One doesnt want to keep a debate going once a decision is made, and after all we have to defer to you as this is not a democracy, its a benevolent dictatorship

The three areas this seems to affect are Naval Air, Naval Movement and Land Movement. These are all self contained, ie naval movement will only affect supply to naval units (for instance where you need to move a ship in to a sea area to contest it in order to allow suppy to a port containing another of your ships. As you wont undo anything once a step is complete and moved on, the supply effect of the step has been set in stone so its not an issue.

Option 11 (Limited Overseas Supply) will be even more relevant, but again, only to nav air and naval movement within each respective step.

If you cant undo any naval moves once an interception chance occurs (which seems reasonable), this effectively seems to follow option 2- ie once a move affects other things it is committed to and cannot be undone.

You also might consider the question, do you want to allow undoing moves at all, once they have been made? Seems a bit harsh but would save some code...

[Taxman66]

On the issue of retracting land moves you could make your life easier by simply offering only 2 options: 'retract last land move' and 'retract all land moves'.  I suppose (if it wasn't much of a burden) you could stack a memory of multiple 'last land move' up to the point where a land move changes the status of another unit and then allow multiple 'retract last land move' like the 'undo' option in windows.
 
 

[Taxman66]

bredsjomagnus:
 
See post #17.  That was my misinterpretating the rules.  The rule saying you can't voluntarily overstack is in a different paragraph so it can be interpreted (incorrectly) that it applies at all times.  Note this (incorrect interpretation) would also stop a naval unit from moving through a minor port that was already filled up to capacity as well.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

On the issue of retracting land moves you could make your life easier by simply offering only 2 options: 'retract last land move' and 'retract all land moves'.  I suppose (if it wasn't much of a burden) you could stack a memory of multiple 'last land move' up to the point where a land move changes the status of another unit and then allow multiple 'retract last land move' like the 'undo' option in windows.

The program already records all the hexes that the unit passes through, even after it has completed its move. Undoing the move isn't difficult except where it interacts with the rules.

I intend to let the player move some units based on an HQ's starting position putting them in supply; move the HQ a couple of hexes so new units are on supply; move the units that were just put in supply; and then continue moving the HQ to put more units in supply. As long as the HQ is not Undoing its move, I am interpreting the rules as this all being quite legal.

I mention this because "retract last move" could interpretted several ways.

[Taxman66]

I did say "retract last land move"  and by that I mean put the unit back in its starting position.  I do think a "retract all land moves" ability (i.e. put yourself back to the start of the land movement step) would resolve about 66% of the problems.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

I did say "retract last land move"  and by that I mean put the unit back in its starting position.  I do think a "retract all land moves" ability (i.e. put yourself back to the start of the land movement step) would resolve about 66% of the problems.

I would like to let the player choose between having the unit go back to its starting hex or merely go back 1 hex in its movement - stepwise retraction of a move. That's just because that is what I would want if I were playing.

There can be dozens of land moves and undoing them all would be a powerful/dangerous capability. Oops!

The current problem is small: How to enable a player to undo a move without letting him exploit the program's implementation such that he can do something the rules do not allow.

Most of the time this is not a problem. It is just when there are units out of supply (I think). And then it is only if the player has made a move that changed the supply status of a unit AND then moved the newly suplied unit. Those are fairly tight constraints. It shouldn't be too hard for the program to detect when they occur and impose an oversight routine before permitting the player to undo moves.

By the way, this discussion is helping me refine my understanding of the problem.[:)]

[Norman42]

Would it not also come into play during Overrun?
 
IE Stack overruns unit/aircraft xxx then undo the move, the program will need to know to replace those killed/rebased units.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Norman42

Would it not also come into play during Overrun?

IE Stack overruns unit/aircraft xxx then undo the move, the program will need to know to replace those killed/rebased units.

I suspect that overrunning can not be undone. At least it should never be permitted if the enemy player rebases any units. The general rule is: if your opponent makes a decision, then you cannot undo your decision.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
The general rule is: if your opponent makes a decision, then you cannot undo your decision.

I agree.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

I did say "retract last land move"  and by that I mean put the unit back in its starting position.  I do think a "retract all land moves" ability (i.e. put yourself back to the start of the land movement step) would resolve about 66% of the problems.

This is already possible, by player agreements, by loading the saved game from the start of the step. There is an autosave at the start of each step.