I keep going back and forth on whether fighters or bombers/ATRs are more important.[&:] Yes, it is an air-to-air combat so the fighters are important. But the only reason the fight is taking place is so the bombers can complete their mission. That is why I have suggested total number of air units flying (for who decides which fight to do next) and total number flying over a hex/sea area for who is the leader for each side.ORIGINAL: ullern
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I was looking a little closer at the code and it appears to use the player (on the side) with the most fighters at times and the player with the most bombers at other times. I would like to make that a sinlge person, for two reasons: (1) it is easier to code, and (2) it is less confusing to the players.ORIGINAL: composer99
Accumulation of Luck Statistics
This would be an interesting thing to see dredged up from the Game Record Logs. Maybe some programmer fan of MWiF can create a utility to do so.
Air Combat Stuff
In terms of who decides the arrangement of air units for a side during air combat, that obviously only matters for groups of units from multiple major powers in the same combat. The obvious choice is for the player with the most participating units to decide. After that, if there is a default decision maker (e.g. Germany for Axis, US for Allies) they would pick.
I propose the following process for deteremining the air-to-air combat leader for each side (A2A leader):
1 - The A2A leader is the major power with the most air units in the air-to-air combat at the beginning of the air-to-air combat subphase.
2 - In case of ties, the major power whose air units cost the most BPs decides.
3 - In case of ties, the permanent team leader decides. [The permanent team leader makes other decisions, like whether to ask for a reroll for initative.]
4 - The calculation of the A2A leader for each side is made before any units are shot down/cleared through/aborted.
5 - The A2A leader for each side does not change during the air-to-air combat. it does not change from one round to the next in an air-to-air combat.
6 - A2A leader makes all decisions for his side in the air-to-air combat: arranges units, chooses which units are affected, and decides whether to stay or abort at the end of each round.
Thee is also the question of which player (overall) chooses the next air-to-air combat to be fought. This does not apply to naval air combat since that is a subphase of a naval engagement and each naval engagement is fought to a standstill before the next naval engagement takes place. Which means that there is only one location "to choose from" for every naval air combat.
I propose that that be the major power on the phasing side who has the most air units flying in all the air-to-air combats chooses the next air-to-air combat to be fought. Ties are broken the same way as for the A2A leader. Just as for the A2A leader, once this has been decided, it does not change at the completion of an air-to-air combat - the same major power chooses the 2nd, 3rd, etc..
Yes, these proposals are self-serving in that they are easier to code. But even more important is for things to be predictable to the players. having the A2A leader switch during air-to-air combat over a hex, would be confusing to me, and I assume it would also be confusing to players.
The general idea that we don't need to poll each player one more time in a game that polls each player very often anyway, is a very good idea.
For you tie breaker suggestion, may I suggest the following:
2. In case of ties the player with most FTRs
3. In case of ties random draw.
For how the next A2A fight is choosen:
In a board game each player would play out his own A2A fights in what order he himself wanted, some multitasking between players is usually done.
I understand it that way that the MWIF plays each A2A serially?
May I then propose the following:
A) Suppose there is already an A2A leader for each fight allocated (using whatever automatic method Steve comes up with)
B) Let the Team leader choose the order of the players (or major powers, whatever is most convenient)
C) Let that player play out all the fights where he is A2A leader
D) go back to B and let the team leader select the next player or go directly to the next player (depending on how it's most easy to implement this)
E) Continue until all A2A fights done
I think the proposed method gives less polling between players, am I right?
If a perfect tie exists, random is a viable alternative.
---------------
Consider A done. When each air-to-air combat location is identified, a team leader for each side is determined and stored as part of the data for that combat. The mechanism for deciding on which major power is still under discussion herein.
Your proposal would have Germany fight all her A2A combats, then Japan, then Italy. That has some attractiveness, but it constrains the players in that Italy can not do its A2A combat between two German A2A combats. I do not want to impose that constraint on the players - since it isn't in the rules.
Instead, I see a single major power 'elected' to make the decision in B. Step C would be for a single combat location. There is a very small increase in overhead here, but it should be so small as to be invisible to the players.
---------------
I have created a whole host of messages for the players for this process. If you are deciding, you see a prompt to make the decision (e.g., "Choose which Axis bomber to clear through."). If you are not deciding, then you are informed as to the delay (e.g., "Waiting for the Commonwealth to decide which bomber to clear through."). Essentially, the program will keep everyone informed as to what is happening and who is deciding. This should permit the allies of the decision maker to pipe up with their thoughts via Chat (e.g., "Destroy the fighter!").
