MWIF Game Interface Design

[brian brian]

ORIGINAL: doctormm

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I hate to mention this, but with the 1d10 system there doesn't seem to be any bonus or loss penalty for the defender's winterized units. So the defender winterized choice in 1d10 may not be too important and could be skipped?

The first loss must be a winterized unit if you take the column shift.

Ok, I haven't played 1d10 in a looong time and probably never will again. So you are saying that if a MTN and an INF are attacked in snow, and the defender has to take one loss, the MTN must be chosen, unless they pretend the weather is clear for this attack only? I thought 'declining' unit abilities didn't creep into the rules until 2d10. The 1d10 rules don't say anything about the defender's units making any difference at all and the "if you use this power" seems to imply only the attacker has a choice; the rules impose a penalty on every attack in bad weather. So if the defender wants to save his MTN unit, he has to decline the weather advantages altogether? I'm pretty sure that when we did play 1d10, we didn't do things that way, and perhaps remaining 1d10 players play it like that? I could read that rule as applying to the attacker only, and reading that the defenders winterized units are vulnerable like that is one of those odd-for-new-players quirks Steve just mentioned, and to my mind is perhaps something applied backwards to that rule after the 'declining' option became part of the game. It seems like an extra penalty for a 1d10 defender, and quite a Faustian choice - to help save this valuable unit, I have to make it more vulnerable - without getting the defensive column shift 'power' one would in effect receive if playing 2d10, if you decide to use the 'power'.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

I'd say the Destruction of Army Group Center involved the use of a Soviet OC or two, but applied more on an opportunistic scale then on a totally pre-planned one.

The Soviet Summer Offensive against German Army Group Center, Operation Bagration, was well preplanned. Alot of supplies and units had been stocked up for it.

Some examples of the preparations:
1) In order to maximise the chances of success, a major campaign of deception—maskirovka—was undertaken to convince the German High Command that the summer offensive would, in fact, be in the south against Army Group North Ukraine. German forces were transferred southwards to Army Group North Ukraine throughout the summer, in order to meet an attack there. This left Army Group Centre dangerously weakened, as Stavka had intended.

2) The main offensive began in the early morning of 23 June, with an artillery bombardment of unprecedented scale against the defensive works.

3) The attack of Galitsky's 11th Guards Army along the Moscow - Minsk highway near Orsha was preceded by specialised engineer units; mine rolling PT-34 tanks were committed along with assault engineer companies and assault gun regiments.

-Orm

Any big op has those ingredients. Look at Overlord - the Funnies, the (non) floating tanks, the paradrops, Pattons fake army, etc.. However, I think even the Russians were surprised at the way Army Group Center went to pieces. They adjusted and took advantage wherever they could, but if they had prepared even greater logistically, they wouldn't have run out of steam when they did. There are too many unknowns to plan big operations to the point where everything that happens is no surprise. The side that can better adjust to the changing situation will hold the advantage.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

ORIGINAL: doctormm

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I hate to mention this, but with the 1d10 system there doesn't seem to be any bonus or loss penalty for the defender's winterized units. So the defender winterized choice in 1d10 may not be too important and could be skipped?

The first loss must be a winterized unit if you take the column shift.

No that is incorrect, in 1D10 it only applies to the attacker.

Ok, I haven't played 1d10 in a looong time and probably never will again. So you are saying that if a MTN and an INF are attacked in snow, and the defender has to take one loss, the MTN must be chosen, unless they pretend the weather is clear for this attack only? I thought 'declining' unit abilities didn't creep into the rules until 2d10. The 1d10 rules don't say anything about the defender's units making any difference at all and the "if you use this power" seems to imply only the attacker has a choice; the rules impose a penalty on every attack in bad weather. So if the defender wants to save his MTN unit, he has to decline the weather advantages altogether? I'm pretty sure that when we did play 1d10, we didn't do things that way, and perhaps remaining 1d10 players play it like that? I could read that rule as applying to the attacker only, and reading that the defenders winterized units are vulnerable like that is one of those odd-for-new-players quirks Steve just mentioned, and to my mind is perhaps something applied backwards to that rule after the 'declining' option became part of the game. It seems like an extra penalty for a 1d10 defender, and quite a Faustian choice - to help save this valuable unit, I have to make it more vulnerable - without getting the defensive column shift 'power' one would in effect receive if playing 2d10, if you decide to use the 'power'.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Yes, knowing the quirks in the rules can be an advantage when playing the game, especially against someone who doesn't know them. [Personally, I prefer rules without quirks.]

In my role as the developer here, I want the game to be well received by new players. Obviously, the fewer quirks the better from the new player's point of view.

Well, your quirk may be someone else's quark. And their's may seem just another esoteric layer of the onion that you know how to peel.

Of course anyone who gets victimized by a rule will feel hard done by, but those tend to be the rules you are intimately familiar with - the next time around. It is a complex game and I wouldn't say taking advantage of knowing I can decide my OC doublings at the last moment is a quirk - I'd say its just good play. Its a form of optimization - it's not a game breaker.

[Anendrue]

I don't usually comment on rules as there are people infinitly more qualified than I. Since opinions are so strong could someone ask Harry and just get this resolved by the creator of the game?

[doctormm]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: brian brian

ORIGINAL: doctormm




The first loss must be a winterized unit if you take the column shift.

No that is incorrect, in 1D10 it only applies to the attacker.

Yeah, I was on drugs and did not see the defender part of the IP, ignore what I said.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: doctormm

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: doctormm
On what is the RAC change to RAW based? The 2d10 that I have has none of that text.

Also, if you allow players to decline the winter bonus, you'll need to clarify 3(c) of the 2d10 notes. That is, if I have two units attacking and one is Winterized, but I refuse the winterized bonus, am I still exempt from the bad weather extra loss?

What I quoted is straight from the RAW 7.0 PDF. I made no changes to this section for RAC.

Ah, that's for the 1d10. I've been focusing on the 2d10. I *guess* that it would be a stretch to deny the flexibility on the 2d10 then. C'est la guerre.

What is valid for 1d10 CRT is still valid for 2d10 if it is not contradicted by what the 2d10 CRT says, and it is not contradicted in the 2d10 CRT that the winterized & ENG bonuses are declinable. The 2d10 CRT is only listing the bonuses & penalties of the winterized & ENG units, and nowhere does it say that the "may" in RAW becomes a "must" with 2d10 CRT.

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

About the declinability of engineers and winterized boni, this has been debated ad nauseum, ad tedium, ad barfium on the rules list and on the main list and now here???

Please, the designer of the game has stated in the FAQ and repeatedly in narrative messages on the rules list, that they are declinable. (He also said he's willing to change the ruling if a "majority" {whatever that is?} agree they should not be declinable.)

I have opened a poll on the main Yahoo list for this purpose.

Side point on Engineers - I have made attacks across rivers and into double factory stacks with engineers and declined the bonus because I did not want to risk losing the engineer. It was enpough of a penalty in the combat to be halved by the river or minused by the factory stack to not also be increased by risking the loss of a valuable unit. To say the solution is to not attack with them is stupid, since I could attack with them in a combat where their special ability is not needed - so why do I lose the availability of their combat factors in the case where I "could" use their ability?

Totaly agreed.

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Well, that is 3 votes for "supply is (re)determined at time of combat" being the predominant rule - which makes sense to me. I'll go with the latter interpretation then.

I would have made it 4 votes.

Add mine too, but there should not be any vote, this is RAW.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: abj9562

I don't usually comment on rules as there are people infinitly more qualified than I. Since opinions are so strong could someone ask Harry and just get this resolved by the creator of the game?

I was offline for moving for the past week, so could you please help me to catch up.
What is the issue that is still not yet solved ?

[doctormm]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: doctormm

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

What I quoted is straight from the RAW 7.0 PDF. I made no changes to this section for RAC.

Ah, that's for the 1d10. I've been focusing on the 2d10. I *guess* that it would be a stretch to deny the flexibility on the 2d10 then. C'est la guerre.

What is valid for 1d10 CRT is still valid for 2d10 if it is not contradicted by what the 2d10 CRT says, and it is not contradicted in the 2d10 CRT that the winterized & ENG bonuses are declinable. The 2d10 CRT is only listing the bonuses & penalties of the winterized & ENG units, and nowhere does it say that the "may" in RAW becomes a "must" with 2d10 CRT.

I accept that the winterized bonus is declinable, based on it being available in 1d10 (I had been basing my prior case on the fact that the 2d10 was a standalone addition, and the bonus is NOT declineable therein). But that does not apply to ENG. The rules say that they provide a benefit, not that the may choose to provide a benefit.

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

About the declinability of engineers and winterized boni, this has been debated ad nauseum, ad tedium, ad barfium on the rules list and on the main list and now here???

Please, the designer of the game has stated in the FAQ and repeatedly in narrative messages on the rules list, that they are declinable. (He also said he's willing to change the ruling if a "majority" {whatever that is?} agree they should not be declinable.)

I have opened a poll on the main Yahoo list for this purpose.

Side point on Engineers - I have made attacks across rivers and into double factory stacks with engineers and declined the bonus because I did not want to risk losing the engineer. It was enpough of a penalty in the combat to be halved by the river or minused by the factory stack to not also be increased by risking the loss of a valuable unit. To say the solution is to not attack with them is stupid, since I could attack with them in a combat where their special ability is not needed - so why do I lose the availability of their combat factors in the case where I "could" use their ability?

Totaly agreed.

Harry's "wrong" here. It may be what he intended, or what he wants it to say, it may end up being what gets written into MWiF, but it's not what the rules say.

TBH, ENG should have 0 factors and ONLY provide combat mods.

[doctormm]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: abj9562

I don't usually comment on rules as there are people infinitly more qualified than I. Since opinions are so strong could someone ask Harry and just get this resolved by the creator of the game?

I was offline for moving for the past week, so could you please help me to catch up.
What is the issue that is still not yet solved ?

The timing of the decision to double units with an Ochit. Steve has it at the time of the declaration of the combat. RAW says you do it right before calculating final odds. The former is fairly simple and also resolves issues such as how to account for overcommitment of shore bombardment and ground support. The latter is, well, RAW [:)]

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: doctormm

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: abj9562

I don't usually comment on rules as there are people infinitly more qualified than I. Since opinions are so strong could someone ask Harry and just get this resolved by the creator of the game?

I was offline for moving for the past week, so could you please help me to catch up.
What is the issue that is still not yet solved ?

The timing of the decision to double units with an Ochit. Steve has it at the time of the declaration of the combat. RAW says you do it right before calculating final odds. The former is fairly simple and also resolves issues such as how to account for overcommitment of shore bombardment and ground support. The latter is, well, RAW [:)]

Well, it seems to me that all people play it the first way (at the time of the declaration of the combat). It would be too complicated to have it right before calculating final odds.
Especially as it was already clarified that you could apply Ground Support and Shore Bombardment up to the doubled value of the combat units of the attacking units.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: doctormm
Harry's "wrong" here. It may be what he intended, or what he wants it to say, it may end up being what gets written into MWiF, but it's not what the rules say.

TBH, ENG should have 0 factors and ONLY provide combat mods.

Well, RAW says :
"If an ENG provides any benefits in an attack, it always suffers the first loss (even before white print units attacking in winter)."

There would be no "If" in this sentence if the use of the ENG benefit in an attack was mandatory.
So an ENG can attack like a regular INF and not suffer first loss.
IMO, considering real life and real world ENG usage, this is stupid to think that an ENG that is involved in a combat is always building bridges, or crounched in the cities' sewers or demolishing enemy fortifications (using their benefit). They can be here only for the manpower's sake.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: doctormm
Harry's "wrong" here. It may be what he intended, or what he wants it to say, it may end up being what gets written into MWiF, but it's not what the rules say.

TBH, ENG should have 0 factors and ONLY provide combat mods.

Well, RAW says :
"If an ENG provides any benefits in an attack, it always suffers the first loss (even before white print units attacking in winter)."

There would be no "If" in this sentence if the use of the ENG benefit in an attack was mandatory.
So an ENG can attack like a regular INF and not suffer first loss.
IMO, considering real life and real world ENG usage, this is stupid to think that an ENG that is involved in a combat is always building bridges, or crounched in the cities' sewers or demolishing enemy fortifications (using their benefit). They can be here only for the manpower's sake.

Once again, I am ambivalent.

Wearing my rules lawyer hat, I would say that the 'If' applies to whether there was any possible benefit for the engineer to provide. For instance, if the combat is simply an engineer and two corp units attacking a single defending corps (nothing special happening) and the result was a 1/1, then the engineer does not have to take the loss, since it's involvement didn't affect the odds. I agree with Doctormm in this regard; the 'If' doesn't necessarily imply a voluntary decision by the player.

As the programmer, the code is already written and functioning correctly for the use of the engineer being voluntary. Of course removing code (as in this case) is easier than creating it.

So, as I said, I am ambivalent. I have no strong feeelings either way for whether the use of the enigneer's special abilities can be declined or are automatically invoked when the situation provides a benefit from having an engineer use its special abilities in the combat.

[Froonp]

Well, if you're in doubt, why not listen to the WiF FE game designer (Harry Rowland).
In the latest FAQ, published 10 days ago at ADG's webpage he says :

*******************************
Q11.16-30>
Can you decline the benefit of an ENG (i.e. can an ENG attack across a river without un-halving a corps stacked with it)?

Answer>
Yes. Date 29/11/2007
*******************************

doctormm wrote that "Harry's "wrong" here. It may be what he intended, or what he wants it to say, it may end up being what gets written into MWiF, but it's not what the rules say.", but I could write myself that this is what the rule say, because it is what I read that the rule say, and at the light of what the desigher also says I think that doctormm is reading them incorrectly.

Also, as I said previously I think that there are real world justifications to not automaticaly use a unit's benefit, and there are no real world justifications to automaticaly use a unit's benefit.

[brian brian]

Not using Engineer and winterized benefits has always seemed declinable based on the "If" clause in each rule, I've never seen any problem with that. I'm glad we're clear on the winterized defenders in the 1d10.

I did just think of a fine point to the application of the rule, that I had never considered before. The answer seems obvious, but I want to be clear. If a 1-4 Engineer is attacking across a river, and it declines to double another attacking unit, the Engineer would be halved as well, correct? Not that half of a combat factor would make much difference. Do engineers attack at full strength across rivers, or is that one of the 'benefits'?

I've never thought about it, because if I don't want to use an engineer benefit, I simply don't put them adjacent to an enemy unit under attack. You might roll a 2, and even if you have enough fellow attacking units to absorb any losses, that engineer might be awfully lonely right in front of the enemy lines after such an attack disaster. And if you don't want to use the benefits, generally the stacking space for a 'topper' gun/div unit is harder to come by and it's better to use some other such unit. So declining bonuses has always seemed like a nit-picky and silly way to play the game to me. You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, so in to the attack they go, when I'm in charge. The bonus might be what saves you from any casualties at all; I guess my glass is half-full when I attack something.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: brian brian
I did just think of a fine point to the application of the rule, that I had never considered before. The answer seems obvious, but I want to be clear. If a 1-4 Engineer is attacking across a river, and it declines to double another attacking unit, the Engineer would be halved as well, correct?

Sure, why wouldn't it ?
The "benefit" ENG have is to build bridges over rivers to allow for non halved attack. If they were not halved, this would mean that they would build bridges, but only for them, why not, but in that case they are using their "benefit".

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: brian brian
I did just think of a fine point to the application of the rule, that I had never considered before. The answer seems obvious, but I want to be clear. If a 1-4 Engineer is attacking across a river, and it declines to double another attacking unit, the Engineer would be halved as well, correct?

Sure, why wouldn't it ?
The "benefit" ENG have is to build bridges over rivers to allow for non halved attack. If they were not halved, this would mean that they would build bridges, but only for them, why not, but in that case they are using their "benefit".

Agree completely. And attacking with a single stack across a river topped with an engineer is something I would not do unless it was a "good" attack, in which case I'd be using the benefit. (good = judged outcome is worth the risk). If it were not a "good" attack, then I'd likely not make it at all.

As I said before what sense does it make that I can use the engineer in an attack in the open where there is no benefit that can be derived (in this case the "non-declinable party" argues I would not be risking the engineer) and yet just because I put the engineer in an attack where it could use its benefit, then I'm risking losing it??

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

The bonus might be what saves you from any casualties at all; I guess my glass is half-full when I attack something.

Your OIC of the engineer unit would be quick to point out the glass is neither half full nor half empty, but rather it has a Safety Factor of 2. [;)]

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: doctormm

ORIGINAL: Froonp


I was offline for moving for the past week, so could you please help me to catch up.
What is the issue that is still not yet solved ?

The timing of the decision to double units with an Ochit. Steve has it at the time of the declaration of the combat. RAW says you do it right before calculating final odds. The former is fairly simple and also resolves issues such as how to account for overcommitment of shore bombardment and ground support. The latter is, well, RAW [:)]

Well, it seems to me that all people play it the first way (at the time of the declaration of the combat). It would be too complicated to have it right before calculating final odds.
Especially as it was already clarified that you could apply Ground Support and Shore Bombardment up to the doubled value of the combat units of the attacking units.

Well. OSB is uninterceptable, but I don't think RAW prohibits putting in extra OGS in case some gets aborted. You just can't use the excess in the attack.

PS: Patrice I know you've been off-line the past few days, have a look at my posts above supporting doing it the way RAW says you should do it, and let us know what you think.

[doctormm]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: doctormm
Harry's "wrong" here. It may be what he intended, or what he wants it to say, it may end up being what gets written into MWiF, but it's not what the rules say.

TBH, ENG should have 0 factors and ONLY provide combat mods.

Well, RAW says :
"If an ENG provides any benefits in an attack, it always suffers the first loss (even before white print units attacking in winter)."

There would be no "If" in this sentence if the use of the ENG benefit in an attack was mandatory.
So an ENG can attack like a regular INF and not suffer first loss.
IMO, considering real life and real world ENG usage, this is stupid to think that an ENG that is involved in a combat is always building bridges, or crounched in the cities' sewers or demolishing enemy fortifications (using their benefit). They can be here only for the manpower's sake.

You're over-emphasizing the conditional here. ENG can participate in combats where they do no provide benefits. You don't always have enough DIV around to fully stack for an attack, and there are a couple of ENG that aren't MOT, so I use them for SCS passengers on occasion.

If the rules said "When an ENG provides any benefits in an attack,..." people would still say that it meant you could decline the benefit.