winterized units

[joshuamnave]

When making an attack in the snow including winterized units, the game will prompt you asking if you want to lead the attack with winterized units, even if not enough winterized units are included in the attack to get the bonus. If you choose yes and suffer losses, the game will prompt you to make your first loss a winterized unit, even though you didn't get the bonus. I suppose not technically a bug - there's nothing in the rules that says you *can't* voluntarily do something monumentally stupid, but maybe the initial prompt should be a bit more clear about the fact that leading with winterized units is pointless if less than half of your units fit the criteria.

On the other hand, I suppose it doesn't really matter until the bug is fixed that allows you to ignore the mandatory loss prompt. Kind of nice when one bug cancels out another.

No, I don't have a save. Super easy to reproduce - just launch an attack with a German mtn unit in the snow.

[Cad908]

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

When making an attack in the snow including winterized units, the game will prompt you asking if you want to lead the attack with winterized units, even if not enough winterized units are included in the attack to get the bonus. If you choose yes and suffer losses, the game will prompt you to make your first loss a winterized unit, even though you didn't get the bonus. I suppose not technically a bug - there's nothing in the rules that says you *can't* voluntarily do something monumentally stupid, but maybe the initial prompt should be a bit more clear about the fact that leading with winterized units is pointless if less than half of your units fit the criteria.

On the other hand, I suppose it doesn't really matter until the bug is fixed that allows you to ignore the mandatory loss prompt. Kind of nice when one bug cancels out another.

No, I don't have a save. Super easy to reproduce - just launch an attack with a German mtn unit in the snow.

Zartacla,

Setting aside mandatory losses, winterized units seem to work fine in my test.

As below (Standard CRT):

Top Image - 3 USSR units (1 elite) attack and there is no offer for the winterized reduction
Bottom Image - 2 USSR units (1 elite) attack and this time the winterized option is offered

Now when playing with 2Die10 it works a little different.

Section 8.2 Weather Effects

Rain -2
Storm -4
Snow* -4
Blizzard* -6

* +1 for each winterized unit attacking in Snow or Blizzard.
* -2 for each winterized unit defending in Snow or Blizzard.
Winterized units are: Ski, MTN, Swedish, Finnish, Norwegian, and elite Russian
units. When benefitting from winterized units, the first loss must be from one of
these units (further losses do not have to be from them).

It is done for EACH unit and the prompt should appear in each combat. I did some 2Die10 (attacking & defending) and the winterized options seems fine.

So no bug for winterized units.

-Rob

[joshuamnave]

Great, now try doing it as the Germans. Every time I use a german MTN in combat (2d10) in the snow, it offers me the option. If I accept, there is ZERO change to the die roll modifier, but if there are combat losses, it prompts me to kill the MTN unit first.

[joshuamnave]

I have a hunch that the problem is the prompt is triggering because it's counting German white prints as winterized, but the calculation is not. Just a guess, however.

[joshuamnave]

Never mind... tested it again. It's changing the die roll modifier in the combat result window, but not in the combat odds portion of the window. So the modifier, which is correct, is not matching the displayed expected modifier, which is incorrect. Still a bug, just not as big of one. But the mandatory losses is still a problem.

[Cad908]

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

Never mind... tested it again. It's changing the die roll modifier in the combat result window, but not in the combat odds portion of the window. So the modifier, which is correct, is not matching the displayed expected modifier, which is incorrect. Still a bug, just not as big of one. But the mandatory losses is still a problem.

To late. [:)]

Here are a couple of instances which might be helpful for others. (Combat in Snow)

Top Row
Combat displayed (Below hex) at +0 (10:5) which is (+4 for 2 to 1 odds, -4 for Snow)
After combat selected it goes to -2 (Soviet elite unit), and Germany is offered to use its MTN
Germany selects Yes and "leads" with the MTN and the combat is rolled for at -1

Bottom Row
Combat displayed at +4 (20:5) which is (+8 for 4 to 1 odds, -4 for Snow)
After combat selected it goes to +2 (Soviet elite unit), and Germany is offered to use its MTN
Germany selects Yes and "leads" with the MTN and the combat is rolled for at +3.

Note that the "Weather" row is updated under Die Roll Modifiers through the process, though the initial column does not change. I believe that is Steve's intent and do not see any issues here - except naturally taking any losses.

Take care,

-Rob

[joshuamnave]

I think I see where the confusion is coming in. And I don't understand this - please explain.

[Cad908]

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

I think I see where the confusion is coming in. And I don't understand this - please explain.

It is a straight 5 to 1 combat so the "Combat Ratio" is +10
Snow so the "Weather: is -4

So the Odds are displayed at +6 (45:9) which is the sum of Combat Ratio & Weather. That row will not change through the combat and it is the current Die mod. (net): +6 under "Die Roll Modifiers"

Germany is offered to use the MTN to get the +1 "winterized" unit attacking bonus. If Germany accepts, then the combat will go off at:

Die mod. (net): +7

Combat Ration: +10.00
Weather: -3.00
Fractional Odds: 0

-Rob

[joshuamnave]

No, that doesn't track. In your picture, it's a 4:1 attack and that's what's displayed on the left (+4 20:5). The sum of combat ratio and weather in yours is +2, which is what is displayed on the right under Die Roll Modifiers. In mine, the combat odds are 5:1, and the sum of the ration and weather is +6, and it displays +6 in both spots. Why does it display the sum in both spots on my picture, but the odds in one spot and the sum in the other spot in your picture.

[Cad908]

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

No, that doesn't track. In your picture, it's a 4:1 attack and that's what's displayed on the left (+4 20:5). The sum of combat ratio and weather in yours is +2, which is what is displayed on the right under Die Roll Modifiers. In mine, the combat odds are 5:1, and the sum of the ration and weather is +6, and it displays +6 in both spots. Why does it display the sum in both spots on my picture, but the odds in one spot and the sum in the other spot in your picture.

In mine, there is a Soviet elite unit which gets the winterized unit defending bonus (-2). After selecting the combat it gets added into the Weather row (Note how the weather mod is -6 in snow) and my pictures are after I selected the combat. Yours does not have a unit getting the defending winterized bonus, so its the same.

-Rob

[joshuamnave]

Great, so it's not a bug... just another ridiculously badly designed form that is more confusing than helpful. Awesome.

Your picture comes from the exact same phase as mine, but the Russian winterized bonus is already figured in. Nowhere in the form does it indicate that the Russians are *getting* a bonus, of course, it just shows the final odds and leaves it to the players to work out all of the additions and subtractions. That's just asinine.

[Cad908]

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

Great, so it's not a bug... just another ridiculously badly designed form that is more confusing than helpful. Awesome.

Your picture comes from the exact same phase as mine, but the Russian winterized bonus is already figured in. Nowhere in the form does it indicate that the Russians are *getting* a bonus, of course, it just shows the final odds and leaves it to the players to work out all of the additions and subtractions. That's just asinine.

I understand your frustration and do not want to engage in a debate on the topic. However, I would like to add a couple of brief comments.

Could this form be "better"? Well sure, I would like to have mouse overs so you could see the calculations for the bonuses. Players Manual #2, page 41 starts a discussion on this form which goes on for around 10 pages. Steve needed to factor in Standard vs 2Die10 CRT's, Blitz & Assult tables, Armored Modifiers, Engineers, Weather, Winterized (2Die10 & Standard), City (2Die10 versus Standard with the optional Blitz modifiers), ect. So there were many issues here and some method of standardizing the form was needed, and at some point to actually release a game. Just my view.

Take care,

-Rob

[paulderynck]

Hey Rob, I think the ambassador's post to North Korea is open. You seem like the man for the job. [:)]

[joshuamnave]

ORIGINAL: Cad908

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

Great, so it's not a bug... just another ridiculously badly designed form that is more confusing than helpful. Awesome.

Your picture comes from the exact same phase as mine, but the Russian winterized bonus is already figured in. Nowhere in the form does it indicate that the Russians are *getting* a bonus, of course, it just shows the final odds and leaves it to the players to work out all of the additions and subtractions. That's just asinine.

I understand your frustration and do not want to engage in a debate on the topic. However, I would like to add a couple of brief comments.

Could this form be "better"? Well sure, I would like to have mouse overs so you could see the calculations for the bonuses. Players Manual #2, page 41 starts a discussion on this form which goes on for around 10 pages. Steve needed to factor in Standard vs 2Die10 CRT's, Blitz & Assult tables, Armored Modifiers, Engineers, Weather, Winterized (2Die10 & Standard), City (2Die10 versus Standard with the optional Blitz modifiers), ect. So there were many issues here and some method of standardizing the form was needed, and at some point to actually release a game. Just my view.

Take care,

-Rob

And that's exactly why their needs to be more itemization. The RAC is 175 pages, not counting glossary and index, with multiple optional rules potentially in effect. Not only is it an enormous challenge for a new or newish player to keep track of them all, having an itemized list of modifiers would a) help avoid conversations like these. Believe it or not, I'm not an idiot - if the form is confusing enough for me to mistake it for a bug, there's a pretty good chance I'm not the only one confused by it. And b) an itemized list makes it *easier* to troubleshoot and spot *actual* bugs. Given the large number of those that exist in the game, doesn't it make sense to both prevent false bug reports and make it easier to spot genuine ones?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

Great, so it's not a bug... just another ridiculously badly designed form that is more confusing than helpful. Awesome.

Your picture comes from the exact same phase as mine, but the Russian winterized bonus is already figured in. Nowhere in the form does it indicate that the Russians are *getting* a bonus, of course, it just shows the final odds and leaves it to the players to work out all of the additions and subtractions. That's just asinine.

The form has limited space. I've crammed as much information as possible onto the form, but to list all the possibilities exceeds the room available - I tried very hard to do that and it wasn't possible.

The next step would be to have a separate popup form that explains all the details of the land combat calculations. That would be of some interest to some players, but primarily used to validate that they understand the rules correctly. As long as the program performs the calculations accurately, I don't see much need for changes here.

Over the board this situation would typically cause a long discussion/argument about the rules - which would only be resolved once all parties agree. In MWIF, the program does the calculations and provides some detailed and some summary information to the player.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

ORIGINAL: Cad908

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

Great, so it's not a bug... just another ridiculously badly designed form that is more confusing than helpful. Awesome.

Your picture comes from the exact same phase as mine, but the Russian winterized bonus is already figured in. Nowhere in the form does it indicate that the Russians are *getting* a bonus, of course, it just shows the final odds and leaves it to the players to work out all of the additions and subtractions. That's just asinine.

I understand your frustration and do not want to engage in a debate on the topic. However, I would like to add a couple of brief comments.

Could this form be "better"? Well sure, I would like to have mouse overs so you could see the calculations for the bonuses. Players Manual #2, page 41 starts a discussion on this form which goes on for around 10 pages. Steve needed to factor in Standard vs 2Die10 CRT's, Blitz & Assult tables, Armored Modifiers, Engineers, Weather, Winterized (2Die10 & Standard), City (2Die10 versus Standard with the optional Blitz modifiers), ect. So there were many issues here and some method of standardizing the form was needed, and at some point to actually release a game. Just my view.

Take care,

-Rob

And that's exactly why their needs to be more itemization. The RAC is 175 pages, not counting glossary and index, with multiple optional rules potentially in effect. Not only is it an enormous challenge for a new or newish player to keep track of them all, having an itemized list of modifiers would a) help avoid conversations like these. Believe it or not, I'm not an idiot - if the form is confusing enough for me to mistake it for a bug, there's a pretty good chance I'm not the only one confused by it. And b) an itemized list makes it *easier* to troubleshoot and spot *actual* bugs. Given the large number of those that exist in the game, doesn't it make sense to both prevent false bug reports and make it easier to spot genuine ones?

The itemized list is in Players Manual Volume 2, Pages 220 & 221: Notes for Odds Modifiers. It is a long list, over two columns in the manual. I had to use subtotals in order to fit everything on the form.

[joshuamnave]

Hogwash. More information is better, particularly when trying to improve your gameplay and when dealing with multiple conflicting bonuses.

There is ample room on the form. Observe.

[Cad908]

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

ORIGINAL: Cad908

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

Great, so it's not a bug... just another ridiculously badly designed form that is more confusing than helpful. Awesome.

Your picture comes from the exact same phase as mine, but the Russian winterized bonus is already figured in. Nowhere in the form does it indicate that the Russians are *getting* a bonus, of course, it just shows the final odds and leaves it to the players to work out all of the additions and subtractions. That's just asinine.

I understand your frustration and do not want to engage in a debate on the topic. However, I would like to add a couple of brief comments.

Could this form be "better"? Well sure, I would like to have mouse overs so you could see the calculations for the bonuses. Players Manual #2, page 41 starts a discussion on this form which goes on for around 10 pages. Steve needed to factor in Standard vs 2Die10 CRT's, Blitz & Assult tables, Armored Modifiers, Engineers, Weather, Winterized (2Die10 & Standard), City (2Die10 versus Standard with the optional Blitz modifiers), ect. So there were many issues here and some method of standardizing the form was needed, and at some point to actually release a game. Just my view.

Take care,

-Rob

And that's exactly why their needs to be more itemization. The RAC is 175 pages, not counting glossary and index, with multiple optional rules potentially in effect. Not only is it an enormous challenge for a new or newish player to keep track of them all, having an itemized list of modifiers would a) help avoid conversations like these. Believe it or not, I'm not an idiot - if the form is confusing enough for me to mistake it for a bug, there's a pretty good chance I'm not the only one confused by it. And b) an itemized list makes it *easier* to troubleshoot and spot *actual* bugs. Given the large number of those that exist in the game, doesn't it make sense to both prevent false bug reports and make it easier to spot genuine ones?

Steve spoke to the design considerations, but I would like to add a couple of other points.

Winterized units work now. That is progress, but I am a glass half-full kind of person. [8|]

World in Flames is an insanely complicated game. One of the primary reasons for the Matrix version is to implement the rule book so we can actually play the game, not be hamstrung with record keeping and debating rules. Where is it safe to just implement the rules, and when should the player be guided as to what is going on? There are many aids built into the game (contextual help for example) but are they enough? All of this is very subjective and these decisions were made within the constraints of limited time and resources.

Getting new players comfortable playing the game is an immense challenge. There are two basic types of purchasers - familiar to experienced board players & Newbies to the game - and each have different needs. Board game veterans want to learn the interface and know how to do something, and then often debate different strategies. Newbies also need the interface tips, but also are looking for information on what they should be doing. I spend most of my time in the public forum trying to answer questions. No one thinks you are an "idiot", and the questions you have are shared by many others. I appreciate the time you spend to raise issues and we try to respond in a helpful manner.

In the long run I think its healthy, as the game will get better because of the feedback. Then again, thats from a glass half-full person.

-Rob

[joshuamnave]

ORIGINAL: Cad908
Steve spoke to the design considerations, but I would like to add a couple of other points.

Winterized units work now. That is progress, but I am a glass half-full kind of person. [8|]

World in Flames is an insanely complicated game. One of the primary reasons for the Matrix version is to implement the rule book so we can actually play the game, not be hamstrung with record keeping and debating rules. Where is it safe to just implement the rules, and when should the player be guided as to what is going on? There are many aids built into the game (contextual help for example) but are they enough? All of this is very subjective and these decisions were made within the constraints of limited time and resources.

Getting new players comfortable playing the game is an immense challenge. There are two basic types of purchasers - familiar to experienced board players & Newbies to the game - and each have different needs. Board game veterans want to learn the interface and know how to do something, and then often debate different strategies. Newbies also need the interface tips, but also are looking for information on what they should be doing. I spend most of my time in the public forum trying to answer questions. No one thinks you are an "idiot", and the questions you have are shared by many others. I appreciate the time you spend to raise issues and we try to respond in a helpful manner.

In the long run I think its healthy, as the game will get better because of the feedback. Then again, thats from a glass half-full person.

-Rob

I understand your point and realize that I'm just shouting into the wind, but I think it's important enough to keep charging at the windmill anyway.

1) I fail to see how including more information in a way similar to my edited screenshot would negatively impact the veteran players that don't need the information. If it really is a problem, I don't see why it would be difficult to include an interface setting "detailed combat odds on/off" toggle. I also don't see why making the game easy only for veteran players is a good marketing decision, but that's someone else's headache.
2) Forums are a good source of information. But there are about 30 people that regularly post here, I would hope that only a small percentage of people who have purchased the game are represented. If it's a large percentage, that's an entirely different problem.
3) The more complex an application is (and MWiF is, in the end, just a very complex app) the more important an easy to use, intuitive interface becomes. MWiF fails on this score. I've pointed out several areas where the interface is just plain not up to par - different forms showing embarked units above or below their transports, confusing combat odds, the very cumbersome resources transportation form, allocating engineers to combat, etc... For a game with a premium price tag, this stuff should be seamless, and it is not.
4) The manual and the player's handbooks are nice to look at and full of information, but poorly indexed. I spent 20 minutes trying to find the "It's War!" chart a few nights back. I looked up every entry listed for US Entry in the index of the handbooks and the manual and couldn't find it. I did finally find it among the charts listed in game. But perversely, the 2d10 chart isn't there and the entry for it in the view window is greyed out. I'm 43 years old and my eyesight isn't what it used to be - the one in the rulebook is pretty small print.
5) I'm a glass half full kind of guy too, which is why it's taken this long for my frustration to reach this point. I'm frustrated that a bug so big and so easily discovered as the align Australia bug ever made it into a live patch, and I'm even more frustrated that it took a week to fix it. Something with that large an effect on game play needs a hot fix. So when you say that you're glad that winterized units are working now, so we should be happy - no. They should have worked on day one, and patches now should be used to fix the petty and cosmetic stuff.
6) It's also hard to be a half full kind of guy when a bug gets fixed but only for some people, and that's good enough. Because you know, I paid the same for the game as everyone else and it kind of sucks to be in the group of people for whom the bug is not fixed, and have no progress get made on it. Kind of really sucks.

/rant off

Glad to see the overseas supply bug was fixed. Hope to see progress on the Bermuda Triangle bug, the ghost convoys, the invulnerable peacekeepers, my freakin' US build point, and the rest of the long standing bugs soon. And then I hope hope hope some attention will be given to the interface.

[Numdydar]

As soneone who is completely new to WiF, I just wanted to add that I really appreicate the effort Zartacla is putting into getting the game fixed. I understand that for him and maybe others like him, this is desired so they can assure themselves the game IS doing everything correctly. For me I do not care [:)]

Even with the form the way it is, I just look at the final odds and hit Roll. Even if there was more details provided, I would never take the time to go through in that much detail. While that may make me a 'bad' player in some eyes, to me it just means I play differently.

So the bottom line is to get active bugs fixed. Then when the AI release comes along, maybe enhance the UI so everyone is as happy as I am [:)]