Yet to be coded Options

[warspite1]

Well I hope no one pays any attention to these lists - otherwise Convoys In Flames isn't going to get done [:(]

[AlbertN]

I'd start with the City Volounteers - which imo is mostly done as those units are similar to Militias except they're freebies for the first time.

And next with the Interception on the Path - that ... well ... I deem it quite relevant to not have to scatter across Germany a ton of fighters just because the strat bombers of the Allies "teleport" through them.

To go step by step is quite necessary here so a long list is nothign I've made yet.

[brian brian]

Number Zero: 100% User Control over convoy routes. Just don't let the user complete the phase until Trade Agreements are met and enforce the rule that way.

Number Zero.Five: A move-the-counters mode where we can use the beautiful maps and enforce the rules ourselves. This could have been done ten years ago and would have launched early sales and put money in Matrix and ADG pockets rather than see players use CyberBoard and Vassal all these years.



Isolated reorganization limits
USSR-Japan compulsory peace (critical to true multi-player WWII, including creating custom Non-Aggression Pacts)
Guard Banner Armies (an important balance to the "Italian Luftwaffe" strategy that ADG refuses to address)
En-route aircraft interception
City based Volunteers
Frogmen
Naval Supply units
Convoys in Flames
PARTisan HQ
Tankers

Intelligence - would add a click through button to every die roll whenever someone had enough Intell to spend, and could be done. It can be an interesting part of the game, I like peeking at the Weather Roll by sending the U-Boat Weather Team off to Greenland. But the Rule-As-Written is too heavily pro-Allied and this would need to go into some adaptation of the new rules coming in WiF8, where Intell is too expensive for anyone to want to try it much


The rest I don't care, though I would prefer raising the cost of Pilots to 3 BP over trying to add Bounce Combat to a play-over-the-net game.

[paulderynck]

Intelligence - having to click through every freakin' die roll in a game of WiF (there are over 6000 in a typical Global War Campaign game, BTW) strikes me as extremely non-intelligent. I know, I know, skip it when one side doesn't have any I-points, etc... I have done some programming and that option strikes me as about the toughest one on the list to program so as to follow the optional rule correctly and not be a complete PITA.

Besides I've never, ever played this game with intelligence! [;)]

[jusi]

If it could be useful to someone to set priorities after having fixed the critical bugs...

indispensable:

0. Non-agression Pacts
1. Isolated Reorganization
2. En-route aircraft interception

important:

3. USSR-Japan Compulsory Peace
4. Convoy in Flames & oil tankers
5. Surprised ZOCs

would be used:

6. Limited Aircraft Interception
7. Rough Seas
8. Recruitment Limits
9. City Based Volunteers
10. Naval Offensive Chit
11. Bounced Air Combat
12. Naval Supply Units
13. Japanese Command Conflict
14. Guards Banner Armies
15. Intelligence
16. Kamikazes, Flying Bombs, V-weapon, Atomic Bombs
17. Partisan HQs
18. The Ukraine
19. Frogmen

Would remain probably unused:

20. Hitler's war

[Omnius]

What are you voting on, MWiF option or pretty girls? I think this is rather immaterial as it looks like all of these options are going to be released with the new 3.0 version to go on sale in the yet-to-be-determined future. Then they'll all be released at the same time.

Omnius

[brian brian]

I've never understood the why "Limited Aircraft Interception" rule was even written and I don't think it has any future in the game. World in Flames is not a hey-the-Jerries-are-coming-scramble-the-Spitfires tactical air combat game. Turns are two months long and a land "attack" is many days to a week of sustained combat. Fighter aircraft fly over the hexes in just a few hours.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I've never understood the why "Limited Aircraft Interception" rule was even written and I don't think it has any future in the game. World in Flames is not a hey-the-Jerries-are-coming-scramble-the-Spitfires tactical air combat game. Turns are two months long and a land "attack" is many days to a week of sustained combat. Fighter aircraft fly over the hexes in just a few hours.

I think it was written because of those long range escort fighters. Even though a bombing mission is considered to be several missions over several days each individual mission does not last that long. The fighters flying hours before reaching the target hex would in reality be to late to intercept the bombing mission.

I have no trouble with a rule that reduce the effectiveness of the Black Widow as a interceptor. Or other fighters intercepting from far away. I have yet to play with it because it seems to be a pain to play with when you play the board game. But with a computer handling it then it might be different.

[AlbertN]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I've never understood the why "Limited Aircraft Interception" rule was even written and I don't think it has any future in the game. World in Flames is not a hey-the-Jerries-are-coming-scramble-the-Spitfires tactical air combat game. Turns are two months long and a land "attack" is many days to a week of sustained combat. Fighter aircraft fly over the hexes in just a few hours.

I've never understood the why "Limited Aircraft Interception" rule was even written and I don't think it has any future in the game. World in Flames is not a hey-the-Jerries-are-coming-scramble-the-Spitfires tactical air combat game. Turns are two months long and a land "attack" is many days to a week of sustained combat. Fighter aircraft fly over the hexes in just a few hours.

Well ... simply because bombers do not "teleport" on the target; the longer is the journey the more they were exposed to interceptions and AA even.

On the other hand is quite absurd that ingame the bombers of the Allies (or the Germans if so) fly just through screens of fighter squadrons fielded upfront for that exact purpose.

You do not see it having a future - to me it's a must instead.

[joshuamnave]

In a FTF game I would always want to play with en route interception. But on the computer, I can't see any way to implement it that doesn't involve adding hundreds of mouse clicks, and that doesn't sound fun to me.

I'd rather see an optional rule that allows fighters to intercept strat bombers using their full range.

[brian brian]

"En-Route Interception" is an optional rule that allows fighters to intercept a bomber at every 4th hex along a route it might take to a target. One example of where I want it in a game is when the Germans fly Condors from Calais to the Faeroes Gap sea zone and all of Fighter Command in the southern UK can't figure out what to do about it, though the more common use is during Western Allied bombing attacks on Germany.

I put that one high on my list because we generally use the rule in a game, though it only usually happens a handful of times in each game. It could be handled on a computer by allowing the player with Fighters to set Standing Orders. Or, it's just part of the game when playing Hot-Seat, as with naval moves through multiple sea zones with enemy forces.


"Limited Interception" is a different optional rule that is rarely used. It means that a Fighter can't intercept a Bomber if the Bomber flew less hexes to the target than the Fighter. I understand Orm's point about the magic Black Widow appearing from ten hexes away to intercept. However no Air Mission in World in Flames is a single sortie, but rather a series of such attacks (perhaps excepting CV Port Strikes). When bombers appear a 2nd day, and a 3rd, the defenders would bring in Fighters even from far away. They might technically have to fly in Fighter cover on speculation that the enemy Bombers would appear again, which would technically be a form of Combat Air Patrol, but that would be an example of dragging strategic decisions into tactical ones. Maybe in a regimental level game played with one day turns it would be wise to suggest that the Stuka came from 50 km behind the lines so the Hurricane can't intercept from 100 km away, but not at the scale of World in Flames. Fighters intercepting at half range (with a CAP option to use full range) is a simple enough way to make basing decisions a part of the game and works well enough as it is.

Edit to add: Limited Interception would likely be quite simple to code. But I think it is already used so little that it won't be a part of future editions of the game.

[Centuur]

I don't think En-route interception will be difficult to code. The basics are already there, being the air-to-air combat sequence. Add a question for interception every fourth hex the bomber moves into (and force the player to move the bomber no more than four hexes a time) if FTR's can intercept and you've got it...

[Centuur]

Double...

[AxelNL]

do we have enough input to make a summary?

[joshuamnave]

I don't think en route interception will be difficult to code - I think it will be difficult to use. Having to fly every bombing mission in 4 hex increments will get old very fast. My point was that in a face to face game it's easy to handle optional interupts, but in a computerized implementation it quickly becomes a hassle. I know it's not an option, but I'd still much rather give fighters double intercept range against strat bombers. It accomplishes much the same thing with much less hassle.

[AlbertN]

Meanwhile I agree it could turn into a hassle to move X bombers by 4 hexes each step - on the other hand to double interception range or simply not halve it for Strat-Bombing does not solve the problem in my opinion.
UK - pratically the only Allies with a serious risk of being Strat-Bombed can easily pack defences in few hexes; and USA fighters later on have amazing ranges because they also need to go at sea!

Germany on the other hand needs badly its upfront net of interceptors otherwise even if having more fighters than the Allies, due to their extreme scattering the Allies will always find targets to strat bomb.

So no - to not halve the interception range for Strat-Bombing is quite a palliative measure.

[Centuur]

Personally, I think that first order should be to code:

Search and Seizure,

Neutrality pacts

and

Mutual Peace

Since those three are part of the main game and not an optional according to RAW. Especially the last one is going to be difficult, since the rules aren't specific enough...

[brian brian]

Zartacia's idea is pretty good. Air units that fight at sea (entering the zone from anywhere) have so much greater flexibility than air over land.

Of course, the power of computing technology could be harnessed - no need to fly 4 hex routes on many, many air missions as there is no fighter in range, and the computer has to figure that out already to enforce the rules. And along with adding this one could come the first attempts at allowing standing orders for units, which would help even in live net play. So you could deploy a brand new Me-262 in the Ruhr at the reinforcement phase, but leave it on the ground the first time the Allies fly over it with all their brand new P-51s escorting the Liberators, because your real orders for the new jets are to regain air superiority over the slow-building Allied bridgehead south of the Loire. And tell MWiF what to do accordingly.

Think about live net play for a bit - do you really want to sit at your computer screen, waiting to click Yes or No on every possible interception and CAP possibility when you are the inactive player? You should have the option to do so, sure. But making the decision in advance would be nice as well.

[Grotius]

ORIGINAL: warspite1Well I hope no one pays any attention to these lists - otherwise Convoys In Flames isn't going to get done [:(]

Pardon my newbish confusion, but isn't Convoys in Flames already in the game? Or maybe just parts of it are in the game? If so, what's in, and what's missing?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Grotius

ORIGINAL: warspite1Well I hope no one pays any attention to these lists - otherwise Convoys In Flames isn't going to get done [:(]

Pardon my newbish confusion, but isn't Convoys in Flames already in the game? Or maybe just parts of it are in the game? If so, what's in, and what's missing?

warspite1

No its not in the game. Convoys In Flames introduces all those gorgeous ASW counters that I'm gagging to get my hands on [:(]