air combat w/ orange FTR

[4personalbusiness]

Using v.2.3.4. A2A combat with German 5 factor Ju 88C (orange) vs 6 factor Yak-T9 flying as bomber (5 A2A rating therefore). no other planes. So, the game calculated "0" odds.

Axis rolls 16, which the program scored as DX PX.
Allies roll 6, which the program scored as AA

The A2A chart indicates the result should have been Axis: DX PF and Allies AA (before accounting for orange penalty)

My question is shouldn't the Axis roll of 16 have resulted in an AA since its FTR is orange (twin)? It actually looks like the result was changed in the OTHER direction from DX PF to DX PX.

Or is there some other result modification that I'm failing to take into account. Thanks, Pete

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: 4personalbusiness

Using v.2.3.4. A2A combat with German 5 factor Ju 88C (orange) vs 6 factor Yak-T9 flying as bomber (5 A2A rating therefore). no other planes. So, the game calculated "0" odds.

Axis rolls 16, which the program scored as DX PX.
Allies roll 6, which the program scored as AA

The A2A chart indicates the result should have been Axis: DX PF and Allies AA (before accounting for orange penalty)

My question is shouldn't the Axis roll of 16 have resulted in an AA since its FTR is orange (twin)? It actually looks like the result was changed in the OTHER direction from DX PF to DX PX.

Or is there some other result modification that I'm failing to take into account. Thanks, Pete

Flying as a bomber means the USSR air unit is not a 'fighter'.

Edit: The program makes the translation from PF to either pilot lives or PX (pilot dies) based on the situation in the hex where the combat occurs. That means that PF is never shown as a result in MWIF (although it is used internally to determine the pilot's fate.

[4personalbusiness]

Ohhh, so the orange penalty only counts when it's FTR vs FTR. Ok, got it. And the DX PF was upgraded to a DX PX because the air combat didn't occur over friendly territory. Figured that one out on my own! Duh.

[4personalbusiness]

Thanks! BTW, for what it's worth, Lars and I are at the end of MJ44 using v2.3.4 in solitaire mode and we haven't faced any show stoppers. Yes, the convoys must be continually whipped into shape and there are some pesky production planning issues. But, it looks like we're gonna be able to complete this PBEM game. So, I just want to say thank-you because we've been having a blast playing in this mode. Pete

[Joseignacio]

How is PBEM handled?

I am sure it's detailed somewhere but I didn't follow it because I don't like that stuff, but now a friend of mine is curious about how it manages all the interactions of interceptions, rolls, etc., because it doesn't seem to be effective to wait a lot of time for each of these...

[paulderynck]

MWiF doesn't handle them. People work around them. They use any combination of:

- "do what I'd do and I accept that occasionally I might not have done that"
- some form of instant messaging like Skype has or phone texting, which permits people who are online a lot to reply quickly with a text for their decision
- standing instructions sent with the last game save, like "for ground strikes this plane here is flying CAP over that hex there"
- those of us using a dedicated PC or server with Teamviewer get a text that it's our turn to do something, then connect and do it, and then text that it's back to the other player
- or they just live with the extra delay of almost all such decisions require an email (these people have the time and are not bugged by the leisurely pace of play)

[4personalbusiness]

Hi Jose! Let me give you (and your friend) a briefing about playing by email (PBEM). The first thing to realize is a full Global War PBEM game takes about a year to play, which makes it a completely different experience than playing face to face (FTF). Some people hate that but I love the time if gives for detailed war planning, etc. And, obviously, you can have more than one game going at the same time (my maximum is 3). Lars and have been playing our current game since June of 2016 and have exchanged 570 game files in that time...and we are now in the production phase of MJ44. We "play", i.e., exchange game files, every day so I don't think it's feasible to play a PBEM game much faster. Another positive thing about the PBEM experience is that players can be in different time zones and scheduling is never an issue. Lars is on the west coast of the USA and therefore is three hours behind me. Because of the asynchronous nature of PBEM, you can easily play with people all over the world.

To answer your question about interceptions and player reactions, this is the biggest issue facing PBEM players. It is virtually impossible for players to make each and every decision on reactions. So, PBEM players have developed ways of handling this that I think work well. There are many cases where this comes into play but let's take the obvious example of a complex air combat: The phasing player runs the combat and plays on behalf of BOTH sides. Prior to combat, the non-phasing player emails instructions about which planes to fly, his line-up, and general orders about which planes to to kill/abort/clear, when to abort combat, and where to rebase planes afterwards. Then it's up to the phasing player to implement those orders on behalf of the non-phasing player. Lars and I use the game's internal die roller, which requires the honor system, but you can also use a third party die roller like ACTS which emails die rolls to both players. Obviously, this eliminates any chance of cheating.

There are two obvious weaknesses of this approach: 1) the phasing player may not implement the non-phasing player's instructions perfectly and 2) it assumes both players are reasonably competent--a beginner phasing player might not be able to implement the non-phasing player's instructions properly. In the first case, "mistakes" rarely happen. But when they do, I consider them to be part of the "fog of war". However, if there's ever a case where the non-phasing player feels "wronged", then you can always just redo the combat. But, be careful what you wish for!! Regarding the second problem, I have never played with a beginner so I can't really say how this would work out.

Another important PBEM limitation is that it is not good for a multi-player game. Maybe others think differently, but I can't see how you could play with more than two players. But, hey, you can't have everything! While I do miss the dynamic of having partners, this is a sacrifice I'm willing to make. Obviously, others feel differently.

Finally, some players have criticized PBEM games for a lack of personal interaction. These players enjoy speaking with their partners/opponents in real time, which simulates the FTF experience. If you enjoy that part of the game, then PBEM is definitely not for you. Personally, I haven't played FTF since 1986 so it doesn't bother me at all. In fact, I prefer the pacing of PBEM games and avoiding the headaches of trying to schedule times to play with other busy people.

The last PBEM drawback I'll mention is that it requires the non-phasing player to give up some control of reactions as I mentioned above. I've noticed some players don't like that and want to be in control of even the smallest decision ("Geez, I would have rebased that FTR two more hexes to the east!"). Again, I don't mind this because I think it simulates the "fog of war" when, for example, stupid pilots might not follow their general's instructions 100% of the time. But, strictly speaking, this part of a PBEM game certainly does NOT follow RAW.

I hope this helps. PBEM is not for everyone but it does represent a viable and enjoyable way to play MWIF in it's current state of development. Please let me know if you have any questions or need any more information. Also, I would be happy to start a PBEM game with you (or anyone else here) so you can experience it yourself. I have one slot open!

Pete

[Joseignacio]

Thanks a lot, both. I thought it had been programmed and I was [X(] but when my friend asked me how did it work and then I was [&:]. I'll pass it to him

[brian brian]

One could also "hybridize" - do naval/air/land combat "live" with each player "online" communicating with the opponent via text, Instant Message, chat room, Skype, even good old fashioned voice phone service (I have unlimited voice service, but not unlimited data). The players are connected, but not the MWiF software. Then when the first air combat roll is a "DX", the D player verbally selects the front fighter or bomber and the A player inputs the decision in to MWiF. Then when the impulse ends the game file is emailed to the other player. This would generally require players in similar time zones. But then, so would I-don't-want-to-do-anything-extra NetPlay. The game is playable remotely, now. Bugs are another matter but I think Steve is steadily winning those battles. Waiting for perfectly perfected NetPlay is one's own loss.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

One could also "hybridize" - do naval/air/land combat "live" with each player "online" communicating with the opponent via text, Instant Message, chat room, Skype, even good old fashioned voice phone service (I have unlimited voice service, but not unlimited data). The players are connected, but not the MWiF software. Then when the first air combat roll is a "DX", the D player verbally selects the front fighter or bomber and the A player inputs the decision in to MWiF. Then when the impulse ends the game file is emailed to the other player. This would generally require players in similar time zones. But then, so would I-don't-want-to-do-anything-extra NetPlay. The game is playable remotely, now. Bugs are another matter but I think Steve is steadily winning those battles. Waiting for perfectly perfected NetPlay is one's own loss.

Skype will let you see the other person's screen. That might be worthwhile for making the air-to-air combat decisions.