Optional Rules

[rkr1958]

From time to time I like to revisit the set of optional rules that I use and honestly I also do enjoy a good discussion on the optional rules. Below is a summary of the advance, standard and novice optional rules settings for MWiF. Those rules that are struck through are currently not coded, some of which will never be coded.

I actually saw a few things that I found interesting where comparing the three different settings (i.e., advance, standard & novice).

1. Supply units are enabled for standard but not advance.
2. Territorials are only enabled for advance (i.e., not standard too).
3. In the presence of the enemy is not enable for any (would thought it would be in advance at least).
4. Blitz bonus in enabled for advance but since the 2D10 CRT is too blitz bonus is irrelevant.
5. Variable reorganization costs is enabled for standard but not for advance.
6. Partisans aren't included in standard (only advance).
7. Cruisers in flames not included in any (would thought they might be in advance).
8. Additional Chinese cities, which is enabled for standard & novice, isn't for advance.
9. Breaking the Nazi-Soviet pact not included in any.

While I know, or at least believe, the three settings are really starting points I do find the above interesting.

[Courtenay]

Thank you for doing this. Omitting Supply Units in advanced is strange.

Interesting that Construction Engineers is on in Advanced. That is one rule that I would have off under all conditions. Some rules hurt the Axis. Some rules hurt the Allies. Some rules hurt the side on the offensive. Some rules hurt the side on the defensive. Some rules make the game nicer to play for all sides. Construction Engineers makes the game nastier to play for all sides.

[pzgndr]

You might want to include a fourth column for the proposed AI optional rules set, which I understand will be a single custom set only. I disagree with this idea and would prefer games could be played with either Advanced, Standard, or Novice rules sets and an AI capable of playing by the applicable optional rules. At least players could have a choice. Since the AI is still in development and its optional rules are not locked in, maybe Steve will reconsider having only a single set. Players will need to understand what they're getting into.

[alexvand]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

You might want to include a fourth column for the proposed AI optional rules set, which I understand will be a single custom set only. I disagree with this idea and would prefer games could be played with either Advanced, Standard, or Novice rules sets and an AI capable of playing by the applicable optional rules. At least players could have a choice. Since the AI is still in development and its optional rules are not locked in, maybe Steve will reconsider having only a single set. Players will need to understand what they're getting into.

You really expect Steve to have the time to code an AI that can manage multiple rulesets? I think that's just not realistic. The AI will need to be coded for one ruleset, otherwise I will die of old age before it is playable. (I'm only 47, but I know others are further along that road than me!)

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: alexvand
You really expect Steve to have the time to code an AI that can manage multiple rulesets? I think that's just not realistic.

Whether or not Steve codes the AI for different rulesets is up to him. The first part of my comment simply pointed out that the proposed AI ruleset is different than the other three, and could be included in the matrix above. So for players playing solitaire in anticipation of the AI, they could make a custom ruleset like the AI ruleset and get used to playing with that one particular ruleset. Whether they like that selection or not. It seems unnecessarily restrictive, in that players will not be able to play the AI at the Novice level, then Standard, and then Advanced as they progress. Well, so be it then...

Edit. Perhaps a compromise could be considered, where players are able to select one of the default rulesets for themselves and the AI does what it does under its ruleset. Where something may be incompatible and unworkable then the AI could be restricted. For example, where the player may not want divisions but the AI has them, combat should still be fine. But other rules may be problematic. Play balance would likely be skewed one way or another, so players would have to accept that. Just a thought.

[alexvand]

I just want to point out that your compromise requires more coding. Steve has a finite amount of time. The AI will need to be created using a single set of rules first. The coding of multiple rules makes it more complex and means it will be longer before we get a chance to play it.

Perhaps when it is functional and capable of playing the game with that additional optionals could be coded in, but given how complex the coding project for this game has been already I'm not holding my breath.

If Steve can even make an AI playable with a single set of rules that will astound me. I'm not hoping for extras just yet.

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: alexvand
The AI will need to be created using a single set of rules first. The coding of multiple rules makes it more complex...

Sorry, I am not convinced that you know what you are talking about. If a single optional rule is coded and selected for use, then the code will perform certain functions differently than the default game; else the option is OFF and the code will perform the default functions. That's it. Empires in Arms has selectable options and players can select any combination they want, and the game handles the selections accordingly. [AI performance is another issue, and I'm working on that.] Of course coding multiple options makes things more complex, and this is true for Steve's custom ruleset for the AI regardless of which options he includes. Apparently, the game 'works' for most any player selection of options for a custom ruleset, yes?, so really the challenge is implementing the particular options for the AI and whether an option is implementable or not.

The main issue here is the choice of options and his basis for including or excluding certain ones. If there is to be only one AI ruleset, it's not clear why this isn't the Standard ruleset. Shouldn't it be?? Let players learn the game playing solitaire on Novice settings and then advance to the Standard ruleset when ready to play the computer opponent. Later, the Novice and Advanced optional rulesets could be implemented for the AI as time permits. Maybe his AI ruleset choices make sense to you; it's not clear to me. Whatever.

Back to my original point, regardless of what Steve chooses to do. His proposed AI optional ruleset, for better or worse, is different than the three default rulesets and a fourth column should be included in the summary matrix above for players to see what they're getting. Perhaps rkr1958 grasps this simple point and will add a column. That isn't too difficult and not worth arguing about. Cheers.

[rkr1958]

FYI: Summary (or Survey) of the optional rules that I've used throughout the years (both solo and multi-player).

[rkr1958]

Screen cap of the Excel based (crude) tool I developed for the above survey. I can also use this tool to modify through editing the optional rules of a current game. CAUTION: Many optional rules if changed after the game has been started will unstablize/corrupt the game file.

The input tab sheet is used to copy the optional rule settings from a given file. The output tab sheet takes inputs under the output column of the optional rules tab sheet and converts them to -1's (on) and 0's (off). One could then save that sheet as a comma delimited (csv) file, open it up in a text editor and copy that line over the equivalent line in a given game file to modify optional rule settings. Again, CAUTION when one does that. Only rules that don't involved adding and removing units (e.g., CLIFs, divisions) can be modified without corrupting the game.

[rkr1958]

(Crude) initial version of optional rules analysis excel spreadsheet provided as is. Folks are free to use as they wish and, if used to modify a game, at their own risk/peril.

[pzgndr]

Here's what I was getting at. I am basing the AI ruleset on what Steve recently posted at Scrap Lists and Saved Setups Wanted on 1/16/2021. This is different than the Tentative List for the Core Rule Set for the AI Opponent posted on 11/28/2017. The newer list appears more reasonable than the earlier one.

What's interesting are several rules proposed for the AI that are not included in any of the Advanced/Standard/Novice rulesets, but I didn't go back and verify rkr1958's On/Off selections. Examples: Bottomed ships, In the presence of the enemy, Defensive shore bombardment. And then some included in Advanced/Standard but not for AI; e.g., Carpet bombing. Maybe Steve has good reasons for these exceptions, and maybe players have some comments to make. Now, before Steve gets deep into AI code work, would be the time to reconsider some of these. In general, the list appears reasonable.

A question would be whether players could further customize their games by toggling OFF some of the options. Obviously we cannot toggle ON any other option that is not coded for the AI, but turning some off should be possible without upsetting things. Just a thought. Anyways, playing against the AI computer opponent one of these days is the goal, even if it's just one default Core Rule Set.