How I would have done production

World in Flames is the computer version of Australian Design Group classic board game. World In Flames is a highly detailed game covering the both Europe and Pacific Theaters of Operations during World War II. If you want grand strategy this game is for you.

Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets

Post Reply
User avatar
Courtenay
Posts: 4396
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:34 pm

How I would have done production

Post by Courtenay »

If I had been coding MWiF, I would not have had the preliminary production phase do anything; it would be for planning purposes only. Then, I would have split final production into two parts: trade agreements, and everything else. WiF has a rule that trade agreements must be fulfilled if possible, and if it is not possible, then the resources or build points are lost. So do the trades first, lock them in, and then have a second stage where everything else is done. If you fouled up (what? me make a mistake in production? I can't even say "Hardly ever") then you could go back to the trade step without having to go through the agony of the Stay at Sea and Return to Base steps.

Oh, well. A fantasy.
I thought I knew how to play this game....
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 31014
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

Re: How I would have done production

Post by rkr1958 »

Courtenay wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:42 pm If I had been coding MWiF, I would not have had the preliminary production phase do anything; it would be for planning purposes only. Then, I would have split final production into two parts: trade agreements, and everything else. WiF has a rule that trade agreements must be fulfilled if possible, and if it is not possible, then the resources or build points are lost. So do the trades first, lock them in, and then have a second stage where everything else is done. If you fouled up (what? me make a mistake in production? I can't even say "Hardly ever") then you could go back to the trade step without having to go through the agony of the Stay at Sea and Return to Base steps.

Oh, well. A fantasy.
Well, maybe not a fantasy if you're willing to handle things "off" the books (i.e,. outside of MWIF).

Personally, I'm through with going back to SAS & RTB to get production right. I calculate what I think it should be for better or worse (i.e., right & wrong) and if that doesn't match what I'm seeing in MWIF I then edit in BPs and/or oil as appropriate to make it match. Sure, my approach is subject to miscalculation (mistake) on my part. However; I'm willing to live with that error, which is no different if playing over the board, versus having to spend countless hours wresting with MWIF and/or accepting what if finally gives me.
Ronnie
User avatar
Centuur
Posts: 9083
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:03 pm
Location: Hoorn (NED).

Re: How I would have done production

Post by Centuur »

Courtenay wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:42 pm If I had been coding MWiF, I would not have had the preliminary production phase do anything; it would be for planning purposes only. Then, I would have split final production into two parts: trade agreements, and everything else. WiF has a rule that trade agreements must be fulfilled if possible, and if it is not possible, then the resources or build points are lost. So do the trades first, lock them in, and then have a second stage where everything else is done. If you fouled up (what? me make a mistake in production? I can't even say "Hardly ever") then you could go back to the trade step without having to go through the agony of the Stay at Sea and Return to Base steps.

Oh, well. A fantasy.
It is. Because it's not so simple as you've described here. Think about it for a moment: if you split those two things, you might not get maximum production, because the convoys could be used more efficiënt if a different resource is used for trading overseas than the program is thinking during the first stage. And that becomes even more important, when you have to trade build points overseas.

And apart from that: I am be able to get production planning to work. I have to add nothing using debug or other tools.
Peter
User avatar
Joseignacio
Posts: 3114
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 11:25 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: How I would have done production

Post by Joseignacio »

Courtenay wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:42 pm If I had been coding MWiF, I would not have had the preliminary production phase do anything; it would be for planning purposes only. Then, I would have split final production into two parts: trade agreements, and everything else. WiF has a rule that trade agreements must be fulfilled if possible, and if it is not possible, then the resources or build points are lost. So do the trades first, lock them in, and then have a second stage where everything else is done. If you fouled up (what? me make a mistake in production? I can't even say "Hardly ever") then you could go back to the trade step without having to go through the agony of the Stay at Sea and Return to Base steps.

Oh, well. A fantasy.
It is simple, the player should be able to do the production by himself. Without being overridden by the computer wrong designs.

That is all.

Even those that through many circumvolutions can surpass the Artificial Stupidity flaws need a lot of experience, and knowledge on how to do it. A regular player simply wont do it.
Last edited by Joseignacio on Thu Nov 30, 2023 4:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Centuur
Posts: 9083
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:03 pm
Location: Hoorn (NED).

Re: How I would have done production

Post by Centuur »

Joseignacio wrote: Tue Nov 28, 2023 1:01 pm
Courtenay wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:42 pm If I had been coding MWiF, I would not have had the preliminary production phase do anything; it would be for planning purposes only. Then, I would have split final production into two parts: trade agreements, and everything else. WiF has a rule that trade agreements must be fulfilled if possible, and if it is not possible, then the resources or build points are lost. So do the trades first, lock them in, and then have a second stage where everything else is done. If you fouled up (what? me make a mistake in production? I can't even say "Hardly ever") then you could go back to the trade step without having to go through the agony of the Stay at Sea and Return to Base steps.

Oh, well. A fantasy.
It is simple, the player should be able to do the production by himself. Without being overrided by the computer wrong designs.

That is all.

Even those that through many circumvolutions can surpass the Artificial Stupidity flaws need a lot of experience, and knowledge on how to do it. A regular player simply wont do it.
MWIF needs to enforce the rules. If everything has to be done manually, MWIF still needs to check the manual instructions. And that's not so easy, because IMHO if it was, we would not have this discussion at all.
Peter
User avatar
juntoalmar
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 2:08 pm
Location: Valencia
Contact:

Re: How I would have done production

Post by juntoalmar »

Centuur wrote: Tue Nov 28, 2023 3:53 pm MWIF needs to enforce the rules. If everything has to be done manually, MWIF still needs to check the manual instructions. And that's not so easy, because IMHO if it was, we would not have this discussion at all.
But checking if a (manually created by the player) route is valid is much easier than finding the route by the AI and then checking it, right? Isn't the part of creating the route the one that it's creating trouble?

The player could easily assign a route from, for example, Venezuela to UK as a path of (port, sea area, ..., sea area, port, factory) and the game should only check that it's a valid "link/connection" from step n to step n+1. Why should the AI decide for me if I want to route the resource through the African coast or the American one?

I don't need an AI to make the route for me, just to make sure that route is valid, mark internally the convoys as used/busy, whatever is needed for the internal book keeping, etc...

Do players need an AI to calculate their routes when playing the boardgame?
(my humble blog about wargames, in spanish) http://cabezadepuente.blogspot.com.es/
User avatar
Courtenay
Posts: 4396
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:34 pm

Re: How I would have done production

Post by Courtenay »

juntoalmar wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2023 7:23 am Do players need an AI to calculate their routes when playing the boardgame?
No, but I do need a spreadsheet.
I thought I knew how to play this game....
User avatar
Joseignacio
Posts: 3114
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 11:25 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: How I would have done production

Post by Joseignacio »

I use to do convoys by hand, but when playing through Vassal, I carry a spreadsheet to control production, to keep track of how many really arrive after conv losses or bp lost to Strat bomb, for example.
Post Reply

Return to “World in Flames”