WiF Rule Questions

[Froonp]

Those recent rule questions appearing in different threads leads me to wonder if it is appropriate to ask rule questions about WiF on this forum ? What do you others think about this ?

My own opinion is that this is not the appropriate place for this because we are too few, and that the yahoo group forum is better, because it is frequented by a lot people who have a large knowledge about the game and the rules. Generally rules questions & ambiguities find a quick and accurate answer there. Sure, there are some still unresolved cases, but the community is quite trustworthy. I'd add that some people of the WiF FE rule commitee are also subscribed there, and so this is a good way to point out rules problems to the designer nearly directly.


To go further, this leads me to wonder how will be ruled the future rule disputes that will arise when people will say that MWiF doesn't works the way they read RAW.

When CWiF was in the test phase, the rule questions and problems discovered in the game were transfered to Chris Marinacci, who then when in doubt refered directly to Harry to obtain a firm ruling, or a clarification. I experienced all forms of results using this, sometimes I was right and the game was changed to be trustworthy to the RAW, sometimes I was wrong and I learn a new bit about WiF, and sometimes Harry was needed for tiny obscure little problems with RAW.

How will it done now ?

[Greyshaft]

My guess is that Matrix will write a tutorial/rule book based on how MWiF actually performs on the computer and any resemblance to the rules of cardboard WiF will be pure co-incidence [:D] Seriously though, I can't imagine Matrix accepting "bug" reports based on a discrepancy with RAW. As long as MWiF is true to its own rule book then I don't see a problem.

[Mziln]

Any other forum or news group, no matter how trustworthy, will have absolutely no impact on the finished version of MWiF. Matrix may or may not, at their discretion, make note of views from other sites or choose to disregard them completely.

Matrix controls the copyright for a computer version of WiF so they control what the finished product would be like.

Basically, if you do not discuss the game here it will have no impact on what Matrix produces as a finished product.

If it is not brought up in this forum don’t complain about the finished product. Regardless of what is or was posted at another site.

[Froonp]

Matrix controls the copyright for a computer version of WiF so they control what the finished product would be like.

Well, I thought that Matrix was engaged to do a faithfull reproduction of WiF to the computer. Maybe I'm mislead by those terms and by my previous experience with CWiF.

If it is not brought up in this forum don’t complain about the finished product. Regardless of what is or was posted at another site.

I do not complain, and I do not bring discussions about MWiF anywhere else but here, but I often see on these forums questions about WiF, and not MWiF, that's why I asked.

Well, we'll see...

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Well, I thought that Matrix was engaged to do a faithfull reproduction of WiF to the computer.

Well there have already been numerous compromises on turn sequencing. I don't deny the need for those compromises but I don't see why any other area of the game will be sacrosanct. "Faithful" is in the eyes of the programmer [;)]

[Froonp]

Well there have already been numerous compromises on turn sequencing. I don't deny the need for those compromises but I don't see why any other area of the game will be sacrosanct. "Faithful" is in the eyes of the programmer

Those compromises were made for making PBEM possible. They were needed, and needed to be new because WiF is not PBM able naturally. [:D] Unless you're living at the post office, and very patient.

[mlees]

Those recent rule questions appearing in different threads leads me to wonder if it is appropriate to ask rule questions about WiF on this forum ? What do you others think about this ?

Sorry, but if you are referring the question I brought up in another thread, please allow me to explain.

I was not trying to clear up a game I was playing, but I was trying to think of situations that the AI or game interface needs to be prepared for.

Specifically, the hypothetical I dreamed up of Italy becoming Neutral in a game, and it's "reserve" units. I wished to have the "reserve" units "marked" as such in game. (This is only an issue when the controlling Major Power goes Neutral, and the "Reserve" units need to be taken off the map.) As this is an interface/display issue, I thought that it was On Topic, in that thread.

The discussion that followed was a natural "train of thought" progression, but I agree that after a certain amount of posts, since the thread itself was about interface/display issues, a new thread should be started on that rule debate. Just how long a rule debate should be allowed to go on (and threatening to derail a thread) is subjective, and mainly up to the forum moderator or the orginal poster (the same, for that display/interface thread).

Furthermore, I have seen games that had really odd (unconventional and nonhistorical) things happen, usually with regards to ownership, supply, cooperation, and peace breaking out at the oddest times. All of these odd situations (and the code that deals with the results) needs to be identified and prepared for, just in case.

Is the Matrix "World in Flames" forums the proper place to discuss rule book questions? Absolutely! It shows to the developers that there is a level of interest that the potential customers still have for the product.

Cheers! [8D]

[Shannon V. OKeets]

I have no problems with the ongoing discussions in this forum. On rare occasions I will ask that a new thread be started if the discussion drifts away from the original title. I have done this myself on more than 1 occasion. I also try to keep things civil when the discussion gets too emotional, but even then I have no interest in ending the discussion.

If we are too narrow a group for a robust understanding of the rules, then by all means involve more players. If you want to raise the issues being discussed in this forum with the Yahoo WIF discussion group, please do so - and report back any consensus/interesting points that provides.

The rules for WIF are more impressionistic than mathematical. Any careful reading of RAW will detect anomalies and inconsistencies. If it is of any consolation, one of the great mathematicians, Godel, proved that any system that is 'interesting' will have logical inconsistencies. That put a severe damper on the massive project that was underway at the time to write the definitive book on mathematics. The analogy to RAW is appropriate, and I find it oddly reassuring at times of intense aggravation with the WIF rules.

I will write the MWIF code to be as close to RAW as our understanding at the time permits. If our understanding improves before the game is released for sale (i.e., through play testing) then I will make changes to reflect the better understanding. Any changes after the release would fall under the category of patches/fixes and would only be made if they were of substantial importance.

I do share Mlees concern about weird things happening in a game and the program needing to accommodate them. It has been my experience that a novice will do things that a person with experience would never dream of doing. This applies to all aspects of life, but computer programs and wargames are near the top of the list. Again the only solution is to be diligent and try to anticipate as many situations as possible. Oh, and accept the fact the achieving perfection is not going to happen.

[Froonp]

I'm happy with these answers [:D], and I thank you for them.
I wanted these things to be more clear regarding this issue.

Best Regards

Patrice

[Cheesehead]

I've certainly been guilty of asking a question or two on this forum. I always go to the yahoo group first, but if I don't get a satisfactory answer there I try here. I have also used this forum to promote or look for Vassal opponents. As far as I know, this forum and the one at Yahoo are the only active electronic communication forums for WiF. I've certainly spent enough time looking for additional sources, without success. As far as I know there isn't even an 'opponents wanted' site out there that is active. The one that is accessed through Patrice's or Juha's excellent WiF sites is no longer active. Most of those addresses are dead. As long as this remains so, these two forums need to be all things to all people in regards to WiF.