Display the defense of each hex

[Greyshaft]

Is it possible to use a key combination which will display the defensive strength for each hex? It would take into account all terrain except rivers. That way a player could look up and down the line and get an idea of where the best attacks could be made. Quite useful on the Russian Front methinks both in the attacking and defending roles.

Apologies if this has been discussed before.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

Is it possible to use a key combination which will display the defensive strength for each hex? It would take into account all terrain except rivers. That way a player could look up and down the line and get an idea of where the best attacks could be made. Quite useful on the Russian Front methinks both in the attacking and defending roles.

Apologies if this has been discussed before.

A good idea. I do not know what CWIF offered to the player in this regard.

As always, I like to push these things a little farther - unitil they break under the weight of my additions. Then I back them off one iteration.

As a player planning an attack (or defense) I would like to know whether the assault table is required. If not, then I would like to know how much armor is in the hex. Someting about the affect on ground strikes and ground support too?

Perhaps a toggle that would remove all the units from view and replace them with a couple of numbers or 3?

Say,
15 - M for 15 strength points and assault table mandatory.
15 - 1.5 for 15 strength points and 1.5 armor factors.

I haven't thought about this in any detail. Why don't you guys kick it around for a while.

[Greyshaft]

I don't think the units should disappear since they function as a reference point for the players on the map. "Aha... that stack with the 6-5 armor only has a defence of eight. That's much weaker than the other units around him!"

Not sure if knowing the armor factors is a big deal. I'm only looking for the view from 30,000 feet to understand the weak points in a defence line.

Others may feel differently.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

I don't think the units should disappear since they function as a reference point for the players on the map. "Aha... that stack with the 6-5 armor only has a defence of eight. That's much weaker than the other units around him!"

Not sure if knowing the armor factors is a big deal. I'm only looking for the view from 30,000 feet to understand the weak points in a defence line.

Others may feel differently.

Taking your example, the numbers would be 8 - 1. A single armor unit in a hex with 8 strength points.

[Neilster]

What about if the non-phasing player's units disappear? Then one could see one's own stacks and the weak points in the enemy line.

Cheers, Neilster

[lomyrin]

In CWiF both the attack and defense strengh of the opponents units are displayed at the lower right on the screen in a table. The data are shown as you move the mouse pointer over the hex.
That information is important but seemingly dealt with already in the CWiF program.

Lars

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

In CWiF both the attack and defense strengh of the opponents units are displayed at the lower right on the screen in a table. The data are shown as you move the mouse pointer over the hex.
That information is important but seemingly dealt with already in the CWiF program.

Lars

Ok.

But I think what Greyshaft was looking for was the ability to just look at the map and see the total strength of each hex.

What CWIF offered was the possibility of moving the cursor over each hex and glancing down at the lower right hand corner of the screen to read a small digit in a group of many digits. Then keeping a mental image of which hexes were weakest along the whole front line.

If the units in each hex were replaced with one or two digits, then with your hands idle, you could simply scan for the hexes with small numbers.

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
But I think what Greyshaft was looking for was the ability to just look at the map and see the total strength of each hex.

Exactly... just give me the big picture so I can consider where I want to attack... or alternatively, where should I send reinforcements.

[Froonp]

MWiF could show the information in a red circle drawn on top of the units in each hex of the visible map when a given key is pressed.

The information could be the defense value of the units in the hex with the bonus the units give to the attack, in assault & blitz separated with a slash for example.

For example :
A disrupted (5-3) INF with a (7-6) ARM in a clear hex in clear weather could show : 12 (0/0)
A disrupted (7-4) INF with a disrupted (9-6) ARM in a clear city hex with 1 factory in clear weather could show : 16 (+2/+2)
Two (8-6) MECH units in a clear hex in clear weather could show : 16 (-4/-4)

Or maybe the distinction between blitz & assault hasn't to be made as the bonus are nearly always the same.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

MWiF could show the information in a red circle drawn on top of the units in each hex of the visible map when a given key is pressed.

The information could be the defense value of the units in the hex with the bonus the units give to the attack, in assault & blitz separated with a slash for example.

For example :
A disrupted (5-3) INF with a (7-6) ARM in a clear hex in clear weather could show : 12 (0/0)
A disrupted (7-4) INF with a disrupted (9-6) ARM in a clear city hex with 1 factory in clear weather could show : 16 (+2/+2)
Two (8-6) MECH units in a clear hex in clear weather could show : 16 (-4/-4)

Or maybe the distinction between blitz & assault hasn't to be made as the bonus are nearly always the same.

I like this. It would be an opaque circle of some obvious color with some numbers inside of it, using a font with high contrast. Toggle it on and off, like the flag, weather, and other stuff. As to the bonus numbers being the same, if they are, only 1 is shown (-4). When they are different, then the (x/y) format would be used.

The floor is still open for other ideas.

[asgern]

Hello,

I haven't posted anything here before, although I have been following the process of MWIF lately. I am really pleased by the effort Steve is putting into this - by his reports, questions and screenshots, I feel that we are moving closer to a real MWIF game day by day. As I like (and own) the WIF FE paper maps and counters, I am somewhat conservative here: I prefer red numbers on the non-white print SS units etc. But, I am getting used to the new mountains, and I really like the new swamp hexes. I am confident that I will like the graphics of the final product - you seem to be headed firmly in the right direction, Steve, using the original WIF FE look with some computer add-ons, improving game play.

On to my comment regarding unit strength - I like the idea of having stack strenghts shown in the hexes. I would prefer the numbers in all hexes, not just in the non-phasing player's hexes, as you would need the numbers when planning attacks. I like Patrices suggestion, but would prefer that you could switch between 1D10 and 2D10 rules (I never got used to the 2D10 combat rules), or simply display both sets of potential bonuses.

For instance, in a clear hex, a stack with a flipped 7-strenght armor unit and a face-up 6-strength infantry would then have the number 13 (+1) shown in 1D10-mode and 13 (+2) shown in 2D10 mode, or unified as 13 (+1/+2). Colour coding could make this easier to comprehend. You could place this number somewhere in the hex, perhaps on the right or left of the units (like the digits showning the total number of units in a stack).

Keep up the good work!

- Asger

[dhatchen]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

As a player planning an attack (or defense) I would like to know whether the assault table is required. If not, then I would like to know how much armor is in the hex. Someting about the affect on ground strikes and ground support too?

Perhaps a toggle that would remove all the units from view and replace them with a couple of numbers or 3?

Say,
15 - M for 15 strength points and assault table mandatory.
15 - 1.5 for 15 strength points and 1.5 armor factors.

I haven't thought about this in any detail. Why don't you guys kick it around for a while.

How about the hexes show numbers, but display the units on MouseOver. That way the player can move the mouse to a low strength hex and see what he has to contend with. The MouseOver could simply show that hex as it usually looks, or it could popup a window with the units spread out.

The numbers could be in a bold font Blue if the attack would be the attacker's choice (if he brought enough ARM or MECH to the party), in Red if a mandatory Assault, and in Grey if defender's choice.

Showing armour presence is a little more complex. A simple answer would be to just put a small superscript ARM or MECH Nato symbol by the defence strength. The player could use the MouseOver popup to see the actual ARM units.

A more complex answer would be to place the number of ARM/MECH symbols in a vertical stack down the right side of the strength number that correspond to the number of Corps equivalents. Stacking would limit this to a maximum of two and a half symbols since MWiF uses WiF European Map stacking throughout the world. MECH would not be shown when ARM is present, as ARM takes precedence.

My personal preference would be just one symbol to show ARM/MECH presence. One can then place a blue? NATO air unit symbol or graphic below the ARM/MECH to show halved air factors due to terrain or weather and red? for no fly hexes. A third symbol below this could show halved attack factors. I don't personally favour this last, as the player "should" know which these are from the terrain but, hey, I miss these once in a while too.

The benefit of this system is that you get Greyshaft's "30,000 feet" view at a glance with all of the information discussed and the player does not have a lot of numbers in each hex to look at and remember the meaning of.

danh

[hakon]

I don think displaying defensive strength will help me very much, as the final odds will depend as much on possible bonuses and who has the choice of CRT, as on actual factors. (Particularily when using 2d10).

I think a more usefull view, would be to display maximum possible odds for an attack against each enemy hex, taking into account which units are in range of attacking that hex, but not taking into account HQ support or ground support before they are declared, or ground strikes (before they are performed).

This should read something like +8/+14 where the first number is the bonus on the assault table and the second is the bonus available on the blitz table. (When using the 1d10 table, this could read 4:1/4:1+3.) The numbers hould be color coded, ie green when the attacker has the choice of table and red when the defender can choose table. If choosing table reduces the odds, it could have both printed, ie +6/+12 (green) and +8/+14 (red).

When moving the mouse over any of the numbers in the hex, the units that are required to make that odds should be highlighted. During land movement, clicking on the number should enable a context menu where the user can tell the computer to set up for this attack automatically.

The view should be updated whenever activated, and units that have already moved should be taken out of the calculation, so that one can quickly see if there is another possible attack after the first one has been set up.

The view I describe is a bit more work to code than simply displaying the factors, but should save a lot of manual counting of factors, and something simmilar is probably neccessary anyway, to support the AI.

[Froonp]

The Decisive Battles game system (SSG -- Battles in Italy, Battles in Normandy, Korsun Pocket, Last Blitzkrieg) has this kind of feature.
It is called something like the battle assistant, I don't remember exactly.
It shows you the maximum odds you could achieve on each and every enemy hex, and for each, it show you which friendly units would be necessary to achieve those odds. If you move units and then ask again the battle assistant, it shows you the updated maximum odds you could achieve.
It is very very powerful, and very very useful.
Moreover, the odds are shown with colors indicating a graduation of the power of the attack. The more powerful, the more red the number is IIRC.

[hakon]

On the topic of views, three other views would be nice, too.

1. Supply view: This view should display every hex with a secondary supply source in red. All hexes that are in supply in any weather should be green, while hexes that are only in supply in good weather should be yellow. Units currently out of supply, should be color-tagged.

This view would be nice to use at the end of land movement, to make sure all/most units remain in supply even if the weather changes.

2. Air superiority view. All friendly fighters should be displayed in purple and enemy fighters in red. Hexes within interception range of your fighters should be blue, while hexes within interception range of enemy fighters should be in red. Hexes reachable by both sides should have color coding according to the relative airial control of the hex. Both the maximum air-to-air strength possible for a side, as well as the number of fighters within reach is relevant, and the numbers should be printed. For instance, if the enemy has 2 fighters with maximum air to air strength of 9 and you have 4 fighters with maximum air to air strength of 8, this could read 4(8) / 2/(9).

It should be possible to modify the view, so that escort range is used instead of interception range, for any or both sides. A night version should also be available, if night missions are allowed. If maximum strength in a hex can only be peformed using red-print fighters, there should be some kind of color coding to represent this too. (Such as when the 1943 He219 is Germany's highest value fighter in 1943).

I would use this view offensively to find good places to bomb, or defensively to set up a fighter defence.

Btw, this view should probably show factory stacks/oil resources that have not been bombed in addition to the other info.

3. Naval superiority

Simmilar to airial, should give an indication of how much strength you and the enemy can project into each sea zone. The exact design of this should be simmilar to the way the AI is designed to evaluate sea zones, if possible. Some color coding would be nice, so that you can immidialtely see what sea zones need to be defended.

For england, in particular, it would be nice to have some way to quckly determine what sea zones germany can reach with subs.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: asgern

Hello,

I haven't posted anything here before, although I have been following the process of MWIF lately. I am really pleased by the effort Steve is putting into this - by his reports, questions and screenshots, I feel that we are moving closer to a real MWIF game day by day. As I like (and own) the WIF FE paper maps and counters, I am somewhat conservative here: I prefer red numbers on the non-white print SS units etc. But, I am getting used to the new mountains, and I really like the new swamp hexes. I am confident that I will like the graphics of the final product - you seem to be headed firmly in the right direction, Steve, using the original WIF FE look with some computer add-ons, improving game play.

On to my comment regarding unit strength - I like the idea of having stack strenghts shown in the hexes. I would prefer the numbers in all hexes, not just in the non-phasing player's hexes, as you would need the numbers when planning attacks. I like Patrices suggestion, but would prefer that you could switch between 1D10 and 2D10 rules (I never got used to the 2D10 combat rules), or simply display both sets of potential bonuses.

For instance, in a clear hex, a stack with a flipped 7-strenght armor unit and a face-up 6-strength infantry would then have the number 13 (+1) shown in 1D10-mode and 13 (+2) shown in 2D10 mode, or unified as 13 (+1/+2). Colour coding could make this easier to comprehend. You could place this number somewhere in the hex, perhaps on the right or left of the units (like the digits showning the total number of units in a stack).

Keep up the good work!

- Asger

And hello to you too.

The 1D10 versus 2D10 is not a problem. The player will have set the option one way or the other when he started the game and that setting can be used to decide how to perform the calculation for this display.

Displaying these numbers has to be controlled by a toggle switch - there is no room for them to be permanently shown. They also have no role at times during the game (strategic bombing, production, reorganizing, etc.).

How to do something comparable for the naval units hasn't been discussed either. Ideas?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: dhatchen
How about the hexes show numbers, but display the units on MouseOver. That way the player can move the mouse to a low strength hex and see what he has to contend with. The MouseOver could simply show that hex as it usually looks, or it could popup a window with the units spread out.

The numbers could be in a bold font Blue if the attack would be the attacker's choice (if he brought enough ARM or MECH to the party), in Red if a mandatory Assault, and in Grey if defender's choice.

Showing armour presence is a little more complex. A simple answer would be to just put a small superscript ARM or MECH Nato symbol by the defence strength. The player could use the MouseOver popup to see the actual ARM units.

A more complex answer would be to place the number of ARM/MECH symbols in a vertical stack down the right side of the strength number that correspond to the number of Corps equivalents. Stacking would limit this to a maximum of two and a half symbols since MWiF uses WiF European Map stacking throughout the world. MECH would not be shown when ARM is present, as ARM takes precedence.

My personal preference would be just one symbol to show ARM/MECH presence. One can then place a blue? NATO air unit symbol or graphic below the ARM/MECH to show halved air factors due to terrain or weather and red? for no fly hexes. A third symbol below this could show halved attack factors. I don't personally favour this last, as the player "should" know which these are from the terrain but, hey, I miss these once in a while too.

The benefit of this system is that you get Greyshaft's "30,000 feet" view at a glance with all of the information discussed and the player does not have a lot of numbers in each hex to look at and remember the meaning of.

danh

My oh my. [X(] I did ask, didn't I?

1 - unit details
2 - choice of combat table
3 - armor factors
4 - armor details
5 - air factor effects due to terrain
7 - air factor effects due to weather

What to show. Summary versus details. When to show it. How to show it. Player controls for these displays.

Something to mull over.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: hakon

I don think displaying defensive strength will help me very much, as the final odds will depend as much on possible bonuses and who has the choice of CRT, as on actual factors. (Particularily when using 2d10).

I think a more usefull view, would be to display maximum possible odds for an attack against each enemy hex, taking into account which units are in range of attacking that hex, but not taking into account HQ support or ground support before they are declared, or ground strikes (before they are performed).

This should read something like +8/+14 where the first number is the bonus on the assault table and the second is the bonus available on the blitz table. (When using the 1d10 table, this could read 4:1/4:1+3.) The numbers hould be color coded, ie green when the attacker has the choice of table and red when the defender can choose table. If choosing table reduces the odds, it could have both printed, ie +6/+12 (green) and +8/+14 (red).

When moving the mouse over any of the numbers in the hex, the units that are required to make that odds should be highlighted. During land movement, clicking on the number should enable a context menu where the user can tell the computer to set up for this attack automatically.

The view should be updated whenever activated, and units that have already moved should be taken out of the calculation, so that one can quickly see if there is another possible attack after the first one has been set up.

The view I describe is a bit more work to code than simply displaying the factors, but should save a lot of manual counting of factors, and something simmilar is probably neccessary anyway, to support the AI.

This level of player assistance I categorize as AIA (AI Assistant). I undestand the desire for this. And Patrice's post immediately after yours makes the case equally well.



As a player, I am somewhat outraged by the whole concept though. If I were playing a game of chess against you and you used a chess program to tell you that I hung a piece (left it vulnerable for capture) or that a forced mate in 3 was possible by just making the following moves, ... Who would I actually be playing against? [&:]

The distinction I see between these two is presenting information versus providing advice. Calculating the defense strength of a hex performs a straigtforward math calculation. Telling the player which units to move where in order to achieve the maximum odds is very close to playing the game on behalf of the player.

Yes, they are just more calculations, but why not automate it so the player can just say: "Attack hex A. Recalculate. Attack hex B. Recalculate. Prepare to attack hex C next impulse. Recalculate. ...". The game could be played that way. Would it be WIF? Would you even need to know any of the combat strengths of your units? Or their movement abilities? Or that armor factors are part of the rules? Those would just be messy details that the AIA deals with.

The AIO will work all this out for its moves, so the underlying math and numbers will be in place. Presentation to the player of the information and modifications to the interface to support this style of play would be some additional work.

But I am more concerned with what the final product is. It seems to drift a bit too close to an RTS style of game (without the time constraints): "Attack there! Do it again!"

Information versus advice versus automated movement and attacks .

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: hakon
On the topic of views, three other views would be nice, too.

1. Supply view: This view should display every hex with a secondary supply source in red. All hexes that are in supply in any weather should be green, while hexes that are only in supply in good weather should be yellow. Units currently out of supply, should be color-tagged.

This view would be nice to use at the end of land movement, to make sure all/most units remain in supply even if the weather changes.

2. Air superiority view. All friendly fighters should be displayed in purple and enemy fighters in red. Hexes within interception range of your fighters should be blue, while hexes within interception range of enemy fighters should be in red. Hexes reachable by both sides should have color coding according to the relative airial control of the hex. Both the maximum air-to-air strength possible for a side, as well as the number of fighters within reach is relevant, and the numbers should be printed. For instance, if the enemy has 2 fighters with maximum air to air strength of 9 and you have 4 fighters with maximum air to air strength of 8, this could read 4(8) / 2/(9).

It should be possible to modify the view, so that escort range is used instead of interception range, for any or both sides. A night version should also be available, if night missions are allowed. If maximum strength in a hex can only be peformed using red-print fighters, there should be some kind of color coding to represent this too. (Such as when the 1943 He219 is Germany's highest value fighter in 1943).

I would use this view offensively to find good places to bomb, or defensively to set up a fighter defence.

Btw, this view should probably show factory stacks/oil resources that have not been bombed in addition to the other info.

3. Naval superiority

Simmilar to airial, should give an indication of how much strength you and the enemy can project into each sea zone. The exact design of this should be simmilar to the way the AI is designed to evaluate sea zones, if possible. Some color coding would be nice, so that you can immidialtely see what sea zones need to be defended.

For England, in particular, it would be nice to have some way to quckly determine what sea zones germany can reach with subs.

I like all of these ideas. A lot of details need to be worked out of course.

For some reason, the idea of how determining how much naval strength can be projected into each sea area (as a player aid) doesn't bother me. Logically, I think it should. I guess it is that there are always large stacks of naval units and their physical locations on the map can be quite far away from each other (a hundred hexes or more). Requiring the player to manually examine the entire map to find all the naval units that can reach a sea area in the middle of the Pacific - that just seems stupid.

Maybe the distinction is projected strength.

Air units have a projected strength too. Both the fighters and the bombers.

The supply situation also has an element of projection to it. It emanates from sources out into an area of the map.

I believe providing this kind of information to the player is a good thing. Coordinating attacks - not so much.

[Cheesehead]

I just hope the map and units don't get cluttered with a bunch of numbers. IMO WiF is a work of art as well as a game...some of these suggestions are nice features to add, but I would hope that they could all be toggled off. I think the odds calculations is definitely too much. I first saw this with Korsun Pocket and it made the game too easy. Some of us enjoy and take pride in crunching numbers and having to scan the battlefield for that last air factor to make a 4-1 attack possible.

Another thing to consider about all this: When advertising the game by posting screenshots, a map and units full of numbers and symbols may turn away more potential customers than it will attract if it looks too intimidating. I remember this from Avalon Hill's Squad Leader. It was easy to find people to play the original SL, especially with the easy to learn, step-by-step approach with the learn as you play scenarios. Trying to find people willing to learn ASL was much tougher. One look at some of those charts, or units with gobs of numbers and symbols printed all over made most people say, "no thanks."