Matrix Games Forums

Here is my second attempt at writing SO 5. I have tried to respond to the comments and suggestions to my earlier version.

==========================================
SO 5 Defensive Air Support for Land or Naval Units and Factories
(as of August 30, 2005)

For SO 5, the left hand columns are, reading from left to right:
1. Small buttons for changing the map view (POVs)
2. Units under consideration (air units being given SO 5)
3. 10 boxes for each air unit that indicate whether the player has / can set a SO 5 for each of the different enemy air mission types, and
4. a fly out display for each air unit that shows the conditional settings for when the air unit flies / does not fly to defend against the enemy air mission type.

Clicking on a fighter brings up a shaded area that indicates its range. For bombers the shaded area for its range is optional, since for a bomber with a range of 10, the whole visible screen is within range. Clicking on the fighter/bomber unit displayed on the map or displayed in the left hand column (same unit, same unit picture) produces the same results: the hexes within range of the fighter/bomber are shaded.

When the player clicks on a mission type against which to defend, only the viable target hexes are highlighted. The shaded area for its range is removed. What is then displayed are only those hexes for which the SO makes sense. A viable target hex is not only (1) within range of the fighter, it also (2) has target units that the enemy can attack with that mission type (naval units in port for port attacks, naval units in the sea area for naval air missions, etc.), and (3) the enemy has air units that can fly that mission type against those hexes. If no such hex exists, then that mission box would simply not be selectable for the SO. Lastly, the player can set the priority for each hex within the specific mission type. To assist in that decision making, the AIA generates a dynamic description of each hex that appears when the player moves the cursor over the target hex. The dynamic description lists the attackable units/resources in the hex, the enemy air units that can attack it, and the other friendly fighters available to defend it.

The few remaining controls the player can set are binary (on or off): (1) don't fly if the odds against surviving are too awful - player specifies the value for too awful, (2) send only 1 plane against 1 plane, (3) send more than 1 plane against more than 1 plane, and (4) don't fly if the enemy mission is too weak to do any damage. These appear in a pop up menu that is displayed once the player has selected a mission type. The AIA determines what “too weak” means. These conditionals on when to fly / not fly, are specific to a selected air unit and a specific mission type. They apply to all the hexes for which the air unit might fly defense against a mission type.

When a player clicks on SO 5, the conditional settings appear to the right of the mission type boxes attached to the left hand column. This is a 'flyout' display that changes when the player places the cursor overs a mission type for a specific air unit. It disappears when the player moves the cursor off the mission type. There is a control button that makes the settings for all the air units appear for a specified mission type. For example, it can show all the conditional settings for when to fly / not fly for the mission type "ground strike". When the control button is clicked, the AIA displays these settings for every air unit.

Prioritizing which phase the fighter flies in is not possible. The sequence of play dictates this priority. Therefore the 'priority' number displayed in the left hand column is automatically generated by the AIA based on the sequence of play. If a fighter has a SO to defend against a ground strike and another to defend against a port attack, then the port attack box has 1 in it and the ground strike box has a 2. If the enemy does a port attack on a hex the fighter is protecting, then the fighter will fly against that mission. If the port attack doesn't happen, then the fighter will protect against the ground strike.

The bombers are only capable of flying two types of missions based on this SO: ground support and naval interception. The former occurs after land attacks have been announced and the latter occurs before the search rolls for a naval combat. Both of these mission types can include fighter escorts. The player selects air units, mission types, and prioritizes hexes as described above for fighter missions. The major difference between these bomber missions and the fighter interception missions, is that the bombers directly affect the combat odds for the land and naval combats. The intercepting fighters only indirectly affect the odds.

Because of this, the bombers are treated more like the HQs in SO 20, HQ Support. The player sets a range that the likely odds has to fall within for the bomber(s) to provide support. The range setting enables the player to avoid providing support when: (1) it isn’t needed, or (2) it won’t do any good.

The player can assign specific priorities to the bombers’ target hexes or sea areas (e.g., 1, 2, 3, etc.). In addition, the player can also select a group of hexes or sea areas and prioritize them according the to odds the attacker has achieved. Then the priority has an asterisk as well as the number: 1*, 2*, 3*, ... The only two choices for prioritizing a group of hexes or sea areas by odds are to: (1) support the hex or sea area that needs the most help (highest attack odds), or (2) support the hex or sea area that will make the attacker suffer the most (lowest attack odds). In both cases, the bomber only provides support if the odds fall within the specified range.

Any fighters assigned to fly escort only do so if there is a bomber flying support. The number of fighters sent by the AIA to any one hex or sea area will not exceed the number of bombers that is sent to the same hex or sea area. The fighter escorts will not be sent at all, if there is no possibility of enemy fighters engaging the bombers.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

The player can assign specific priorities to the bombers’ target hexes or sea areas (e.g., 1, 2, 3, etc.). In addition, the player can also select a group of hexes or sea areas and prioritize them according the to odds the attacker has achieved. Then the priority has an asterisk as well as the number: 1*, 2*, 3*, ... The only two choices for prioritizing a group of hexes or sea areas by odds are to: (1) support the hex or sea area that needs the most help (highest attack odds), or (2) support the hex or sea area that will make the attacker suffer the most (lowest attack odds). In both cases, the bomber only provides support if the odds fall within the specified range.

Do I have a way of to assign a bomber to all hexes under my control, I might forexample want to fly my Condor with 15 in range as groundsupport to any hex that the wallies might invade or paradrop. I have no idea where they will attack me so all hexes in range shall be supported if I can get the odds down to 5-1 odds or lower with my bomber, prioritise the hex that need most help.)

The player can assign specific priorities to the bombers’ target hexes or sea areas (e.g., 1, 2, 3, etc.). In addition, the player can also select a group of hexes or sea areas and prioritize them according the to odds the attacker has achieved. Then the priority has an asterisk as well as the number: 1*, 2*, 3*, ... The only two choices for prioritizing a group of hexes or sea areas by odds are to: (1) support the hex or sea area that needs the most help (highest attack odds), or (2) support the hex or sea area that will make the attacker suffer the most (lowest attack odds). In both cases, the bomber only provides support if the odds fall within the specified range.

Also, the AIA needs to send a number of crappy bombers (with an ATS factor) along with the fighters when intercepting at sea, even if the enemy has no ships to be bombed in the sea area. Those bombers will be used by the owning player to take some losses (DX & DA), to allow the fighters to stay / survive more longer.

Any fighters assigned to fly escort only do so if there is a bomber flying support. The number of fighters sent by the AIA to any one hex or sea area will not exceed the number of bombers that is sent to the same hex or sea area. The fighter escorts will not be sent at all, if there is no possibility of enemy fighters engaging the bombers.

Why does the number of fighters sent by the AIA to any one hex or sea area will not exceed the number of bombers that is sent to the same hex or sea area ??

I've seen cases where only a couple of bombers are sent (usually those good old stukas [;)]), with a couple of lousy bombers to take losses, with a trilion of FTR escorting.
The number of escorting fighters is decided by the following :
- Enemy fighter capacity in the area (that is the enemy FTRs that can reach the hex), relative to your own fighter capacity.
- Importance of the hex, and your own motivation to fly the support mission (Whether you want to make bombers pass at all cost of you just want to try your luck, or whether you want to soak up enemy fighters or not...).

If you see that the enemy fighter capacity is lower than your's you know you can afford to try to gain superiority in the air to air fight.
If the enemy fighter capacity is higher than yours, you may try to send as few fighters as you can to reach an honorable air to air value, and try to keep more fighter capacity than your enemy on next impulse, or on next battle. You may also try to send one of your best fighters (read Me262 for example) to soak up as much enemy fighters as you can to try to have a better fighter capacity on next battle or next impulse.

Oh well, that's not complete, those are just ideas that your post gave me.

Regards

Patrice

ORIGINAL: Froonp

The player can assign specific priorities to the bombers’ target hexes or sea areas (e.g., 1, 2, 3, etc.). In addition, the player can also select a group of hexes or sea areas and prioritize them according the to odds the attacker has achieved. Then the priority has an asterisk as well as the number: 1*, 2*, 3*, ... The only two choices for prioritizing a group of hexes or sea areas by odds are to: (1) support the hex or sea area that needs the most help (highest attack odds), or (2) support the hex or sea area that will make the attacker suffer the most (lowest attack odds). In both cases, the bomber only provides support if the odds fall within the specified range.

Also, the AIA needs to send a number of crappy bombers (with an ATS factor) along with the fighters when intercepting at sea, even if the enemy has no ships to be bombed in the sea area. Those bombers will be used by the owning player to take some losses (DX & DA), to allow the fighters to stay / survive more longer.

Any fighters assigned to fly escort only do so if there is a bomber flying support. The number of fighters sent by the AIA to any one hex or sea area will not exceed the number of bombers that is sent to the same hex or sea area. The fighter escorts will not be sent at all, if there is no possibility of enemy fighters engaging the bombers.

Why does the number of fighters sent by the AIA to any one hex or sea area will not exceed the number of bombers that is sent to the same hex or sea area ??

I've seen cases where only a couple of bombers are sent (usually those good old stukas [;)]), with a couple of lousy bombers to take losses, with a trilion of FTR escorting.
The number of escorting fighters is decided by the following :
- Enemy fighter capacity in the area (that is the enemy FTRs that can reach the hex), relative to your own fighter capacity.
- Importance of the hex, and your own motivation to fly the support mission (Whether you want to make bombers pass at all cost of you just want to try your luck, or whether you want to soak up enemy fighters or not...).

If you see that the enemy fighter capacity is lower than your's you know you can afford to try to gain superiority in the air to air fight.
If the enemy fighter capacity is higher than yours, you may try to send as few fighters as you can to reach an honorable air to air value, and try to keep more fighter capacity than your enemy on next impulse, or on next battle. You may also try to send one of your best fighters (read Me262 for example) to soak up as much enemy fighters as you can to try to have a better fighter capacity on next battle or next impulse.

Oh well, that's not complete, those are just ideas that your post gave me.

Regards

Patrice

Yeah, it never seems to be complete. It just goes on and on.

The player already knows what naval forces he will have in the area. He can also send fighters as interceptors against enemy naval air missions - instead of sending them as escorts. So, when considering fighters that are flying as escorts, the player only needs to consider protecting his own bombers. That simplifies the problem quite a bit, which is why I felt comfortable limiting the fighter cover so it doesn't exceed the number of friendly bombers sent.

I figure this is close enough for now. Play testing will identify any big holes in the SOs.

I figure this is close enough for now. Play testing will identify any big holes in the SOs.

Any idea of when it might begin ?

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I figure this is close enough for now. Play testing will identify any big holes in the SOs.

Any idea of when it might begin ?

Actually, no.[&:]

Here is my proposal for SO 13.

=========================
SO 13 Naval Combat Abort
This is a pretty easy decision to make. A naval combat has just occurred so the AIA can use that as an estimate of what will happen in the next round. This lets the AIA predict the type of combat, the combat column and row, and the losses by both sides.

The type of combat will be assumed to be the same unless the units that have been killed, damaged, or aborted dramatically affect the likelihood of the same type of combat occurring. For example, if there are no more convoys, then it won’t be a Sub combat. Given the combat type, it is easy to predict both the column and the row for the combat. However, this does assume that no reinforcements are send to the sea area (i.e., more air units). From the column and row the AIA can predict what the losses for both sides. This is what the AIA will use to decide whether to continue or not. The player states what level of difference in losses he is willing to tolerate. X’s are scored as 4, D’s as 3, and A’s as 1. The player simply enters, say, -6 and the AIA will abort from the combat if the enemy is predicted to inflict 6 points (or higher) more damage on the player than vice-a-versa. For example, if the player is predicted to inflict 1 D and 2 A’s (5 points) while incurring 1 X, 2D’s, and 1 A (11 points), the AIA will abort.

The player sets this threshold value for each sea area, and the SO is complete.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is my proposal for SO 13.

=========================
SO 13 Naval Combat Abort

.... The player simply enters, say, -6 and the AIA will abort from the combat if the enemy is predicted to inflict 6 points (or higher) more damage on the player than vice-a-versa. For example, if the player is predicted to inflict 1 D and 2 A’s (5 points) while incurring 1 X, 2D’s, and 1 A (11 points), the AIA will abort.

The player sets this threshold value for each sea area, and the SO is complete.

I am wondering if it would be better for the player to specify an acceptable losses in the form of a ratio like 1:2 losses rather than a hard number like 6 points. Different sized naval battles may have vastly different acceptable points to lose and to save the user having to calculate each one individually in their head to work out what fits for their generally strategy they could perhaps pick one of several options from a combo box.

It could even be put into more human intuitive terms like Abort If:

• Abort immediately
• Any losses are likely
• Major victory unlikely
• Minor victory unlikely
• Equal battle likely
• Minor defeat likely
• Major defeat likely
• No enemy losses likely
• Never abort

While this does limit a players ability to be very specific, it does make the interface a little more accessable and workflow faster.

Another option might be to allow the user to either either a number or a ratio.

ORIGINAL: Manack

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
=========================
SO 13 Naval Combat Abort

.... The player simply enters, say, -6 and the AIA will abort from the combat if the enemy is predicted to inflict 6 points (or higher) more damage on the player than vice-a-versa. For example, if the player is predicted to inflict 1 D and 2 A’s (5 points) while incurring 1 X, 2D’s, and 1 A (11 points), the AIA will abort.

The player sets this threshold value for each sea area, and the SO is complete.

I am wondering if it would be better for the player to specify an acceptable losses in the form of a ratio like 1:2 losses rather than a hard number like 6 points. Different sized naval battles may have vastly different acceptable points to lose and to save the user having to calculate each one individually in their head to work out what fits for their generally strategy they could perhaps pick one of several options from a combo box.

It could even be put into more human intuitive terms like Abort If:

• Abort immediately
• Any losses are likely
• Major victory unlikely
• Minor victory unlikely
• Equal battle likely
• Minor defeat likely
• Major defeat likely
• No enemy losses likely
• Never abort

While this does limit a players ability to be very specific, it does make the interface a little more accessable and workflow faster.

Another option might be to allow the user to either either a number or a ratio.

You should read post #35 in the thread Play by Email (PBEM). What you will find there is that the players are very current on the status of the sea area combat at the time they decide whether to abort of not. Both players have seen what units are involved in the combat, which table was used, and some of the damage inflicted. They then have the ability to set this SO (#13). The point loss differential works just fine under these circumstances.

Using a ratio has the same problems as the differential: it measures the losses in relative terms instead of absolute ones. The problem with using absolute measures is that the players usually will want to use relative measures. Building a contigency table (for the players to choose from) to handle all the possible combinations of absolute and relative terms seemed excessive.

The use of the word major and minor to describe victory begs the question of what consitutes a major victory. When you go to answer that question, you will find that the AIA is making some kind of a calculation to determine it. Rather than be indirect (minor - look up what that means), let's just be direct and let the player work with the number (e.g., difference of 6). This also provides the player with a more detailed scale to choose from (i.e., he can choose something between minor and major as his decision point).

I do like your two end points: Abort Now! (before you all get killed) and Never Retreat! (I have plenty of letterhead on which to write condolences for your next of kin). These were omissions on my part.

X’s are scored as 4, D’s as 3, and A’s as 1.

I'd say that there should be a greater step between a "D" and an "X".
An "A" is, as you said by rating it to 1, quite not annoying.
To my eyes, a "D" is annoying, but not reversible. The ship will be back in 2 turns if I want. To be rated 3 seems good.
An "X", on the other hand is irreversible and expensive. The ship will never be back, and if you build a new one to replace it it will take from 6 to 12 turns, and a lot of BP. It should be rated 5 or 6. Or maybe 7, because an "X" is more ennoying than 2 "D".

This result could even be multiplied by the average defense factor of the affected fleet to have an assumption of losses who take into consideration the resistance of the fleets.

You could also rate each losse ("A, "D" & "X") by assigning them the BP cost of the likely ships they will affect (pondering them also with the average deense factor of the fleet).
for example, if it is assumed to be a Naval Air Combat, the game will assign the resuts, from the X to the A, to the ships by taking first the most expensive in BP, then the less expensive, then the most expensive again, then the less expensive again, like the players who assigne results to ships. In a Surface Naval Combat, all losses would be assigned to the cheapest ships, because the losses are all assigned to ships by the owning player.
When essigning to the cheapest ships, TRS & AMPH should be avoided (but they are not cheap ships so this should go by itself).
An abort has no "BP cost", so it could be rated as 1/2 of a "D", or 1/4 of a "D", or a fixed value of 1/2 to 1 BP for example.

Using this later calculation, you would have a very accurate "damage prediction" with capital ships giving greater result than cannon fodder ships.

Best Regards

Patrice

ORIGINAL: Froonp

X’s are scored as 4, D’s as 3, and A’s as 1.

I'd say that there should be a greater step between a "D" and an "X".
An "A" is, as you said by rating it to 1, quite not annoying.
To my eyes, a "D" is annoying, but not reversible. The ship will be back in 2 turns if I want. To be rated 3 seems good.
An "X", on the other hand is irreversible and expensive. The ship will never be back, and if you build a new one to replace it it will take from 6 to 12 turns, and a lot of BP. It should be rated 5 or 6. Or maybe 7, because an "X" is more ennoying than 2 "D".

This result could even be multiplied by the average defense factor of the affected fleet to have an assumption of losses who take into consideration the resistance of the fleets.

You could also rate each losse ("A, "D" & "X") by assigning them the BP cost of the likely ships they will affect (pondering them also with the average deense factor of the fleet).
for example, if it is assumed to be a Naval Air Combat, the game will assign the resuts, from the X to the A, to the ships by taking first the most expensive in BP, then the less expensive, then the most expensive again, then the less expensive again, like the players who assigne results to ships. In a Surface Naval Combat, all losses would be assigned to the cheapest ships, because the losses are all assigned to ships by the owning player.
When essigning to the cheapest ships, TRS & AMPH should be avoided (but they are not cheap ships so this should go by itself).
An abort has no "BP cost", so it could be rated as 1/2 of a "D", or 1/4 of a "D", or a fixed value of 1/2 to 1 BP for example.

Using this later calculation, you would have a very accurate "damage prediction" with capital ships giving greater result than cannon fodder ships.

Best Regards

Patrice

I take your point about the relationship between X and D. Since it might be controversial, I'll just make it an option that the players can set. After thinking over your points, X=7, D=3, and A=1 will be the starting values. The players can change them if they want at any time in the game.

I don't want the AIA to do any more calculations than that. After all, the goal here is to make a binary decision: Abort or Stay. 3 decimal points of precision on the number used to make that decision is unnecessary.

I finished another Standing Order, but I sort of cheated. In reading the design for the PBEM system side by side with the standing orders, I decided that SO 12, Choose Naval Combat Type, wasn't necessary. If the non-phasing player has the choice he can make the decision and send it as part of Email N2. If the phasing player has the choice, he can make the decision and send it as part of Email N3. I will renumber the standing orders once I get them all done, but for now will keep the numbering scheme unchanged.

This leaves just two standing orders outstanding: SO 16, Forced Naval Rebase (due to overruns), and SO 24, Choosing Losses in Land Combat. I'll try to finish them this weekend. If anyone has advice on how they usually make those decisions, that would be of help.

I have been updating the PBEM Design document as we work our way through the standing orders. When both the PBEM Design and Standing Orders are finalized, I'll produce new PDF files for them and email copies to anyone who is interested.

SO 16, Forced Naval Rebase (due to overruns),
* If possible, rebase to stack with an existing force in a major port. It makes it easier to create Task Forces in following turns.
* If two likely ports chose one with land units to deter second overrun.
* Could players nominate 2-3 default locations as part of their standing orders and any rebases occur to the closest location?

SO 24, Choosing Losses in Land Combat.
(These are all pretty obvious but someone has to say them...)
* Lose Div where possible
* Lose weaker combat strength units first
* Lose Black print before white print
* Lose inf before armour

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft
SO 16, Forced Naval Rebase (due to overruns),
* If possible, rebase to stack with an existing force in a major port. It makes it easier to create Task Forces in following turns.
* If two likely ports chose one with land units to deter second overrun.
* Could players nominate 2-3 default locations as part of their standing orders and any rebases occur to the closest location?

Yes. I guess the easy part is deciding where to go. The overrun units have to be in a port, so this SO only applies to naval units currently in port. The player needs to indicate where they should flee to. The difficulty comes up when the naval units have to fight their way through enemy naval forces to get to the destination. Should the AIA redirect them to some other port which they can reach without hinderance by the enemy?

SO 24, Choosing Losses in Land Combat.
(These are all pretty obvious but someone has to say them...)
* Lose Div where possible
* Lose weaker combat strength units first
* Lose Black print before white print
* Lose inf before armour

These 4 are easy enough to do. Should these just be automatic or should the player be able to set some additional priorities?

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft
SO 16, Forced Naval Rebase (due to overruns),
* If possible, rebase to stack with an existing force in a major port. It makes it easier to create Task Forces in following turns.
* If two likely ports chose one with land units to deter second overrun.
* Could players nominate 2-3 default locations as part of their standing orders and any rebases occur to the closest location?

Yes. I guess the easy part is deciding where to go. The overrun units have to be in a port, so this SO only applies to naval units currently in port. The player needs to indicate where they should flee to. The difficulty comes up when the naval units have to fight their way through enemy naval forces to get to the destination. Should the AIA redirect them to some other port which they can reach without hinderance by the enemy?

Depends on the likely of the interception. If the interception is more than 20% likely, I'd say that they should try to avoid interception to reach the safest major port described by Greyshaft. Remember that they can rebase to twice their range and are not limited to the nearest port as it was in the past.

SO 24, Choosing Losses in Land Combat.
(These are all pretty obvious but someone has to say them...)
* Lose Div where possible
* Lose weaker combat strength units first
* Lose Black print before white print
* Lose inf before armour

I'd add :
* Lose the cheapest / quickest to rebuilt.

I'd also add :
* If there is only one losse, loose the cheapest / quickest to rebuilt.
* If there are 2 losses and that the surviving unit stays on the map alone (no retreat with other units), choose losses so that the surviving unit is the most capable of defending itself.
* If there are 2 losses and that the surviving unit either is shattered or retreated with other units, choose losses so that the surviving unit is the most useful / powerful unit (most combat factors, prefering white prints over black prints, prefering ARM over INF).

There should be a box that the player would be able to tick for each standing order 24 that would be "do not loose the division", because usually with the above described routines, divisions and artillery may be chosen as the first loss (which is normal 95% of the time), but sometimes you want to be sure it won't be destroyed for example if it is a valuable ENG, a big artillery or else.

These 4 are easy enough to do. Should these just be automatic or should the player be able to set some additional priorities?

I think that the player should be able to define priorities.
Whether this would be priorities linked to each stack of counters, or priorities linked to theaters of operations, some sorts of "losse doctrines".

Best Regards

Patrice

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft
SO 16, Forced Naval Rebase (due to overruns),
* If possible, rebase to stack with an existing force in a major port. It makes it easier to create Task Forces in following turns.
* If two likely ports chose one with land units to deter second overrun.
* Could players nominate 2-3 default locations as part of their standing orders and any rebases occur to the closest location?

Yes. I guess the easy part is deciding where to go. The overrun units have to be in a port, so this SO only applies to naval units currently in port. The player needs to indicate where they should flee to. The difficulty comes up when the naval units have to fight their way through enemy naval forces to get to the destination. Should the AIA redirect them to some other port which they can reach without hinderance by the enemy?

Depends on the likely of the interception. If the interception is more than 20% likely, I'd say that they should try to avoid interception to reach the safest major port described by Greyshaft. Remember that they can rebase to twice their range and are not limited to the nearest port as it was in the past.

SO 24, Choosing Losses in Land Combat.
(These are all pretty obvious but someone has to say them...)
* Lose Div where possible
* Lose weaker combat strength units first
* Lose Black print before white print
* Lose inf before armour

I'd add :
* Lose the cheapest / quickest to rebuilt.

I'd also add :
* If there is only one losse, loose the cheapest / quickest to rebuilt.
* If there are 2 losses and that the surviving unit stays on the map alone (no retreat with other units), choose losses so that the surviving unit is the most capable of defending itself.
* If there are 2 losses and that the surviving unit either is shattered or retreated with other units, choose losses so that the surviving unit is the most useful / powerful unit (most combat factors, prefering white prints over black prints, prefering ARM over INF).

There should be a box that the player would be able to tick for each standing order 24 that would be "do not loose the division", because usually with the above described routines, divisions and artillery may be chosen as the first loss (which is normal 95% of the time), but sometimes you want to be sure it won't be destroyed for example if it is a valuable ENG, a big artillery or else.

These 4 are easy enough to do. Should these just be automatic or should the player be able to set some additional priorities?

I think that the player should be able to define priorities.
Whether this would be priorities linked to each stack of counters, or priorities linked to theaters of operations, some sorts of "losse doctrines".

Best Regards

Patrice

Good points. I need to think this over.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is my second attempt at writing SO 5. I have tried to respond to the comments and suggestions to my earlier version.

==========================================
SO 5 Defensive Air Support for Land or Naval Units and Factories
(as of August 30, 2005)

Id just like to give this one my blessing. It works.

Im assuming that you will not include the "intercept enroute"-option because of how that would complicate everything enormously?

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
These 4 are easy enough to do. Should these just be automatic or should the player be able to set some additional priorities?

You need more priorities. For example Id rather lose a 4-2 infantry corps than my shining new 3-5 panzer division.

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is my second attempt at writing SO 5. I have tried to respond to the comments and suggestions to my earlier version.

==========================================
SO 5 Defensive Air Support for Land or Naval Units and Factories
(as of August 30, 2005)

Id just like to give this one my blessing. It works.

Im assuming that you will not include the "intercept enroute"-option because of how that would complicate everything enormously?

Correct. Here is the relevant paragraph from the PBEM Design document I am modifying:

Air combat can occur in 3 places during a Naval action, 5 places during a Land action, and 9 places during an Air action. For each of these ‘places’ there can be several combats (e.g., four ground strikes). Clearly this has the potential for making PBEM take a long time. Therefore, I have removed from PBEM the options: #22 Bounce, #51 En-route aircraft interception, and #57 Limited aircraft interception. I have also required Standing Orders for all non-phasing player decisions during air combat so the air combat sequence can be completed without any emails. These decisions detract from keeping PBEM faithful to WIF, so I do them reluctantly. However, I believe they are essential to keep PBEM from taking excessively long to play (i.e., dozens of emails per impulse).

here is my proposal for SO 16

=============================
SO 16 Overrun Naval Units

Since these are naval units that might be overrun, they have to be in a port for this SO to apply. Their destination also has to be a friendly port that can be reached within twice their range. Therefore, clicking on this SO displays a column on the left hand side of the screen that lists all the ports where there are naval units that might be overrun. The list will usually be very short, and often no ports will qualify at all.

The player can then click on any of the 'overrun' ports (displayed either on the map or in the left hand column) to see where the naval units might rebase. Because naval units can have different ranges, the ports that qualify for rebase destinations might be different for different units. The AIA will label the destination ports with numbers that correspond to necessary range the units have to have to reach the destination port. For example, a port that is 5 naval movement points away would be labeled 3. This is because a unit with a range of 3 can rebase to twice its range (6).

The player can then select the units within the overrun port to which he wants the SO to apply. For the selected group he designates destination ports in case they are overrun. Up to 5 ports, in priority order, can be designated for each group. The first priority port is used as the destination unless a problem arises with rebasing there. The primary problem is that the naval units might have to fight their way through enemy naval forces to get to the destination. If the enemy might intercept them on their way to the destination, the AIA will check the other listed destinations and choose the one that has the lowest probability of the rebasing naval units being intercepted. As always there are more conditionals that could be provided here, such as the size of the intercepting enemy force. However, since this SO is likely to be used so rarely, more conditionals seem unwarranted and are not included.