Matrix Games Forums

I am working my way through RAW and converting it to RAC (Rules as Coded). I put in a couple of hours of mindless work editing this each day.

Personally, I found RAW difficult to read, mostly because of: small font, double columns, black and white printing, and no paragraph indentation. All of this was due to a desire to produce a compact printed document with commensurate low cost.

For RAC I am planning on a PDF file, and while wanting to keep the number of pages from growing too large is a concern, it is not an overriding consideration. After all, I do not expect it to be printed by Matrix Games, but rather by those players who desire the full rule set in printed form. Note that the Player's Manual will be printed for those who purchase the boxed version of MWIF. All I am talking about here is the MWIF version of RAW = RAC.

Here is a typical page. I have decided on using underline for some rules subsections (e.g., Invasion combat). I indent the paragraphs and give them a full line of separation from each other. I am using 2 blanks following each sentence (my personal preference for two decades now). For lists that do not have an explicit order, I am using small bullets. And for points of emphasis I am using bld, italics in green.

If you have a copy of RAW you might want to compare this section to how it appears in RAW.



EDIT: I almost always exopand the emphasized section. RAW typically emphasized just a single word (e.g., any) but I believe it is better to emphsize the idea (e.g., a basic supply path of any length) rather than just the adjective.

Here is how the primary sections are done: a larger font in bold blue. For optional rules I am using brown, which de-emphasizes them.



EDIT: The example should be in italics and colored - see following posts. There is a typo here from RAW: "If an impulse ends the turn" should replace "If impulses end".

Here is an example of an ordered list; I have not changed this from the way RAW handles it, using simple numbers for each item. Also shown in this screen shot is the presentation of examples: itlics royal blue. I like the fact that the colors make it easy to skip over the non-essential parts (examples and optional rules) when you are trying to learn the basics. This shows the another example of the use of underline for subsections.

4th and last in the series.

For the US entry options, I elected to emphasize (bold, italics, green) each option. I also used red for prerequisites (always at the end of the paragraph). The interdependence of the US entry options is important, which is why I decided to use such a forceful color.

I am about 60% done with the first pass. The second pass will be to change vocabulary (e.g., replace face-up and face-down with organized and disorganized). The last pass will be to make edits related to actual changes in the rules that we made for MWIF.

It looks like this will come to 160 pages or so - compared to RAW's 64 pages.

The text lookx very nice. A couple of points though:
 
Last impulse page the text talks about the initiative marker moving spaces, In the game environment there are no spaces to move but a track of initiative bonuses is kept.
 
Ground strike talks about rolling a die, the game does this automatically, perhaps the game rolls dies to determine the outcome.
 
Lars

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

The text lookx very nice. A couple of points though:

Last impulse page the text talks about the initiative marker moving spaces, In the game environment there are no spaces to move but a track of initiative bonuses is kept.

Ground strike talks about rolling a die, the game does this automatically, perhaps the game rolls dies to determine the outcome.

Lars

Thanks.

My second pass through the text will be to remove the cardboard counter, paper map, other paper items, and dice references. Several forum members went through RAW for me and identified all the places those occur (that was about 18 months ago, but I intend to finally use the results of their work later this month).

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I also expect that learning MWIF will be a lot easier than learning the board game by reading through RAW. Perhaps even an order of magnitude easier?

There are several things that I think will make MWiF easier to learn than the boardgame.

I am one of those struggling players of EiA that have never played the game before and am truly overwhelmed. There are several things that I find myself wishing I had. I don't especially feel that all of these are feasable or have not be addressed already, but here they are.

• The manual needs an overview section geared towards players new to the game. This section would give the user an idea of what steps it takes to play a turn, what objectives they should have, and some indications of what sections of the rules are most important for a new player. Most of the time, the rules are laid out in the order of play. This is as it should be because the manual will serve as a reference much longer than it will serve as an introduction. The overview will help mitigate the problem that a reference is usually ineffective as an introduction.
• Tutorials. These will help introduce the interface better than the written word can ever do. Also, they can give the green recruit an idea of what he/she can do while he is learning what he/she should do.
• Many times, a manual only tells the player how to do something. Expanding the manual so that it also tells the player why something needs to be done, when is a good time to do it, and how to do it well will be a great thing. For example, just before describing how to accomplish a breakthrough attack with the software, explain how a breakthrough attack is where the armor units break through a hole in the line and exploit their speed to capture as much territory as possible while helping surround the enemy that is fighting on the front lines. Just after describing how to accomplish a breakthrough attack with the software, describe how to recognize when it is a good time to attempt it and when it is a poor choice. Some manuals put this information into shaded boxes to segregate it from the regular rules.
• Most importantly for a game of this size, I think there needs to be some published information that give a new player some fairly detailed instructions of what they need to do for the first couple of turns in the campaign game for each of the major powers. This will help players 'jump in the deep end of the pool' and survive. I have always tried to read the manual casually before starting the game. Then, after playing my first game, go back and reread part (or all) of the manual. Repeat as needed. Giving them some hints as to what a grand strategy might be will help them learn by doing.

I hope this is helpful and am interested in any others opinions. Remember, though, I am not saying that all of these are feasable. Just that they would be helpful for the new player.

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I also expect that learning MWIF will be a lot easier than learning the board game by reading through RAW. Perhaps even an order of magnitude easier?

There are several things that I think will make MWiF easier to learn than the boardgame.

I am one of those struggling players of EiA that have never played the game before and am truly overwhelmed. There are several things that I find myself wishing I had. I don't especially feel that all of these are feasable or have not be addressed already, but here they are.

• The manual needs an overview section geared towards players new to the game. This section would give the user an idea of what steps it takes to play a turn, what objectives they should have, and some indications of what sections of the rules are most important for a new player. Most of the time, the rules are laid out in the order of play. This is as it should be because the manual will serve as a reference much longer than it will serve as an introduction. The overview will help mitigate the problem that a reference is usually ineffective as an introduction.
• Tutorials. These will help introduce the interface better than the written word can ever do. Also, they can give the green recruit an idea of what he/she can do while he is learning what he/she should do.
• Many times, a manual only tells the player how to do something. Expanding the manual so that it also tells the player why something needs to be done, when is a good time to do it, and how to do it well will be a great thing. For example, just before describing how to accomplish a breakthrough attack with the software, explain how a breakthrough attack is where the armor units break through a hole in the line and exploit their speed to capture as much territory as possible while helping surround the enemy that is fighting on the front lines. Just after describing how to accomplish a breakthrough attack with the software, describe how to recognize when it is a good time to attempt it and when it is a poor choice. Some manuals put this information into shaded boxes to segregate it from the regular rules.
• Most importantly for a game of this size, I think there needs to be some published information that give a new player some fairly detailed instructions of what they need to do for the first couple of turns in the campaign game for each of the major powers. This will help players 'jump in the deep end of the pool' and survive. I have always tried to read the manual casually before starting the game. Then, after playing my first game, go back and reread part (or all) of the manual. Repeat as needed. Giving them some hints as to what a grand strategy might be will help them learn by doing.

I hope this is helpful and am interested in any others opinions. Remember, though, I am not saying that all of these are feasable. Just that they would be helpful for the new player.

Good advice.[&o]

After reading your first point I think I will add a fourth subsection to How To Play. The first 3 describe the tutorials, and the new section would be titled "Important Decisions". It would highlight the places in the sequence of play where what the player decides should be based on an overall plan. As part of that would be reasons for choosing A versus B or C. I would want this to be short, preferably covering only the bare minimum of major decision points. Otherwise it might become too bulky, thereby defeating one of its purposes: providing a quick start for the new player.

Tutorials will be an important part of MWIF.

For your third point, I think I will bury that in the help sections for each form/phase/subphase. I already envision these containing sections on: (1) Purpose, (2) Screen Display, and (3) Use. The new fourth section will be Considerations. Again I do not want these to be treatises on the subjects, just some helpful suggestions.

Satisfying your fourth point will require little to no effort by me. I intend to simply provide the very long writeups WIF FE has for each major power for each scenario. They are somewhat dated and the WIF gurus argue about the accuracy of the content, but all-in-all they are an excellent introduction for the newcomer on how to plan and play each major power.

Looks pretty good, Steve. I would comment on the Fleet to Pearl Harbour USE option mentioned above, but if others have already gone through RAW with a view to how it will translate to RAC, then nothing further need be said.

ORIGINAL: composer99

Looks pretty good, Steve. I would comment on the Fleet to Pearl Harbour USE option mentioned above, but if others have already gone through RAW with a view to how it will translate to RAC, then nothing further need be said.

Thanks.

I would not expect to change the text about Fleet to Pearl Harbor. What do you see that I don't?

The part about the SiF optional. SiF is mandatory in MWiF, is it not? Therefore the option should be adjusted so that the SiF text is the actual text.

ORIGINAL: composer99

The part about the SiF optional. SiF is mandatory in MWiF, is it not? Therefore the option should be adjusted so that the SiF text is the actual text.

Yes.

Here is the first page I've done that includes a figure. Graphcis by Patrice.



EDIT: I see about 4 things that I need to change here. Sigh.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is the first page I've done that includes a figure. Graphcis by Patrice.

Steve, why not add a "4" number in the hex across the all sea hexside, so that you can say also that ZOC don't extend to "4" either ?

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is the first page I've done that includes a figure. Graphcis by Patrice.

Steve, why not add a "4" number in the hex across the all sea hexside, so that you can say also that ZOC don't extend to "4" either ?

My goal is minimal factual changes. I am messing with the cosmetic elements to make it easier to read (for me as well as for others). And I need to make edits to reflect the use of a computer instead of cardboard and paper. And I need to describe places where the game/rules have been changed. But beyond that, I am not trying to improve on the 'communication' of the document. In the Player's Manaual I will obsess about such things, but for the RAW to RAC document, I'll leave things as they are.

The rules page looks great!
 
Will there be hot links on referred to rules numbers to take you to that rule?
 

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer

The rules page looks great!

Will there be hot links on referred to rules numbers to take you to that rule?

Thanks.

No.

What I am working on presently is RAC (Rules as Coded) which is a straight adaptation of RAW (Rules as Written) from the board game. People who are familiar with WIF FE know RAW because that is what they use to play the game. RAC is my attempt to duplicate that document only making factual changes to reflect the move from paper to computer. I am making much greater use of white space and adding color but otherwise I am leaving it as a simple document. It will not be printed, but come as a PDF on the disk. Adobe Acrobat has tools for finding things within a PDF file.

But the RAC is a secondary file/document. MWIF's primary documentation will be the Player's Manual, the outline of which I posted somewhere earlier in this thread (1st and 2nd drafts). But even here I do not intend to set up the hundreds (over a thousand?) hypertext links that this large book warrants. It would simply take too much time. I'll provide a glossary, index, and table of contents - which is pretty standard for published documentation.

Acrobat seems to be blowing the kerning (right word?) between characters in places, making words runtogether on occasion.


I'm confused about how you are going to replace "dice". Not having any experience with other computer wargames here
maybe adds to this confusion. But it would seem to be a frustrating experience to never know what the dice turned up
and just read the combat results the computer generates for you. This would seem to be true in many 'dice' parts of
the game - naval search dice, air combat dice. I mean when your opponent rolls a 2 in land combat you have a feeling
this is less likely to occur again. And yes, I know, a 2 or a 20 is equally likely on every roll in the game. But in practice
you don't see too many of them during a game. Some people play whole games without even rolling either one, so
one of those numbers, especially in land combat, is fairly memorable. A 1/10 split in naval combat is similar, though
more common.

Great work so far with the manual. Nice with all the space. Makes it easier to read.
 
One question:
Will you be able to check out any charts for say strategic bombing or air to air combat before you decide to do the mission?
 
/Magnus

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Acrobat seems to be blowing the kerning (right word?) between characters in places, making words runtogether on occasion.


I'm confused about how you are going to replace "dice". Not having any experience with other computer wargames here
maybe adds to this confusion. But it would seem to be a frustrating experience to never know what the dice turned up
and just read the combat results the computer generates for you. This would seem to be true in many 'dice' parts of
the game - naval search dice, air combat dice. I mean when your opponent rolls a 2 in land combat you have a feeling
this is less likely to occur again. And yes, I know, a 2 or a 20 is equally likely on every roll in the game. But in practice
you don't see too many of them during a game. Some people play whole games without even rolling either one, so
one of those numbers, especially in land combat, is fairly memorable. A 1/10 split in naval combat is similar, though
more common.

Well, what you are seeing is WordPerfect (not a PDF), and the screen shot makes things a little fuzzy, especially the graphic. ADG used full justification, which is what is in effect in the actual document - I cut out 10 pages for testing purposes and the full justification command got lost (hence the ragged right edge).

Also you are at the mercy of how I am showing the page internally (using WordPerfect); this is draft which cuts some corners.

I have decided to go with .75 inch margins on the left and right and .5 inch margins top and bottom. That will leave plenty of room for punching holes in the printout if you want to print and bind your own copy. And by using smaller margins, I have reduced the number of pages to slightly less than 160. But I have all the figures to add yet, so the final page count will go up.

The colors do not print as darkly as I would like. They look fine on the screen but I want the hard copy nice too. I have to change the light brown (probably to rust) and the royal blue (for examples) to a darker blue. I'll see what that looks like next.
-----
There is a player interface setting to see all the dice rolls. That simply shows what the random number is - nothing fancy (e.g., with animated dice rolling around the screen with sound effects of "Baby needs a new pair of shoes!").