Matrix Games Forums

Steve: Just letting you know this looks like an incredible game. I've soured on the whole HOI thing for Grand WWII, but this looks fantastic.

It may take a while longer, but I'm sure I'll be buying it once released.

Cheers,
CC

well I would make as many things optional as possible because WIF is very exploitive. Like letting all units breakdown into infinite divs is a problem IMO. I have already thought of creative ways to exploit that vs an opponent.

ORIGINAL: winky51

well I would make as many things optional as possible because WIF is very exploitive. Like letting all units breakdown into infinite divs is a problem IMO. I have already thought of creative ways to exploit that vs an opponent.

How?

I haven't added an upper limit (yet) to the number of INF divisions a major power can create. Instead of just a flat number, it could be a function of the major power and/or the number (or percentage) of corps/armies the major power has on the map.

We've thought of several ways to 'exploit' this rule, but I am interested in others - I do not want MWIF to play substantially differently from WIF FE.
===
From the MWIF Players Manual:

Effects on Game Play
One effect of this optional rule is that the division units included in the counter mix are only available to the player: (1) by building them or (2) when specified as part of a scenario’s setup. They are never used when units are broken down into divisions nor can they be used to reform corps/armies. Indeed, when a division unit from the counter mix is destroyed, it is treated differently from one created through breakdown. Those from the counter mix go back into the force pools, while those divisions created when a corps/army is broken down go into the BreakDown Pool when they are destroyed. Whenever divisions are used to reform a corps/army, the divisions are removed from the game.

However, for all other game play purposes there is no difference between the division units from the counter mix and those created when a corps/army is broken down into divisions.

The effect this rule has on play balance is uncertain and controversial. On the one hand it removes a somewhat artificial restriction on breaking down units that was imposed by the counter sheet limitations of WIF FE. On the other hand, it enables the Japanese player, for example, to generate a lot of divisions, place them on SCS units and invade numerous islands and other hexes in the Pacific simultaneously. Note that doing so makes the total strength of the Japanese army units much less, but that is only temporary, until they can be reformed back into corps/armies.

This change also enables the major powers to use divisions more readily for taking casualties during land combat. But that applies to all the major powers, both on offense and defense. Again, breaking down corps/armies will reduce the total combat strength of the forces in the front lines. And one last use for this increase in the number of divisions is the opportunity to hold individual hexes with less expensive division units. This can be of use to Germany in Norway, and Japan for holding islands in the Pacific, as just 2 examples. It also has potential for helping to defend the somewhat porous front line and exposed supply lines in China.

I think there was a thread for this somewhere?

I don't think lots of mostly 1 factor divisions will make as much difference as it seems at first. The Japanese can grab more minor port bases, sure, but they won't be able to hold them very well if they dilute their total quantity of corps/army sized units too much as they never have enough of those in the first place. Either way, it is still best Japanese play to grab the outer edges of the perimeter first and deal with interior objectives second. Creating a bunch of divisions to both simultaneously might weaken their land forces a bit too much. Perhaps if you are concerned about this as the Allies, I would suggest playing with limited overseas supply and many of these advanced Japanese outposts will never be in supply and easy prey for the USMC corps, who already usually have plenty of divisions accompanying them for losses. Hint: no one says the USMC has to approach the Greater East-Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere from the east, since WiF makes it very easy, logistically, to operate in the Indian Ocean.

For increased loss-taking units, I think any armored power will appreciate having more motorized infantry divisions to take as loss units, but usually if you are good at managing your force pools while on the attack you don't run out that often. On the defense, a third unit in a hex is important in that it requires the attacker to get an S result to take the hex on assault. But there is one flip side...if the third unit is a flipped/disorganized 1 factor division, the defense of the hex is actually weaker. For that reason an artillery unit of some sort usually makes a far better "topper" unit to be the third piece in the hex.

I know where I will exploit with extra divisions ... as the Russians fighting the Japanese, with lots and lots of cavalry divisions running around on the big new map, with wonderful logistic bases in the Siberian wilderness to do this from. In China I don't think it will be an issue as the theater is still actually a little small. Any 'raiding' divisions are easily taken out by corps/army sized units, unless carefully backed with long-range aircraft (or if you leave all those optional new Chinese cities all over the place, then the Japanese are screwed by Chinese cavalry divisions taking them near the end of the turn). And Japan needs their long-range fighters out in the Pacific for the most part. Is Isolated Reorginasation still an optional? I've played with it for so long (since 4th Edition as a House Rule) that I don't even think of it as optional. Anyway isolated re-org makes far-flung divisional raids not as hard to deal with on the defense as you can just cut the raiding division's supply line. (And the obvious counter-move there is to build an ATR).

Move - Counter-move.....what makes WiF a great game.

Problems with this:
 
- Above all: Invading is a different game, specially in the mediterranean.
 
How many times I have wished having a couple more of divisions to invade from cruisers, at the early years of the game, when there are no marines in the british/Commonwealth pool... Two or three divisions, additiona to the one/two existing ones, can make the war at the Mediterranean completely different, Gibraltar would be more at danger Italy could not be almost totally empty, the units at the desert could be faced from both sides after successful invasions (i.e. El Agheila area)...
 
- Loss taking unit as stated above, for attacker and defender.
 
- Possibility to reinforce stacks with a third unit, as stated above.
 
- In the Pacific, once invaded the most interesting hexes, they can be reinforced with militias or garrisons and make them much more resistant, there is expansion but no need to dillute the power. Besides, once occupied most of these hexes with garr + mil, you can rebuild the original units to defend the rst of the hexes.

(78) Unlimited Breakdown (MWIF addition)

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I think there was a thread for this somewhere?

I don't think lots of mostly 1 factor divisions will make as much difference as it seems at first. The Japanese can grab more minor port bases, sure, but they won't be able to hold them very well if they dilute their total quantity of corps/army sized units too much as they never have enough of those in the first place. Either way, it is still best Japanese play to grab the outer edges of the perimeter first and deal with interior objectives second. Creating a bunch of divisions to both simultaneously might weaken their land forces a bit too much. Perhaps if you are concerned about this as the Allies, I would suggest playing with limited overseas supply and many of these advanced Japanese outposts will never be in supply and easy prey for the USMC corps, who already usually have plenty of divisions accompanying them for losses. Hint: no one says the USMC has to approach the Greater East-Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere from the east, since WiF makes it very easy, logistically, to operate in the Indian Ocean.

For increased loss-taking units, I think any armored power will appreciate having more motorized infantry divisions to take as loss units, but usually if you are good at managing your force pools while on the attack you don't run out that often. On the defense, a third unit in a hex is important in that it requires the attacker to get an S result to take the hex on assault. But there is one flip side...if the third unit is a flipped/disorganized 1 factor division, the defense of the hex is actually weaker. For that reason an artillery unit of some sort usually makes a far better "topper" unit to be the third piece in the hex.

I know where I will exploit with extra divisions ... as the Russians fighting the Japanese, with lots and lots of cavalry divisions running around on the big new map, with wonderful logistic bases in the Siberian wilderness to do this from. In China I don't think it will be an issue as the theater is still actually a little small. Any 'raiding' divisions are easily taken out by corps/army sized units, unless carefully backed with long-range aircraft (or if you leave all those optional new Chinese cities all over the place, then the Japanese are screwed by Chinese cavalry divisions taking them near the end of the turn). And Japan needs their long-range fighters out in the Pacific for the most part. Is Isolated Reorginasation still an optional? I've played with it for so long (since 4th Edition as a House Rule) that I don't even think of it as optional. Anyway isolated re-org makes far-flung divisional raids not as hard to deal with on the defense as you can just cut the raiding division's supply line. (And the obvious counter-move there is to build an ATR).

Move - Counter-move.....what makes WiF a great game.

It will make a huge difference when the Japanese use two SCS to drop off two divisions, then recombine them to gain a corp without the use of a TRS. It works so well over-the-board that it surely will be even more effective with unlimited DIV breakdown.

ORIGINAL: coregames

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I think there was a thread for this somewhere?

I don't think lots of mostly 1 factor divisions will make as much difference as it seems at first. The Japanese can grab more minor port bases, sure, but they won't be able to hold them very well if they dilute their total quantity of corps/army sized units too much as they never have enough of those in the first place. Either way, it is still best Japanese play to grab the outer edges of the perimeter first and deal with interior objectives second. Creating a bunch of divisions to both simultaneously might weaken their land forces a bit too much. Perhaps if you are concerned about this as the Allies, I would suggest playing with limited overseas supply and many of these advanced Japanese outposts will never be in supply and easy prey for the USMC corps, who already usually have plenty of divisions accompanying them for losses. Hint: no one says the USMC has to approach the Greater East-Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere from the east, since WiF makes it very easy, logistically, to operate in the Indian Ocean.

For increased loss-taking units, I think any armored power will appreciate having more motorized infantry divisions to take as loss units, but usually if you are good at managing your force pools while on the attack you don't run out that often. On the defense, a third unit in a hex is important in that it requires the attacker to get an S result to take the hex on assault. But there is one flip side...if the third unit is a flipped/disorganized 1 factor division, the defense of the hex is actually weaker. For that reason an artillery unit of some sort usually makes a far better "topper" unit to be the third piece in the hex.

I know where I will exploit with extra divisions ... as the Russians fighting the Japanese, with lots and lots of cavalry divisions running around on the big new map, with wonderful logistic bases in the Siberian wilderness to do this from. In China I don't think it will be an issue as the theater is still actually a little small. Any 'raiding' divisions are easily taken out by corps/army sized units, unless carefully backed with long-range aircraft (or if you leave all those optional new Chinese cities all over the place, then the Japanese are screwed by Chinese cavalry divisions taking them near the end of the turn). And Japan needs their long-range fighters out in the Pacific for the most part. Is Isolated Reorginasation still an optional? I've played with it for so long (since 4th Edition as a House Rule) that I don't even think of it as optional. Anyway isolated re-org makes far-flung divisional raids not as hard to deal with on the defense as you can just cut the raiding division's supply line. (And the obvious counter-move there is to build an ATR).

Move - Counter-move.....what makes WiF a great game.

It will make a huge difference when the Japanese use two SCS to drop off two divisions, then recombine them to gain a corp without the use of a TRS. It works so well over-the-board that it surely will be even more effective with unlimited DIV breakdown.

Good point. TRS and AMPH will be reserved for use only by units that can not break down and be transported by SCS.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: coregames

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I think there was a thread for this somewhere?

I don't think lots of mostly 1 factor divisions will make as much difference as it seems at first. The Japanese can grab more minor port bases, sure, but they won't be able to hold them very well if they dilute their total quantity of corps/army sized units too much as they never have enough of those in the first place. Either way, it is still best Japanese play to grab the outer edges of the perimeter first and deal with interior objectives second. Creating a bunch of divisions to both simultaneously might weaken their land forces a bit too much. Perhaps if you are concerned about this as the Allies, I would suggest playing with limited overseas supply and many of these advanced Japanese outposts will never be in supply and easy prey for the USMC corps, who already usually have plenty of divisions accompanying them for losses. Hint: no one says the USMC has to approach the Greater East-Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere from the east, since WiF makes it very easy, logistically, to operate in the Indian Ocean.

For increased loss-taking units, I think any armored power will appreciate having more motorized infantry divisions to take as loss units, but usually if you are good at managing your force pools while on the attack you don't run out that often. On the defense, a third unit in a hex is important in that it requires the attacker to get an S result to take the hex on assault. But there is one flip side...if the third unit is a flipped/disorganized 1 factor division, the defense of the hex is actually weaker. For that reason an artillery unit of some sort usually makes a far better "topper" unit to be the third piece in the hex.

I know where I will exploit with extra divisions ... as the Russians fighting the Japanese, with lots and lots of cavalry divisions running around on the big new map, with wonderful logistic bases in the Siberian wilderness to do this from. In China I don't think it will be an issue as the theater is still actually a little small. Any 'raiding' divisions are easily taken out by corps/army sized units, unless carefully backed with long-range aircraft (or if you leave all those optional new Chinese cities all over the place, then the Japanese are screwed by Chinese cavalry divisions taking them near the end of the turn). And Japan needs their long-range fighters out in the Pacific for the most part. Is Isolated Reorginasation still an optional? I've played with it for so long (since 4th Edition as a House Rule) that I don't even think of it as optional. Anyway isolated re-org makes far-flung divisional raids not as hard to deal with on the defense as you can just cut the raiding division's supply line. (And the obvious counter-move there is to build an ATR).

Move - Counter-move.....what makes WiF a great game.

It will make a huge difference when the Japanese use two SCS to drop off two divisions, then recombine them to gain a corp without the use of a TRS. It works so well over-the-board that it surely will be even more effective with unlimited DIV breakdown.

Good point. TRS and AMPH will be reserved for use only by units that can not break down and be transported by SCS.

I'm not sure that's a good idea. Nor does it address the real issue with unlimited breakdown. By itself, it may be OK, but combined with SCS transport of INF class Divs, probably will have the biggest impact in terms of changing the WiF paradigm.

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Good point. TRS and AMPH will be reserved for use only by units that can not break down and be transported by SCS.

I'm not sure that's a good idea. Nor does it address the real issue with unlimited breakdown. By itself, it may be OK, but combined with SCS transport of INF class Divs, probably will have the biggest impact in terms of changing the WiF paradigm.

1) I am with Paul. I'm not sure this is a good idea.
Unlimited division breakdown are really not that much unlimited, they are limited indeed. That exploit from coregame sounds good on the paper, but it will sound less good on the map. a) Not all DIV are capable of being SCS transported. b) Instead of having to escape 1 interception attempt, it will have to intercept 2. c) the destination place will have to only have 1 unit prior to that operation.

2) Those who fear exploits just have not to use the option.

3) Why not a new thread to talk about this ?

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Good point. TRS and AMPH will be reserved for use only by units that can not break down and be transported by SCS.

I'm not sure that's a good idea. Nor does it address the real issue with unlimited breakdown. By itself, it may be OK, but combined with SCS transport of INF class Divs, probably will have the biggest impact in terms of changing the WiF paradigm.

1) I am with Paul. I'm not sure this is a good idea.
Unlimited division breakdown are really not that much unlimited, they are limited indeed. That exploit from coregame sounds good on the paper, but it will sound less good on the map. a) Not all DIV are capable of being SCS transported. b) Instead of having to escape 1 interception attempt, it will have to intercept 2. c) the destination place will have to only have 1 unit prior to that operation.

2) Those who fear exploits just have not to use the option.

3) Why not a new thread to talk about this ?

Is he perhaps saying that AMPH's and TRS's will only be used by units that cannot breakdown to be sailing on SCS's as a result of being able to use SCS's?

So not as a rule but as a players usage consequence.

I do not think that either Japan or the USA has enough units to break down without severely limiting their offensive or defensive capabilities in general.

If it bothers you that much (and I could see why) turn off the option allowing SCSs to transport Divs. I'm not sure how historical that really is, and if it was I don't think it was done all that much.

To recombine divisions you need an infantry and a motorise infantry.
I thought that SCS could not transport motorised divisions??

ORIGINAL: BallyJ

To recombine divisions you need an infantry and a motorise infantry.
I thought that SCS could not transport motorised divisions??

In WiF yes. With Unlimited Breakdown in MWiF you need two Divs of the same type and combat factor as were received from the breakdown. Since you have the choice with INF corps to receive two INF Divs, you can get twice as many as you have INF corps plus one for every other corps you are willing to break down.

True SCS can only transport INF class Divs.

...and yes, this should be in a different thread...

very good point BallyJ

I'm guessing Steve meant players would tend to reserve TRS/AMPH for moving corps/army size units as they play, not that MWiF would change the rule that TRS can transport one or two divisions.

I don't think SCS transport always represents loading infantry onto naval combat ships, though the Germans did this at Narvik and I think the Japanese also used destroyers for this purpose on rare occasion. I just wif-zen the idea as moving a smaller infantry unit with a few small transports, rather than moving multiple divisions in a large convoy represented by a TRS counter — like the Tokyo Express moving a regiment per night down The Slot to Guadalcanal using some barges and some light patrol craft close escorts, with a Heavy Cruiser providing additional cover a little ways off. It just gives the player a little more flexibility commanding his forces at a finer scale than the counters represent. I've used the rule with no regrets ever since it came out.

I think some of the theoretical conversation here is overestimating the combat power of divisions. As the Japanese, I'd rather have three INF and a good MIL in an attack than 2 INF, 2 divisions and a MIL. In other words, keeping your MIL pool built out gives you more combat power as you use those for attritional loss-taking at only .5 BP more expense than using an infantry division created by break-down (perhaps the MIL are cheaper over time as higher attacking factors create less attacker losses?). So don't play like Hitler, always building shiny new units at the expense of the traditional replacement system, which I like to think the MIL counters represent in part. (Manstein's great complaint if you have ever read his book).

Also, by themselves divisions have a hard time landing successfully in a major power home country, for one. And it is not super easy to recombine them into the best corps sized units. You can't fool with divisions with GARR or MIL units, and those make the best island garrisons anyway.

I don't get the point of requiring matching combat factors and unit types from the break-down to re-create corps however. Why over-complicate the procedure for the player? Though come to think of it, I don't think I have ever re-built a corps sized unit anyway.

Perhaps a really good use for additional divisions will instead be the ability to create an armored division when you need one. Pure armor divisions really help on both attack and defense when you want to pick the combat table, but they are hard to work into your build plans due to gearing limits.

Please create a new thread for the discussion on Unlimited Breakdown.

will do

...done, if you want to delete posts 2142 through 2158 here, go ahead.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Once all 143 decision points have either Pascal code or a LAIO script, the AIO can execute autonomously. In practice, we will introduce the AIO decisions one at a time, evaluating how good each decision is and modifying the script/code until we are happy with it.

That will take quite some time, then [:)]

November 1, 2010 Status Report for Matrix Games’ MWIF Forum

Accomplishments of October 2010


Project Management
I monitored all the threads in the MWIF World in Flames forum daily.

I have attached a JPG of the current version of the spreadsheet I created to visually track what has been done and what needs to be done. When I get all (or most of) the pale blue items transformed into dark green, I will return to working on more interesting things: new code for optional rules, PBEM, NetPlay, and AIO. If you want to know why MWIF has taken so long, count the number of dark green cells.

Hardware and Software
I reinstalled Theme Engine, which appears to be functioning correctly. When I first upgraded Theme Engine for Win7, it was a disaster. It added bitmap graphics to every button so they could be animated. Because MWIF is close to tapping out Windows graphics resources, the addition of thousands of new bitmaps for buttons caused out-of-memory errors at random places in the code. That was when I was lucky enough to get an out-of-memory error instead of some other mysterious program crash. The reason it works now is because I removed all (over 1000) TTeButtons in MWIF and replaced them with TTeSpeedButtons, which do not have animation capabilities (i.e., no bitmaps).

In the process of getting MWIF to work with Win7 I replaced all the assembler code with Pascal code (I did that back in the spring). That took some time and had to be done very carefully. My motivation for making that conversion was the number of anomalous crashes I saw that pointed to the failure occurring in the assembler code. I don’t see those crashes any more, though I can’t be certain that the assembler code was entirely to blame. On the other hand, I still don’t see those crashes after having reinstalled Theme Engine - pointing the finger of guilt more ominously at the removed assembler code.

After reinstalling Theme Engine I recompiled the MWIF custom library routines to make sure they used the most recent Theme Engine object modules.

I still need to convert the main menu and popup unit menu from standard Windows style to Theme Engine.

Beta Testing
I released versions 5.03.02 (22 fixes), 5.03.03 (27 fixes), 5.03.04 (19 fixes), 6.00.00 (26 fixes), and 6.00.01 (22 fixes), to the beta testers last month. The change in numbering from the 5.xx to 6.xx numbering was because of the reinstallation of Theme Engine. This totals 5 new versions and 116 fixes, which is slightly over my previous 3 month average for fixes (111).

Besides the normal wide range of bug reports, I spent significant time improving the Production Planning form. As the beta testers hammered on it, more flaws in the code were revealed. In particular, keeping all the pieces of the form synchronized was difficult (e.g., the resource list, the filters, the route table, the default settings table, the maps, and the various radio button group boxes). Its looking solid now but I still have a bunch of mostly minor complaints from the beta testers to investigate.

This month I went through a lot of old bug reports, tracking down all the pieces related to them and trying to reproduce them. There can be 3 pieces: a post by a beta tester, an emailed MadExcept report from the beta tester, and a saved game received a beta tester. I keep a master file of bug reports and tying all three of these inputs together isn’t always easy. My reward for this housework was the elimination of ~20 bug reports that were no longer valid (they had been fixed at some time over the past year).

Fatal errors occur occasionally, but I can fix them quickly.

Saved Games
Saving and restoring games is stable though I continue to make revisions to the format from time to time. Old saved games can still be restored going back to version 0.0.12.00.

Map and Units
Rob sent me updates of the naval unit writeups. Patrice sent me some minor changes to the unit data (to correct the spelling of Italian ship names).

Scenarios and Optional Rules
Added code to impose limits on the number of saved build points that can be used from a hex. This is a rare rule but it can be important when Murmansk gets cut off from the rest of the USSR. CWIF did not impose any limit; but MWIF now conforms to RAW. Corrected CWIF code for tracking whether a neutral major power can save an oil point. To do this I needed to create a new variable to be written out to the saved game. The rule the program enforces is that a neutral major power (e.g., the USA and the USSR) can only save one additional/new oil point per turn.

Starting writing code for the USSR-Japan Compulsory Peace optional rule. The program now identifies when the players can invoke that rule. Implementing it (changing hex control and forcibly relocating units) still needs to be coded.

MWIF Game Engine and CWIF Conversion
I updated some CWIF code concerning US Entry Options. That code appears to have been written for an older version of the rules. I reviewed the code for all those rules since I had found some that were obsolete.

I standardize the Weather phase so it has its own module. Only the Setup phase is scattered about in several different modules, with the logic flow non-standard (as inherited from CWIF). All the other 59 phases of the game have their own modules. However, there are two new phases to be added to the sequence of play - discussed next.

Having gotten Production Planning running smoothly, I discovered that finalizing those decisions before the phases for units staying at sea/returning to base presented problems. According to RAW, players should be able to make adjustments after the latter phases have occurred. Furthermore, I found the CWIF had no code for enabling players to effect Search and Seizure. After a short discussion with the beta testers, I decided on adding two more phases to the sequence of play. The new sequence of play is:
.
.
• Preliminary Production Planning
• Stay At Sea A
• Stay At Sea D
• Return To Base A
• Return To Base D
• Use Oil
• Final Reorganization
• Break Down
• Final Production Planning (new)
• Search and Seizure (new)
• Naval Repair
• Production
.
.

From a programming point of view there is no difference between the two production planning phases. We wanted to give the players an opportunity to plan their use of resources (e.g., oil) and routes to destinations before making the decisions about units staying at sea or returning to base. The second production planning phase let’s the player make adjustments after perhaps losing convoys that got tangled up in naval combats during the return to base phases. Most of the time, the players will have nothing to do in the second production planning phase and will just click on Ok - Done.

Search and Seizure, according to RAW, occurs during the Production Phase. In reality it occurs before production decisions are made, since events during Search and Seizure can reduce the number of build points available for production. Therefore, I have made it a separate phase - of its very own. By the way, the Naval Repair phase occurs only when playing the Guadalcanal scenario and takes the place of the Production phase.

Player Interface
I added code to track from which carrier a carrier air unit originates when it flies an air mission to a land hex (e.g., a ground strike). When one of these units is aborted, the program returns it to its carrier of origination automatically - which saves the player the trouble of figuring it out. Because a carrier can not be damaged when one of its carrier air units flies those missions, making the return automatic is ok. During naval air combat making the return automatic isn’t possible; since the carrier might have been destroyed in the combat.

Modified the Player Interface Settings so players can elect to skip the Peace phase every turn. According to RAW, a player may sue for peace at the end of each turn. I’ve never heard of someone doing such a thing, but the rules say it should be permitted. Therefore I have added a mandatory phase to ask each major power that is at war whether they want to sue for peace. That will get very tedious very quickly. Hence the new player interface setting for skipping the phase/question. Since I was making changes to this anyway, I merged two separate forms (Disable CAP Phases and Disable Phases) so all three settings concerning disabling phases appear on a single form.

I streamlined the process of loading units from coastal hexes by eliminating a form. This had always bothered me (as a player) and when a beta tester reported some bugs with how it executed, I took the opportunity to rewrite (and simply) the code.

Added a button to the Setup Tray so a player can see his reserves with a single mouse click. This is useful when setting up Germany and France, where holes are often left in the front line - to be filled by reserves when they arrive in the second impulse. Obviously this is a minor issue but it only took 20 minutes to code and test.

Internet - NetPlay
Nothing new.

PBEM
Nothing new.

Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Nothing new.

Player’s Manual
I updated the Rules as Coded PDF, which is now on version #35. These were clarifications for: Colon’s access to the Gulf of Panama, US Entry options, and that MWIF has the Commonwealth occupy the Faeroes Islands at the start of some scenarios. Those islands aren’t shown on the WIF FE maps, so we based this decision on the historical occupation.

I revised the text for the Production Planning form based on small changes to how that form looks and is used. Having reinstalled Theme Engine I retook several dozen screen shots of forms that have changed over the last 6 months. After some minor editing for the changes for Disabled phases, and descriptions of modified forms, the current PDF of the draft Players Manual is now 363 pages long. That includes screenshots for all the sections; I threw in a screenshot at the beginning of a few sections which had been pure text.

Tutorials, Training Videos, and Context Sensitive Help
I took the changes I made to the Players Manual and converted the text into help messages that can be called up during game play. This mostly concerned Production Planning, which is a dozen pages in the Players Manual. That text is available with the click of the Help button on the Production planning form. That’s very useful because that form has a lot of moving parts and how to use them all isn’t intuitively obvious to the casual observer.

Historical Video, Music, and Sound Effects
Nothing new.

Marketing
The MWIF fan site still looks very good.

Andy Johnson (who did the work to develop the MWIF fan site from nothing) has health problems and is unable to continue maintaining it. We are looking for someone to volunteer to take it over. The site is not part of Matrix Games, but some of the material on the site is copyrighted by Matrix Games and/or Australian Design Group, so there are restrictions on what can be shown and made available to the general public.

Communications
Nothing new (that can be reported).