What kind of manual(s) should we ask for?

[Anendrue]

The following quote is fro another topic but bears posting here.

ORIGINAL:  SamuraiProgrammer
My wife has encouraged me to frame and hang my set of WiF maps in the game room.  They are beautiful.
However, as much as I would like to do so, I can't see myself devoting 170 sq. ft. of wall space.
BUT...
What I would like to see is an atlas style booklet with color maps in it.  This could be useful in hotseat games and also for pondering strategies when the computer is otherwise engaged.
Furthermore, while we are dreaming....
There is an inexpensive reporting engine for Delphi that natively produces PDFs. Wouldn't it be great to be able to produce map images at the press of a button so you could email them to yourself for lunch-break at work?
   Steve
     Dean
Not really a serious proposal for this version, but there is always version 2.0
 

I think an Atlas is one heck of a good idea. Perhaps in PDf and therefore printable and usable.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: abj9562

The following quote is fro another topic but bears posting here.

ORIGINAL:  SamuraiProgrammer
My wife has encouraged me to frame and hang my set of WiF maps in the game room.  They are beautiful.
However, as much as I would like to do so, I can't see myself devoting 170 sq. ft. of wall space.
BUT...
What I would like to see is an atlas style booklet with color maps in it.  This could be useful in hotseat games and also for pondering strategies when the computer is otherwise engaged.
Furthermore, while we are dreaming....
There is an inexpensive reporting engine for Delphi that natively produces PDFs. Wouldn't it be great to be able to produce map images at the press of a button so you could email them to yourself for lunch-break at work?
  Steve
     Dean
Not really a serious proposal for this version, but there is always version 2.0

I think an Atlas is one heck of a good idea. Perhaps in PDf and therefore printable and usable.

Thanks. It is a great idea.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

I am getting closer to completing Rules as Coded (RAC). What's left is enternig all the clarifications Harry/Patrice provided.

Here is the 2D10 table for your review and comments (2 posts).

[Shannon V. OKeets]

2nd and last in series.

And its accomplice.

[brian brian]

the City Mods "can never be more than zero" is a little bit confusing; the newer version reads "City modifiers can never total more than zero" and is grasped more quickly.


the +1 for jungle qualified units could perhaps use an explanation that requiring 'elite' status can thus only apply to corps/army sized units but could be hard to add to the tightly fitted form as it is right now

but it gets confusing that blitz units get a +1 per DIV, as do paras, but jungle-fighters don't.

[brian brian]

this is my first look at the 2d10 table for MWiF; I can see how you would want to change the 'squiggle' character and the 'half-flip' character, but I think managing the half-flip and no-flip results with the lines on the table makes it more confusing, not less. The no-flip on asterisk (a nice big obvious asterisk, not the little * on this computer screen) has worked pretty well through-out the history of WiF. If the computer is going to roll dice in the background and report the results without necessarily showing the table, wouldn't the classic "*/2S" convey the result fairly simply? Vs "You have no losses and are not disorganized?"

Aside from that, adding bold to the columns on every fifth result is a standard way to make a table easier to read, but with the changes here and making the flip/no-flip information depending on what row the result is in, it might actually be easier to absorb without the rows in bold.

Also, using "-" rather than "0" would lower the overall amount of numbers on the table and seem less cluttered to me, but then I'm just really really used to the 2d10 the way it is.

[brian brian]

also, the original * results are underlined with no explanation

another alternative to the 'above the line' / 'below the line' distinction is to use three colors; black for all flip, red for half-flip, green for no-flip
(green being a bit more positive psychologically maybe?)

for the blitz/assault table choice, it is important to note that a defending AT GUN counts the same as an ARM Corps sized unit even though the gun is a Div sized unit. this is explained in the rules but not on the current paper table either

I think the whole table would look a lot better with spaces between the result characters and the + before the attacker number "+ 2 / 1" seems easier to digest than "+2/1" on a table full of numbers. and maybe a trailing + sign emphasizes the "extra loss" more as you've designed it anyway.


and although the current table doesn't mention that the defender only flips if they take more losses than the attacker, it would be nice to add it to this new table

[brian brian]

and one last thought - "Divided bonuses by 3, 4, or 6 when combat factors are reduced in that manner" - is more clear.

'third, fourth, and sixth' are really confusing as verbs, much moreso than "halve"

(when are they ever quartered? I can only think of halved for rivers or invasion and thirded for forts or the combination thereof?)

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

and one last thought - "Divided bonuses by 3, 4, or 6 when combat factors are reduced in that manner" - is more clear.

'third, fourth, and sixth' are really confusing as verbs, much moreso than "halve"

(when are they ever quartered? I can only think of halved for rivers or invasion and thirded for forts or the combination thereof?)

Temporary forts are halved too. So French units attacking across the West Wall are fourth'ed.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

the City Mods "can never be more than zero" is a little bit confusing; the newer version reads "City modifiers can never total more than zero" and is grasped more quickly.


the +1 for jungle qualified units could perhaps use an explanation that requiring 'elite' status can thus only apply to corps/army sized units but could be hard to add to the tightly fitted form as it is right now

but it gets confusing that blitz units get a +1 per DIV, as do paras, but jungle-fighters don't.

Ok - on the 'total' change.

I'll add the corps/army distinction.

I am not changing the rules, but rather typing in Harry's changes (and I'll give him a chance once I'm done to make sure I haven't screwed up the meaning).

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

also, the original * results are underlined with no explanation

another alternative to the 'above the line' / 'below the line' distinction is to use three colors; black for all flip, red for half-flip, green for no-flip
(green being a bit more positive psychologically maybe?)

for the blitz/assault table choice, it is important to note that a defending AT GUN counts the same as an ARM Corps sized unit even though the gun is a Div sized unit. this is explained in the rules but not on the current paper table either

I think the whole table would look a lot better with spaces between the result characters and the + before the attacker number "+ 2 / 1" seems easier to digest than "+2/1" on a table full of numbers. and maybe a trailing + sign emphasizes the "extra loss" more as you've designed it anyway.


and although the current table doesn't mention that the defender only flips if they take more losses than the attacker, it would be nice to add it to this new table

Not red - I tried blue. There needs to be two ways of communicating this; relying solely on color presents problems for some players.

How do you like this version? The D indicates defender becomes disorganized. On (D) the defender 's units become disorganized only if the attacker takes a loss.

[Ullern]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

How do you like this version? The D indicates defender becomes disorganized. On (D) the defender 's units become disorganized only if the attacker takes a loss.

On (D) the defender 's units become disorganized only if the attacker takes no loss.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: ullern

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

How do you like this version? The D indicates defender becomes disorganized. On (D) the defender 's units become disorganized only if the attacker takes a loss.

On (D) the defender 's units become disorganized only if the attacker takes no loss.

Yes.

[brian brian]

I don't think a D on the actual table will ever work out, due to the variability of 'attacker extra loss in bad weather/terrain' results. I was just suggesting adding it to the text explanations.

The current 2d10 table doesn't explain the difference for jungle-fighting units either, so I wasn't suggesting any change, just that it be pointed out right there that divisions can never be 'elite', rather than in the only rules.

I guess too I'm suggesting how the table looks gets synched up somewhat with how the computer reports the combat results...

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I don't think a D on the actual table will ever work out, due to the variability of 'attacker extra loss in bad weather/terrain' results. I was just suggesting adding it to the text explanations.

The current 2d10 table doesn't explain the difference for jungle-fighting units either, so I wasn't suggesting any change, just that it be pointed out right there that divisions can never be 'elite', rather than in the only rules.

I guess too I'm suggesting how the table looks gets synched up somewhat with how the computer reports the combat results...

I like the addition of the D, though I got it wrong and the 3rd occurrence should also be in parenthesis. I find it interesting that the defender's units rarely become disorganized "in place". That's not something I was aware of until I added the Ds.

As for synchronizing with the screen reports - that's a separate issue. For now I just want to get RAC done.

[brian brian]

that page of text is one of the most used pages in the game, right up there with the 2 page double sided color chart. it's always been a little frustrating that it explains only _most_ of the mods and combat results, for me at least.

commenting on the table led me to consider what the combat results report might look like, which is unknown to me, but I'm sure you'll keep it all consistent.

for the disruption results, maybe add a column to the left of the numerical assault results for the attacker. -1 to 17 = D for attacker; 18 to 22 = 1/2 D; 23 = - or 'none' or something. with a similar column on the right for the blitz results. then no messy lines or colors are needed.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

that page of text is one of the most used pages in the game, right up there with the 2 page double sided color chart. it's always been a little frustrating that it explains only _most_ of the mods and combat results, for me at least.

commenting on the table led me to consider what the combat results report might look like, which is unknown to me, but I'm sure you'll keep it all consistent.

for the disruption results, maybe add a column to the left of the numerical assault results for the attacker. -1 to 17 = D for attacker; 18 to 22 = 1/2 D; 23 = - or 'none' or something. with a similar column on the right for the blitz results. then no messy lines or colors are needed.

I am not quite sure what you are talking about.

Here is the Land Combat form - as seen by the program developer.

All the land combats are listed in the upper left by hex number/names. Clicking on one centers the detailed map view in the upper right on the target hex and since it is roughly 6 by 6 you get a sense of what is happening in the nearby hexes. The final odds are shown and if there is a decision maker, he gets to choose Blitz or Assault. Clicking on Resolve effectively rolls the dice and there is a big blank area across the bottom where the results are reported. A different form is used if casualties are to be taken (same Destroy Units form for all types of casualties).

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
How do you like this version? The D indicates defender becomes disorganized. On (D) the defender 's units become disorganized only if the attacker takes a loss.

I too prefered the asterisk, as the */2B is a WiF legend that you can't make disappear.

Also, the defender is only disrupted if he retreated, or if he took more losses than the attacker. Using the extra losses, this last condition will be conditionaly made only, so I'd suggest not writing (defender disrupted) this on the chart.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
How do you like this version? The D indicates defender becomes disorganized. On (D) the defender 's units become disorganized only if the attacker takes a loss.

I too prefered the asterisk, as the */2B is a WiF legend that you can't make disappear.

Also, the defender is only disrupted if he retreated, or if he took more losses than the attacker. Using the extra losses, this last condition will be conditionaly made only, so I'd suggest not writing (defender disrupted) this on the chart.

I reluctantly agree about using the asterisk. That is not primarily because of tradition though, but because the * in place the the 0 for the four places it appears in the chart provides yet more redundancy in communicating that the attacker is not disorganized. And redundancy is good here.

I like the large D for when the defender might be disorganized in place. It is a noteworthy occurrence and indirectly emphasizes that the defender is not disorganized for most of the results on this CRT.

I thought about adding a small 'd' after the attacker's number for the 1/2 disorganized results, but that seems like too much.

[Ullern]

I like the D.

It's too complicated the way it is as you have to know the rules. Better to have it there in the charts all the time.