Matrix Games Forums

(1) a data structure that captures the relevant facts and (2) a process that uses those facts to make judgments about what is and is not permitted.

I'm not sure to understand everything fully (especially the data structure thing (I'm French)), but I think I may have got it, so I give it a try.

(1) Data Structure :
You mean the data about historical lend lease during WWII ??
If that is it, I suggest using the WiF FE countermix to get that data.
The game was skillfully researched by the designers, and their research has make them creating this countermix and this list of lend leased planes, and to whom they were lend lease it. Why doing new research about lend lease, why not use what was decided by the WiF FE designers ?

(2) The process that use those facts to make judgements about what is and is not permitted :
It could be a field in the unit data for lend lease.
For the allies :
Field 1 : Is this plane lend leasable to Russian ? Y/N
Field 2 : Is this plane lend leasable to Chinese ? Y/N
Field 3 : Is this plane lend leasable to French ? Y/N
Field 4 : Is this plane lend leasable to CW ? Y/N
Field 5 : Is this plane lend leasable to USA ? Y/N

Which could also be :
Field 1 : Is this plane lend leasable to level 3 allies ? Y/N
Field 2 : Is this plane lend leasable to level 2 allies ? Y/N
Field 3 : Is this plane lend leasable to level 1 allies ? Y/N
Field 4 : Is this plane lend leasable to level 0 allies ? Y/N

The latest would be usable for the Axis too, and you just would have to set a level of "alliance" between powers.

Anyway, one day or the other you'll have to define a level of alliance between powers if you intend to include DoD III into the game. It will be much easier if you already included this.

This level of alliance could even be used to toy with MWiF and try What if scenarios. It could be defined by the player at the start of a scenario. The player could have the choice between historical alliances, or some other set of alliances.

This lend lease field would be filled at the start of the scenario, as an option.
For example, you could have an option named "Lend Lease" with a choice named "use historical lend lease", which would fill the fields with pre established values (those from the WiF FE countermix), and another choice named "use free lend lease" where the lend lease fields would all be set to "Yes", allowing to lend lease any plane to anyone, or any other choice set between both.

ORIGINAL: Froonp

(1) a data structure that captures the relevant facts and (2) a process that uses those facts to make judgments about what is and is not permitted.

(1) Data Structure :
You mean the data about historical lend lease during WWII ??
If that is it, I suggest using the WiF FE countermix to get that data.
The game was skillfully researched by the designers, and their research has make them creating this countermix and this list of lend leased planes, and to whom they were lend lease it. Why doing new research about lend lease, why not use what was decided by the WiF FE designers ?

(2) The process that use those facts to make judgements about what is and is not permitted :
It could be a field in the unit data for lend lease.
For the allies :
Field 1 : Is this plane lend leasable to Russian ? Y/N
Field 2 : Is this plane lend leasable to Chinese ? Y/N
Field 3 : Is this plane lend leasable to French ? Y/N
Field 4 : Is this plane lend leasable to CW ? Y/N
Field 5 : Is this plane lend leasable to USA ? Y/N

Which could also be :
Field 1 : Is this plane lend leasable to level 3 allies ? Y/N
Field 2 : Is this plane lend leasable to level 2 allies ? Y/N
Field 3 : Is this plane lend leasable to level 1 allies ? Y/N
Field 4 : Is this plane lend leasable to level 0 allies ? Y/N

The latest would be usable for the Axis too, and you just would have to set a level of "alliance" between powers.

Anyway, one day or the other you'll have to define a level of alliance between powers if you intend to include DoD III into the game. It will be much easier if you already included this.

This level of alliance could even be used to toy with MWiF and try What if scenarios. It could be defined by the player at the start of a scenario. The player could have the choice between historical alliances, or some other set of alliances.

This lend lease field would be filled at the start of the scenario, as an option.
For example, you could have an option named "Lend Lease" with a choice named "use historical lend lease", which would fill the fields with pre established values (those from the WiF FE countermix), and another choice named "use free lend lease" where the lend lease fields would all be set to "Yes", allowing to lend lease any plane to anyone, or any other choice set between both.

This should work. I like the level of alliance approach. When I get the time [:D]. I'll see what CWIF is doing.

I completely agree that MWiF gives us an excellent opportunity to re-examining concepts such as lend-lease and I have no pro or con position on whether ally level should be included. I am aware that Lend-Lease was a difficult subject for Roosevelt and there were times that he actually took units from existing USA combat formations in order to supply the British (tanks for North Africa for example). If MWiF expands the scope of Lend-Lease to include units which weren't historically lent then I wonder if there should be an increased political cost for this activity. Maybe all political costs for US entry should be increased by a factor of ten and each plane lent would cost one additional Political Point. The whole Political scale would need to be re-examined.

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

I completely agree that MWiF gives us an excellent opportunity to re-examining concepts such as lend-lease and I have no pro or con position on whether ally level should be included. I am aware that Lend-Lease was a difficult subject for Roosevelt and there were times that he actually took units from existing USA combat formations in order to supply the British (tanks for North Africa for example). If MWiF expands the scope of Lend-Lease to include units which weren't historically lent then I wonder if there should be an increased political cost for this activity. Maybe all political costs for US entry should be increased by a factor of ten and each plane lent would cost one additional Political Point. The whole Political scale would need to be re-examined.

I would like to keep "improvements" to a minimum, especially if they are going to require a lot of work.

On the other hand ... we are in the world of computers and instead of a count on your fingers approach to US Entry we can use decimal numbers. Each plane lent could cost 0.1. This at least avoids having to change the numeric base that everyone is use to. It also keeps RAW 7 accurate for existng US Entry costs.

There are a whole lot of "house rules" in use in the WiF world which I do not intend to accommodate in the first release of MWIF. It would simply be too difficult to do. Perhaps this issue of expanding the lend lease system to address the concerns raised here should be placed in the category of "house rules"? That is, delayed for a future version. The criterion for deciding this is the level of complexity that would be needed to do it right.

Sorry for being late but I must make at least a plea for PIF (Patton in Flames) special rules and scenarios. Apart from the fact that I find the 1947 (46?) scenario very enjoyable, there's not many "cold war gone hot" simulations of this period around and this would imo add to the attractiveness of the game.

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
On the topic of artistic rendering of the units, CWIF was very faithful to WiF. They look good to me. Does anyone want to see changes made to the units, or are the WiF unit depictions ok?

I disagree strongly. Every screenshot you post with original CWiF counters will work against sales. Like it or not we live in an eye-candy universe and there is a minimum bar for graphics for which IMHO CWiF doesn't make the grade. If you do decide to stay with the old graphics then put in a Help key which displays a pop-up screen with better graphic and a brief actual history of the selected air/naval unit.

I agree with greyshaft here, if at all possible you will need to get a certain level of eye-candy, playability is ofcourse key but, your customers will like to have something that is pleasing to the eye. I have been through many PBEM sessions of CWIF and that the map was even worse than the printed one was really bothering me.

ORIGINAL: c92nichj
I agree with greyshaft here, if at all possible you will need to get a certain level of eye-candy, playability is ofcourse key but, your customers will like to have something that is pleasing to the eye. I have been through many PBEM sessions of CWIF and that the map was even worse than the printed one was really bothering me.

Before reaching final agreement with the artist on how the map and units will be done. I expect to give this forum group the opportunity to view them both in a "nearly final" form. If you guys don't like them, then they will need more work.

To repeat myself, I hope to receive all the criticism before the game is published. Even more to the point, before the artist spends a lot of time and effort and before I write a lot of code. A solid design document first!

Later this week I will start 4 new threads on PBEM.

Before reaching final agreement with the artist on how the map and units will be done. I expect to give this forum group the opportunity to view them both in a "nearly final" form. If you guys don't like them, then they will need more work.

Who is "the artist" ?
I asked some questions about the team, and who is the team, and about Robert Crandall's involvement, without having answers.
Is there a problem with this ?

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Before reaching final agreement with the artist on how the map and units will be done. I expect to give this forum group the opportunity to view them both in a "nearly final" form. If you guys don't like them, then they will need more work.

Who is "the artist" ?
I asked some questions about the team, and who is the team, and about Robert Crandall's involvement, without having answers.
Is there a problem with this ?

Putting "the team" together is a work in progress. I do not want to commit anyone before I have had a chance to "talk" with them first. So, rather than give you a partial answer, I just let the question hang until I could give you a full answer. But since you asked again ...

The partial answer is that I will be doing all the coding. Chris is answering all my questions about CWIF as I pose them to him. I am trying not to deluge him with the zillions of little questions that come up as I read through his code.

As to the rest of the team, I will hold off on names until we are further down the road. I might mention, that to me, the members of this forum are an integral part of the development process. In the project plan I put together this weekend I have the forum members scheduled to contribute to the design of every important aspect of MWIF. I will also be drawing most, if not all, of the play testers from the people herein.

About Lend Lease, here are the lend lease authorized by the WiF FE countersheet mix.
I can give this table to you in any other format too (it is Excel at start).

TYPE : Type of Aircraft (ATR, LND, FTR...).
UNIT : Name of the unit.
YEAR : Year it appears in the force pool.
KIT : Kit the counter comes from (remember you can play WiF FE adding AiF & PatiF counters to the countermix).
CS : Precise countersheet where the counter comes from.
FROM : Who is lend leasing this plane.

China, Communist

TYPE UNIT YEAR KIT CS From
ATR Li-2 1941 PatiF 34 USSR
LND Pe-2 1944 PatiF 34 USSR
FTR Pe-21bis 1945 PatiF 34 USSR
LND Il-10 1945 PatiF 34 USSR
FTR MiG-7 1946 PatiF 34 USSR
LND Pe-8 1946 PatiF 34 USSR
FTR Yak-3 (VK107) 1947 PatiF 34 USSR
NAV TBF-3 1947 PatiF 34 USSR
FTR MiG-9 1948 PatiF 34 USSR
FTR MiG-15 1950 PatiF 34 USSR

China, Nationalist

TYPE UNIT YEAR KIT CS From
LND TB-3 1933 PiFG 7 USSR
ATR C-47 1939 PiFG 7 USA
ATR C-47 1940 WiFC 3 USA
ATR C-47 1940 PatiF 34 USA
FTR P-40C 1940 WiFC 3 USA
FTR P-40C 1940 PiFG 7 USA
FTR P-40E 1941 PiFG 7 USA
LND A-20B 1941 WiFC 3 USA
FTR P-40F 1942 PiFG 7 USA
LND A-20G 1943 PiFG 7 USA
LND B-24J 1943 WiFC 3 USA
NAV A-25 1943 PatiF 34 USA
LND A-20H 1944 PatiF 34 USA
LND B-24J 1944 PiFG 7 USA
FTR P-51D 1945 PatiF 34 USA
LND B-24J 1945 PatiF 34 USA
FTR P-80 1948 PatiF 34 USA

Commonwealth, India

TYPE UNIT YEAR KIT CS From
FTR F2A 1939 PiFG 9 USA
NAV A-31 1942 PiFG 9 USA

Commonwealth, New Zealand

TYPE UNIT YEAR KIT CS From
FTR F4U-1 1943 WiFC 2 USA
FTR F4U-1 1943 PatiF 35 USA
FTR P-40N 1943 PiFG 9 USA

Commonwealth, United Kingdom

TYPE UNIT YEAR KIT CS From
ATR C-47 1938 WiFC 2 USA
ATR C-47 1938 PiFG 9 USA
ATR C-47 1939 PatiF 35 USA
FTR P-40 1939 PiFG 9 USA
LND A-22 1939 PiFG 9 USA
LND DB-7 1939 PiFG 9 USA
FTR P-40C 1940 PiFG 9 USA
FTR A-36 1941 PiFG 9 USA
FTR P-40E 1941 PiFG 9 USA
LND A-30 1941 PiFG 9 USA
LND B-26B 1941 PiFG 9 USA
FTR P-40F 1942 PiFG 9 USA
LND B-25D 1942 PiFG 9 USA
LND A-20G 1943 PiFG 9 USA
LND B-17G 1943 PiFG 9 USA
LND B-24H 1943 PiFG 9 USA
LND B-24H 1943 CoiF 38 USA
FTR P-47D 1944 PiFG 9 USA
FTR P-51D 1944 PiFG 9 USA
FTR P-51H 1945 PiFG 9 USA
FTR P-51H 1946 AiF 28 USA
FTR P-51H 1946 PatiF 35 USA

France

TYPE UNIT YEAR KIT CS From
ATR C-47 1938 PiFG 9 USA
FTR P-36A 1938 PiFG 9 USA
LND A-22 1939 PiFG 9 USA
LND DB-7 1939 PiFG 9 USA
FTR P-40C 1940 PiFG 9 USA
FTR A-36 1941 PiFG 9 USA
FTR P-40E 1941 PiFG 9 USA
LND A-20B 1941 WiFC 4 USA
LND A-30 1941 PiFG 9 USA
FTR P-40F 1942 PiFG 9 USA
LND B-24G 1943 PiFG 9 USA
FTR P-51D 1944 PiFG 9 USA
FTR P-51D 1944 PatiF 35 USA
FTR P-63C 1944 PiFG 9 USA
LND B-24J 1944 LiF 25 USA
LND B-24J 1944 CoiF 38 USA
LND B-25H 1944 PatiF 35 USA
FTR P-51D 1945 AiF 28 USA
FTR P-51H 1945 LiF 25 USA
FTR P-51H 1945 PatiF 35 USA
LND A-20K 1945 PatiF 35 USA
LND B-24J 1945 PatiF 35 USA
FTR P-80 1946 PatiF 35 USA
LND B-24K 1946 AiF 28 USA

Italy

TYPE UNIT YEAR KIT CS From
FTR Bf-109E2 1940 PiFG 7 Germany
LND Ju-88A1 1940 PiFG 7 Germany
LND Ju-87D 1941 PiFG 7 Germany
FTR FW-190D 1943 PiFG 7 Germany
FTR Me-262A-1a 1948 AiF 26 Germany
FTR Me-262A-1a 1948 PatiF 34 Germany

USA

TYPE UNIT YEAR KIT CS From
FTR Spitfire IX 1943 PiFG 7 CW

USSR

TYPE UNIT YEAR KIT CS From
FTR Hurricane IIA 1940 PiFG 8 CW
FTR P-40C 1940 PiFG 8 USA
FTR Hurricane IIC 1941 PiFG 8 CW
FTR P-39I 1942 PiFG 8 USA
FTR P-40F 1942 PiFG 8 USA
FTR Spitfire VC 1942 PiFG 8 CW
LND A-20C 1942 PiFG 8 USA
LND B-25G 1942 PiFG 8 USA
FTR P-39Q 1943 PiFG 8 USA
FTR P-61 1943 PiFG 8 USA
FTR P-61 1943 PoliF 30 USA
FTR P-63A 1943 PiFG 8 USA
FTR Spitfire IX 1943 PiFG 8 CW
LND A-20G 1943 PiFG 8 USA
FTR P-61 1944 PatiF 31 USA
FTR P-63C 1944 PiFG 8 USA
LND A-20H 1944 PatiF 31 USA
LND B-24J 1944 PiFG 8 USA
FTR F7F-3 1945 PoliF 30 USA
FTR F7F-3 1945 PatiF 31 USA
FTR P-82 1945 PoliF 30 USA
LND B-24J 1945 PatiF 31 USA
LND B-25H 1945 PatiF 31 USA
NAV PBJ 1945 PatiF 31 USA
NAV TBF-3 1945 PatiF 31 USA

Note that some units (example P-40C or C-47, and others) many be potentialy leased to many countries, and the original owner may not have enough of them in their force pool to lend lease 1 unit to each.

Thanks for the Lend Lease list. I'll use it to proof read the same unit list in CWIF.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets



Why do you want to do a CRC check?

To see if both (all) players are using the same data?

ORIGINAL: Smiffus64

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Why do you want to do a CRC check?

To see if both (all) players are using the same data?

Ok, Let me think this through. First, once a game is in progress, neither player should be able to change the units (for example) in play. MWIF will have the units in internal storage, and it would deny players the ability to load them afresh from a file. Any saved games would be encrypted and beyond the players' ability to change them. So the question narrows down to: for games with fog of war, could the person who starts the game use a different unit file and give himself an advantage (e.g., more 8-4 infantry for the Germans and fewer 6-4s).

I guess the easiest way to make sure this doesn't happen is for MWIF to compare the unit files on the two team leaders' computers. When the second team leader joins the game, MWIF would check that the units already stored match the units on the second team leader's disk.

The same process could be used for any other data read in at the start of a game (e.g. the map).

I already assume that MWIF will be doing some sort of comparison of the "state of the game" between local saved games and the ones on other player's computers. I'm not sure how I want to do that. My paranoia is such that I would like to go into more detail than simple CRC. On the other hand, I don't want anything that would take too long.

At this point how to do it is an open issue. That it needs to be done is pretty clear though.

Thanks for making me aware of the potential problem.

13.6.4 Lend lease ~ Foreign aircraft

Some aircraft units have colored horizontal stripes matching another major power’s color.

Don’t add these aircraft to your force pools when they enter the game. Put them into the lend-lease pool instead.

During set up or this step, you can move a striped aircraft from the lend-lease pool to your force pool if:
.....the source major power agrees; and
.....an aircraft with the same designation is currently in either the source major power’s force pool or its reserve
.....pool.

Move that other aircraft from the force pool or reserve pool to the lend-lease pool.

The source major power can reverse this process during this step if the striped aircraft is in the force pools or reserve pool. Move it back to the lend lease pool and move the matching aircraft to the source major power’s force pool.

Example: At the start of 1943, the Commonwealth is eligible to receive an F4U-1. Because it is striped, the Commonwealth player must put it into the lend-lease pool. He asks the USA player if he can add it to the Commonwealth FTR force pool. The USA player, worried about German pressure, declines, arguing that he needs it himself. In Jul/Aug 1943, the USA player realizes that the Commonwealth probably needs this plane more than he does. Noting that the F4U-1 is still in his force pool, he tells the Commonwealth player he can have it if he still wants it. Eagerly, the Commonwealth player moves the Commonwealth F4U-1 from the lend-lease pool to his FTR force pool. The USA F4U-1 goes into the lend-lease pool.

ORIGINAL: Mziln
13.6.4 Lend lease ~ Foreign aircraft

Some aircraft units have colored horizontal stripes matching another major power’s color.

Don’t add these aircraft to your force pools when they enter the game. Put them into the lend-lease pool instead.

During set up or this step, you can move a striped aircraft from the lend-lease pool to your force pool if:
.....the source major power agrees; and
.....an aircraft with the same designation is currently in either the source major power’s force pool or its reserve
.....pool.

Move that other aircraft from the force pool or reserve pool to the lend-lease pool.

The source major power can reverse this process during this step if the striped aircraft is in the force pools or reserve pool. Move it back to the lend lease pool and move the matching aircraft to the source major power’s force pool.

Example: At the start of 1943, the Commonwealth is eligible to receive an F4U-1. Because it is striped, the Commonwealth player must put it into the lend-lease pool. He asks the USA player if he can add it to the Commonwealth FTR force pool. The USA player, worried about German pressure, declines, arguing that he needs it himself. In Jul/Aug 1943, the USA player realizes that the Commonwealth probably needs this plane more than he does. Noting that the F4U-1 is still in his force pool, he tells the Commonwealth player he can have it if he still wants it. Eagerly, the Commonwealth player moves the Commonwealth F4U-1 from the lend-lease pool to his FTR force pool. The USA F4U-1 goes into the lend-lease pool.

Yes, this how I always played the lend lease rules. I pictured it as one unit represented by several counters. The different colored stripes were merely a convenience for noting which units had come into your force pools via lend lease.

Looking at the counters for air units for MWIF (large resolution) we can have the same horizontal stripes for lend lease planes. Or we can leave them off. What is everyone's preference?

Looking at the counters for air units for MWIF (large resolution) we can have the same horizontal stripes for lend lease planes. Or we can leave them off. What is everyone's preference?

I much prefer with the horizontal bar.
Patrice

There's a discussion going about maps (boxes or global), which in the end is a discussion about abstraction/playability and the adaptility of board games to the Pc. It is also a discussion about true belief (RAW) and heresy (potentials of the PC adaption).

So what about units?

When using global map (because PC makes this option possible and playable) why not making the game on the basis of division-sized land units instead of corps-sized units, or even maybe in MWIF II an additional layer with information about numbers of tanks, artillery. figthers, bombers, etc.?

Sure, it's all about grand strategy.

-But PC conversion of board games would make it possible.
-The level of abstration in naval units is already lower in the board game: you can play around with capital ships (=regiment-sized units)
-Sure, because it's all about grand strategy, there must be abstraction, otherwise the game is unplayable. So better to leave Land/air unit info at the level of the old Gary Grisby game War in Russia than of Kogers Operational Art of War (to detailed for grand strategy)

There's already a project about WIF division-sized (boardgame) with adapted rules:
Its German, but the (downloadable) rules are in English: "The master edition"
www.gdg.de
-no, this project can't be totally heretic: There's a link to it from the official a.g.d. website
-and no, personally, I'm not part of it.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Looking at the counters for air units for MWIF (large resolution) we can have the same horizontal stripes for lend lease planes. Or we can leave them off. What is everyone's preference?

I'd prefer to have the stripes just out of habit. Gameplay wise it would not be necessary though.

Marc aka Caran...

Stripes can be a setup option. Those who want it can check the box and have it. Personally I've never liked the stripes but I've never bothered thinking of an alternative.

For what it's worth, I'd like the art to be as much like the boardgame as possible.