Matrix Games Forums

It saddens me that this feature will probably will not be in the game, as I like many others who asked for this feature spent many many hours playing CWIF and seen the use of the feature.

However I totally understand that Steve does not want to ship the game with a feature that has the possibility to crash the system and I agree that not much time should be spent on trying to debug this.

I wanted to explore the possibilty to have some unsupported unlock feature which you could download/purchase that enables you to perform this vital functionality for friendly PBEM games.

There are countless examples in war of commanders who intended to issue an order but didn't and they suffered the consequences.

Care to provide some examples from WW2? If you do, how many times did a commander just forget to issue an order?

I'm not buying into the current debate but a WW2 supreme commander forgetting to do stuff or not realising that some asset could be employed isn't realistic. They had extensive staffs who were responsible for dotting i's and crossing t's and all the junior commanders in the chain of command would also be making suggestions and/or enquiring why they weren't being employed.

Cheers, Neilster

ORIGINAL: Neilster
Care to provide some examples from WW2? If you do, how many times did a commander just forget to issue an order?

I always figured that's what happened at Midway:
"Ah honorable Admiral... now that the Yankee torpedo planes are all dead shouldn't we order the Zeros to resume patrolling at dive-bomber height?"
"Yes yes... in a minute"

Seriously though I think we're talking about a strategic level leader finding out that his assets are not where he would like them to be. WWII planning was just an ongoing crisis of:
* convoys waiting for their escorts to appear before they could leave port
* troops waiting for supplies to arrive before they could begin offensives
* germans waiting for landing barges to assemble in France before they could invade England

My point is that WWII didn't have a specifc 'Return to Base' phase. These problems happened every day of WWII in thousands of small and frustrating ways. Are you suggesting this never happened [&:]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

Care to provide some examples from WW2? If you do, how many times did a commander just forget to issue an order?

I'm not buying into the current debate but a WW2 supreme commander forgetting to do stuff or not realising that some asset could be employed isn't realistic. They had extensive staffs who were responsible for dotting i's and crossing t's and all the junior commanders in the chain of command would also be making suggestions and/or enquiring why they weren't being employed.

Cheers, Neilster

Montgomery's decision not to make one of his divisions able for a deep penetration after he broke the Axis line at El Alamein I guess would be one of those.

Greyshaft,
 
"However MWiF is a computer game and (like I said before) I don't know any other computer game that lets you do that. "
 
Well, the original DOS CWiE-1 does allow this.  It ships with two 'editor' modes - the 'full', which you use for creating user scenarios, and the 'in game', which allows you to change some (not all) game variables.  Mostly, it allows you to add and remove units from the map, edit existing unit attributes, and edit (some) hex attributes.  The intention of this feature is exactly as c92nichj has said - to allow human players to 'agree' to change the game state to correct some unforseen situation.  The game logs any use of the editor and reports it to the other player when he starts his next turn, so it's not much use as a 'cheat' system.
 
CWiE-II will also offer a full scenario editor and an 'in game' editor.  The exact details of the functions of the 'in game' edit mode are not yet set in stone - as Shannon has pointed out, allowing too many rules to be 'bypassed' creates a very unstable environment.  The beta testers have been using the editor extensively to (a) setup and replay specific game situations and (b) to 'bypass' errors or glitches in the current beta code so they can continue testing.

This is one feature of the original CWiE that has been regularly requested as part of the new development. 

 

ORIGINAL: cwie
Greyshaft,

"However MWiF is a computer game and (like I said before) I don't know any other computer game that lets you do that. "

Well, the original DOS CWiE-1 does allow this.  It ships with two 'editor' modes - the 'full', which you use for creating user scenarios, and the 'in game', which allows you to change some (not all) game variables.  Mostly, it allows you to add and remove units from the map, edit existing unit attributes, and edit (some) hex attributes.  The intention of this feature is exactly as c92nichj has said - to allow human players to 'agree' to change the game state to correct some unforseen situation.  The game logs any use of the editor and reports it to the other player when he starts his next turn, so it's not much use as a 'cheat' system.

CWiE-II will also offer a full scenario editor and an 'in game' editor.  The exact details of the functions of the 'in game' edit mode are not yet set in stone - as Shannon has pointed out, allowing too many rules to be 'bypassed' creates a very unstable environment.  The beta testers have been using the editor extensively to (a) setup and replay specific game situations and (b) to 'bypass' errors or glitches in the current beta code so they can continue testing.

This is one feature of the original CWiE that has been regularly requested as part of the new development. 

As one example of what terrifies me for debugging: a player uses a Offensive Chit on an HQ during a land action. He partially uses the HQ's capacity and then moves the HQ to use the rest of its capacity on a different continent. Or he uses a supply unit to make a HQ a primary supply source and dances the unit around the map putting every unit he has in supply. It is always the interactions between the different rules that is the hardest to program, and this in game edit capability would interact with everything.

Steve,
 
"It is always the interactions between the different rules that is the hardest to program, and this in game edit capability would interact with everything."
 
I agree.  The CWiE-II in-game function will be (a) limited; and (b) very much a 'buyer beware' tool.  In the existing CWiE user base the demand and expectation for such a tool exists, so it will be supported in CWiE-II.  But the points you make are all valid, and as a result the in-game editor will open up only some of the game state for editing. 
 
And there will be no guarantees for stability - the onus will rest entirely upon the player to use and monitor the tool effects correctly.  Try placing a Turkish Infantry Division in Paris in 1940 and the editor will let you.  The fact that the existence of this Turkish unit will then play havoc with the Vichy Surrender code is not something we will be trying to code support for.

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft
I always figured that's what happened at Midway:
"Ah honorable Admiral... now that the Yankee torpedo planes are all dead shouldn't we order the Zeros to resume patrolling at dive-bomber height?"
"Yes yes... in a minute"

We're talking about large scale moves of large formations, not tactical decisions on the scale of minutes or hours. Anyway, your example reinforces what I said. He didn't forget to do something, because he was reminded by his subordinate. He made a deliberate decision to delay the action.

Seriously though I think we're talking about a strategic level leader finding out that his assets are not where he would like them to be. WWII planning was just an ongoing crisis of:
* convoys waiting for their escorts to appear before they could leave port
* troops waiting for supplies to arrive before they could begin offensives
* germans waiting for landing barges to assemble in France before they could invade England

My point is that WWII didn't have a specifc 'Return to Base' phase. These problems happened every day of WWII in thousands of small and frustrating ways. Are you suggesting this never happened [&:]

Yes, but his assets wouldn't not be where he wanted because he forgot (and no-one reminded him) to move several corps in France because he was pre-occupied with the Eastern Front. As for your question, what I am suggesting should be obvious from my previous post. I write concisely and clearly.

Cheers, Neilster

ORIGINAL: terje439

ORIGINAL: Neilster

Care to provide some examples from WW2? If you do, how many times did a commander just forget to issue an order?

I'm not buying into the current debate but a WW2 supreme commander forgetting to do stuff or not realising that some asset could be employed isn't realistic. They had extensive staffs who were responsible for dotting i's and crossing t's and all the junior commanders in the chain of command would also be making suggestions and/or enquiring why they weren't being employed.

Cheers, Neilster

Montgomery's decision not to make one of his divisions able for a deep penetration after he broke the Axis line at El Alamein I guess would be one of those.

Are you sure none of his subordinates suggested it? I seem to remember they did and that he made a deliberate decision not to do it.

Cheers Neilster

ORIGINAL: cwie

And there will be no guarantees for stability - the onus will rest entirely upon the player to use and monitor the tool effects correctly.

1. How to you monitor legal use of the tool? If Japan asks for an out-of-sequence RTB for a cruiser in the northern pacific, how do you stop them from doing a shuffle of their land units in China at the same time?

2. What are the protocols for agreeing to use of the tool? Japan requests - CW and Russia agree but USA disagrees - does the USA get overruled even though the redeployment is happening on their front line?

3. 'no guarantees of stability' Is this an immediate crash or are we talking about a problem that might occur two-three turns after the out-of-sequence move?

Hey Neilster - the Midway scene was just a joke. I wasn't intending to prove/disprove anything by what it said.

As for the rest of it I think we see things quite differently in terms of the role of the player in MWiF.

* You seem to see the player as Churchill (Hitler, whomever) personified who can make a decision and expect to see it carried out to the letter.
* I see the leader as Churchill + General Staff + radio station + motorcycle courier + officer drunk on duty who forgets to pass on the order to the Captain - in other words,  all of the factors that affect what happens in the real-life war. Maybe Churchill did give the orders for the ships to RTB but somewhere along the line the orders got lost/garbled/mislaid and the ships were never told what to do. Sh*t happens and there ain't no use Churchill complaining about it after the event. The guilty officer got court-martialled and a new one takes his place and the war goes on.

Since this is just a game then neither of us is right and neither is wrong. Just depends on your personal idea for MWiF I suppose.

Greyshaft,

Well, you've asked some questions in the context of mWif - referring to China and Japan, etc - and CWiE only deals with the European theatre.  But I think your queries are clear, so I'll answer in CWiE terms ...

"1. How to you monitor legal use of the tool? If Japan asks for an out-of-sequence RTB for a cruiser in the northern pacific, how do you stop them from doing a shuffle of their land units in China at the same time?"

The current CWiE-1 code doesn't monitor legal use of the in-game editor, and CWiE-II won't either.  The player doing the editing is taking on that responsibility, replacing the game code.  The in-game edit feature is simply a direct manipulation of the current game state, without regard for whether the program considers those manipulations to be 'within the rules' or 'in sequence'.

In practice, in CWiE-1, the in-game edits are quite limited and rare, and normally amount to little more that adjusting unit positions and state.

"2. What are the protocols for agreeing to use of the tool? Japan requests - CW and Russia agree but USA disagrees - does the USA get overruled even though the redeployment is happening on their front line?"

No protocols at all - if the Allied player moves an Axis unit, the Axis player will be informed of this at the start of his next phase.  It's then up to the Axis play to contact the Allied player if he has a query about why the edit was made.  He can, of course, use the in-game edit function to reverse the Allied edit.  Presumably, the Allied player would not have moved the Axis unit without first contacting the Axis player and reaching mutual agreement that the edit was 'acceptable'.

"3. 'no guarantees of stability' Is this an immediate crash or are we talking about a problem that might occur two-three turns after the out-of-sequence move?"

Either is possible!  If you corrupt the game state there's trouble heading your way ... but it's impossible to predict just when it will arrive.

If this all sounds 'dangerous' then I agree.  This is not a game feature to be used lightly, or by the inexperienced/novice player.  It's intended for the veteran gamers - the CWiE equivalent of Patrice and yourself, for example - who have (a) a deep and solid understanding of the game and (b) a 'need' to adjust the game state for some reason that both of you agree on.  An example : Perhaps you and Patrice wish to playtest a new strategy for the German invasion of Russia - you can use the in-game editor strengthen or weaken the Axis or Soviet position by adding or removing units, or forcing retreats, all without the need to actually setup and resolve combats.  Or perhaps you are playing a game of Board War in Europe and wish to setup CWiE to match the current board state, then test a few strategies by running a few turns through CWiE?  These are the kinds of use that the CWiE in-game editor offers to experienced CWiE players.

We considered removing the in-game edit feature from CWiE-II for the same reasons Steve has put forward - it's a 'dangerous' feature with an endless set of potential effects.  But we have been convinced to retain it (warts and all) because the veterans find it valuable.  It's used by a minority, and not all that often.  But when it's needed, it's there.  The code already exists because CWiE has a fully fledged scenario editor, and the in-game version is simply a limited subset of that editor.  We have the code, we have a need - so in game editing is available.  (It's also a very handy tool during beta testing)

Now, if I was being asked to write this from scratch ... I doubt very much it would be added!

I can see the use in beta testing but I would not like to see it in a released product.
Probably a dead issue since its definitely in CWIE and definitely not in MWIF and neither of those situations is going to change

Hope springs eternal.[;)]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

I can see the use in beta testing but I would not like to see it in a released product.
Probably a dead issue since its definitely in CWIE and definitely not in MWIF and neither of those situations is going to change

What is the page of CWiE2?

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

Hey Neilster - the Midway scene was just a joke. I wasn't intending to prove/disprove anything by what it said.

As for the rest of it I think we see things quite differently in terms of the role of the player in MWiF.

* You seem to see the player as Churchill (Hitler, whomever) personified who can make a decision and expect to see it carried out to the letter.
* I see the leader as Churchill + General Staff + radio station + motorcycle courier + officer drunk on duty who forgets to pass on the order to the Captain - in other words,  all of the factors that affect what happens in the real-life war. Maybe Churchill did give the orders for the ships to RTB but somewhere along the line the orders got lost/garbled/mislaid and the ships were never told what to do. Sh*t happens and there ain't no use Churchill complaining about it after the event. The guilty officer got court-martialled and a new one takes his place and the war goes on.

Since this is just a game then neither of us is right and neither is wrong. Just depends on your personal idea for MWiF I suppose.

In WiF, the player is the supreme commander. Orders friction/logistic difficulties etc are simulated by the game mechanics, not by players forgetting to perform operational and strategic level actions with corps sized formations. Hence my original point that such oversights are not realistic. So regularly save the game.

Cheers, Neilster

We seem to have lost the PBEM thread from the forum list. I'll see if I can get Matrix to resurrect it.

=====================
One of the things we had discussed in the PBEM thread was changing the setup order so there would be fewer emails required to start a game. That mainly means reducing the number of times that "which side is setting up" changes. Best is if every major power on one side sets up and then every major power on the other side. That requires only one email from each side. Worst is when the sides keep swithching back and forth.

Here are my proposals for the PBEMSetupOrder; also shown is the RegularSetupOrder as defined in Section 30 of RAW. This also shows all of the rest of the scenario setup data (there is a ton of other stuff associated with setting up each scenario).

I have a few comment lines scattered in here (they begin with //). Those are just debugging aids for me, so I can force certain major powers to set up first and test that data without having to go through all the other major powers first (same for the weather).
=====================
ScenarioData: array[TScenarioType] of TScenarioData = (
{ scBarbarossa }
(Name: rsBarbarossa; MaxPlayers: 2; Maps: 1;
StartingLegalMajorCountries: [mcGermany, mcUSSR]; TotalCountries: 2;
Initiative: sdAxis; InitiativeBonus: iAxis1; StartingSide: sdAxis;
Intelligence: (0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0); WeatherMod: 0; WeatherRoll: 8;
StartYear: 1941; StartTurn: tMayJun; EndYear: 1942; EndTurn: tJanFeb;
RegSetupOrder: (mcUSSR, mcGermany, mcVichyFrance, mcItaly, mcJapan, mcChina,
mcCommonwealth, mcFrance, mcUnitedStates);
PBEMSetupOrder: (mcUSSR, mcGermany, mcVichyFrance, mcItaly, mcJapan,
mcChina, mcCommonwealth, mcFrance, mcUnitedStates);
Reserves: (True, False, False, False, False, False, False, False, False);
Objectives: (20, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 21)),

{ scGuadalcanal }
(Name: rsGuadalcanal; MaxPlayers: 2; Maps: 1;
StartingLegalMajorCountries: [mcJapan, mcCommonwealth, mcUnitedStates];
TotalCountries: 3; Initiative: sdAxis; InitiativeBonus: iAxis1;
StartingSide: sdAxis; Intelligence: (0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0);
WeatherMod: 0; WeatherRoll: 8; StartYear: 1942; StartTurn: tMayJun;
EndYear: 1943; EndTurn: tJanFeb;
RegSetupOrder: (mcCommonwealth, mcJapan, mcUnitedStates, mcVichyFrance,
mcGermany, mcItaly, mcChina, mcFrance, mcUSSR);
PBEMSetupOrder: (mcCommonwealth, mcUnitedStates, mcJapan, mcVichyFrance,
mcGermany, mcItaly, mcChina, mcFrance, mcUSSR);
Reserves: (True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True);
Objectives: (0, 0, 16, 0, 26, 0, 0, 0, 0)),

{ scFascistTide }
(Name: rsFascistTide; MaxPlayers: 5; Maps: 2;
StartingLegalMajorCountries: [mcGermany, mcItaly, mcCommonwealth,
mcFrance, mcUnitedStates, mcUSSR]; TotalCountries: 6;
Initiative: sdAxis; InitiativeBonus: iAxis2; StartingSide: sdAxis;
Intelligence: (0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0); WeatherMod: 0; WeatherRoll: 4;
StartYear: 1939; StartTurn: tSepOct; EndYear: 1945; EndTurn: tMayJun;
RegSetupOrder: (mcUnitedStates, mcUSSR, mcItaly, mcCommonwealth, mcFrance,
mcGermany, mcVichyFrance, mcJapan, mcChina);
PBEMSetupOrder: (mcItaly, mcUnitedStates, mcUSSR, mcCommonwealth, mcFrance,
mcGermany, mcVichyFrance, mcJapan, mcChina);
Reserves: (False, False, False, False, False, False, False, False, False);
Objectives: (0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 14, 4, 10, 12)),

{ scDayOfInfamy }
(Name: rsDayOfInfamy; MaxPlayers: 4; Maps: 2;
StartingLegalMajorCountries: [mcJapan, mcChina, mcCommonwealth, mcFrance,
mcUnitedStates, mcUSSR]; TotalCountries: 6; Initiative: sdAxis;
InitiativeBonus: iAxis1; StartingSide: sdNone;
Intelligence: (0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0); WeatherMod: 1; WeatherRoll: 0;
StartYear: 1941; StartTurn: tNovDec; EndYear: 1945; EndTurn: tJulAug;
RegSetupOrder: (mcUnitedStates, mcChina, mcUSSR, mcCommonwealth, mcJapan,
mcFrance, mcGermany, mcVichyFrance, mcItaly);
PBEMSetupOrder: (mcUnitedStates, mcChina, mcUSSR, mcCommonwealth,
mcFrance, mcJapan, mcGermany, mcItaly, mcVichyFrance);
Reserves: (True, True, True, True, True, True, True, False, True);
Objectives: (0, 0, 9, 0, 1, 10, 1, 11, 3)),

{ scMissedTheBus }
(Name: rsMissedTheBus; MaxPlayers: 6; Maps: 4;
StartingLegalMajorCountries: [mcGermany..mcUSSR]; TotalCountries: 9;
Initiative: sdAxis; InitiativeBonus: iAxis1; StartingSide: sdNone;
Intelligence: (2, 1, 1, 0, 0, 2, 0, 0, 0); WeatherMod: 0; WeatherRoll: 0;
StartYear: 1940; StartTurn: tJulAug; EndYear: 1945; EndTurn: tJulAug;
// RegSetupOrder: (mcCommonwealth, mcUnitedStates, mcUSSR, mcChina, mcItaly,
// mcFrance, mcJapan, mcGermany, mcVichyFrance); // Test CW
RegSetupOrder: (mcUnitedStates, mcUSSR, mcChina, mcItaly, mcFrance,
mcJapan, mcGermany, mcVichyFrance, mcCommonwealth);
PBEMSetupOrder: (mcUnitedStates, mcUSSR, mcChina, mcFrance, mcItaly,
mcJapan, mcGermany, mcVichyFrance, mcCommonwealth);
Reserves: (True, True, True, True, True, True, True, False, False);
Objectives: (0, 0, 9, 0, 1, 22, 5, 15, 15)),

{ scLebensraum }
(Name: rsLebensraum; MaxPlayers: 6; Maps: 4;
StartingLegalMajorCountries: [mcGermany..mcUSSR]; TotalCountries: 9;
Initiative: sdAxis; InitiativeBonus: iAxis1; StartingSide: sdNone;
Intelligence: (4, 2, 1, 0, 0, 3, 0, 0, 0); WeatherMod: 0; WeatherRoll: 0;
StartYear: 1941; StartTurn: tMayJun; EndYear: 1945; EndTurn: tJulAug;
// RegSetupOrder: (mcItaly, mcUnitedStates, mcChina, mcUSSR, mcJapan, mcFrance,
// mcCommonwealth, mcGermany, mcVichyFrance); // Test Italy
RegSetupOrder: (mcUnitedStates, mcChina, mcUSSR, mcJapan, mcItaly,
mcFrance, mcCommonwealth, mcGermany, mcVichyFrance);
PBEMSetupOrder: (mcUnitedStates, mcChina, mcUSSR, mcJapan, mcItaly,
mcFrance, mcCommonwealth, mcGermany, mcVichyFrance);
Reserves: (True, True, True, True, True, True, True, False, False);
Objectives: (0, 0, 9, 0, 1, 22, 5, 15, 15)),

{ scWakingGiant }
(Name: rsWakingGiant; MaxPlayers: 6; Maps: 4;
StartingLegalMajorCountries: [mcGermany..mcUSSR]; TotalCountries: 9;
Initiative: sdAxis; InitiativeBonus: iAxis1; StartingSide: sdNone;
Intelligence: (4, 4, 1, 0, 0, 5, 0, 0, 2); WeatherMod: 1; WeatherRoll: 0;
StartYear: 1941; StartTurn: tNovDec; EndYear: 1945; EndTurn: tJulAug;
// RegSetupOrder: (mcUSSR, mcGermany, mcUnitedStates, mcChina, mcItaly,
// mcFrance, mcCommonwealth, mcJapan, mcVichyFrance); // Test USSR, Germany
RegSetupOrder: (mcUnitedStates, mcChina, mcItaly, mcGermany,
mcVichyFrance, mcUSSR, mcFrance, mcCommonwealth, mcJapan);
PBEMSetupOrder: (mcItaly, mcGermany, mcVichyFrance, mcUnitedStates,
mcChina, mcFrance, mcUSSR, mcCommonwealth, mcJapan);
Reserves: (True, True, True, True, True, True, True, False, True);
Objectives: (0, 0, 9, 0, 1, 22, 5, 15, 15)),

{ scBruteForce }
(Name: rsBruteForce; MaxPlayers: 6; Maps: 4;
StartingLegalMajorCountries: [mcGermany..mcUSSR]; TotalCountries: 9;
Initiative: sdAllied; InitiativeBonus: iAxis1; StartingSide: sdNone;
Intelligence: (7, 4, 0, 0, 0, 5, 0, 6, 2); WeatherMod: 0; WeatherRoll: 0;
StartYear: 1942; StartTurn: tMayJun; EndYear: 1945; EndTurn: tJulAug;
RegSetupOrder: (mcChina, mcUSSR, mcItaly, mcFrance, mcCommonwealth,
mcJapan, mcUnitedStates, mcGermany, mcVichyFrance);
PBEMSetupOrder: (mcItaly, mcChina, mcUSSR, mcFrance, mcCommonwealth,
mcUnitedStates, mcJapan, mcGermany, mcVichyFrance);
Reserves: (True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True);
Objectives: (0, 0, 9, 0, 1, 22, 5, 15, 15)),

{ scDarkness }
(Name: rsDarknessBeforeTheDawn; MaxPlayers: 6; Maps: 4;
StartingLegalMajorCountries: [mcGermany..mcJapan, mcChina..mcUSSR];
TotalCountries: 8; Initiative: sdAllied; InitiativeBonus: iNone;
StartingSide: sdNone; Intelligence: (2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 6, 0, 8, 2);
WeatherMod: 0; WeatherRoll: 0; StartYear: 1943; StartTurn: tJulAug;
EndYear: 1945; EndTurn: tJulAug;
// RegSetupOrder: (mcUnitedStates, mcChina, mcItaly, mcUSSR, mcJapan, mcGermany,
// mcFrance, mcCommonwealth, mcVichyFrance); // Skip China
RegSetupOrder: (mcChina, mcItaly, mcUSSR, mcJapan, mcGermany,
mcVichyFrance, mcFrance, mcCommonwealth, mcUnitedStates);
PBEMSetupOrder: (mcChina, mcUSSR, mcItaly, mcJapan, mcGermany,
mcVichyFrance, mcFrance, mcCommonwealth, mcUnitedStates);
Reserves: (True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True);
Objectives: (0, 0, 9, 0, 1, 22, 5, 15, 15)),

{ scDeclineAndFall }
(Name: rsDeclineAndFall; MaxPlayers: 6; Maps: 4;
StartingLegalMajorCountries: [mcGermany, mcJapan, mcChina..mcUSSR];
TotalCountries: 7; Initiative: sdAllied; InitiativeBonus: iAllied2;
StartingSide: sdNone; Intelligence: (0, 0, 2, 0, 0, 7, 0, 8, 2);
WeatherMod: 1; WeatherRoll: 0; StartYear: 1944; StartTurn: tMayJun;
EndYear: 1945; EndTurn: tJulAug;
// RegSetupOrder: (mcUnitedStates, mcChina, mcItaly, mcUSSR, mcJapan, mcGermany,
// mcFrance, mcCommonwealth, mcVichyFrance); // Skip China
RegSetupOrder: (mcChina, mcJapan, mcGermany, mcVichyFrance, mcFrance,
mcUSSR, mcCommonwealth, mcUnitedStates, mcItaly);
PBEMSetupOrder: (mcChina, mcJapan, mcGermany, mcVichyFrance, mcFrance,
mcUSSR, mcCommonwealth, mcUnitedStates, mcItaly);
Reserves: (True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True);
Objectives: (0, 0, 9, 0, 1, 22, 5, 15, 15)),

{ scGlobalWar }
(Name: rsGlobalWar; MaxPlayers: 6; Maps: 4;
StartingLegalMajorCountries: [mcGermany..mcJapan, mcChina..mcUSSR];
TotalCountries: 8; Initiative: sdAxis; InitiativeBonus: iAxis2;
StartingSide: sdAxis; Intelligence: (2, 2, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2);
WeatherMod: 0; WeatherRoll: 4; StartYear: 1939; StartTurn: tSepOct;
// WeatherMod: 0; WeatherRoll: 1; StartYear: 1939; StartTurn: tMarApr; // Test weather
EndYear: 1945; EndTurn: tJulAug;
// RegSetupOrder: (mcChina, mcUnitedStates, mcUSSR, mcItaly, mcCommonwealth,
// mcFrance, mcJapan, mcGermany, mcVichyFrance); // Test China
RegSetupOrder: (mcUnitedStates, mcUSSR, mcItaly, mcChina, mcCommonwealth,
mcFrance, mcJapan, mcGermany, mcVichyFrance);
PBEMSetupOrder: (mcItaly, mcUnitedStates, mcUSSR, mcChina, mcCommonwealth,
mcFrance, mcJapan, mcGermany, mcVichyFrance);
Reserves: (False, False, True, False, True, False, False, False, False);
Objectives: (0, 0, 9, 0, 1, 22, 5, 15, 15))
);