Matrix Games Forums

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 changed my mind. At the risk of infuriating WIF FE traditionalists:

1 - O for all remain organized.
2 - o for 1/2 (rounding up) remain organized.

I always disliked the description as half-disrupted since the calculation is done such that half remain undisrupted. Using organized and disorganized opened up the new possibility of using O and o.

I find the asterisk confusing because it means multiply in most situations. That's especially true if we use + to indicate possible additional loss.

So, ...

O0o are really close looking. Somebody somewhere will be unable to distinguish them. Vetererns will recognize what they are based on the location in the tables. I think new players will suffer a learning curve.

I changed my mind. At the risk of infuriating WIF FE traditionalists:

1 - O for all remain organized.
2 - o for 1/2 (rounding up) remain organized.

I always disliked the description as half-disrupted since the calculation is done such that half remain undisrupted. Using organized and disorganized opened up the new possibility of using O and o.

I find the asterisk confusing because it means multiply in most situations. That's especially true if we use + to indicate possible additional loss.

So, ...

Hey, I don't like it, I gues that makes me a normal WiF FE Traditionalist ? [:D]
Defenders are disrupted on a Retreat too. Why not mark it down too ?
They are not disrupted also on a 19 result in assault if there is an extra loss.

This said, I still don't like the o, O, and D.
You are modifying someting that works since 7 years with the boardgame, so that now, not only will the newbies will be confused, but also the veterans. Everyone will be equal in front of this chart [:D].

I wouldn't use O/o -too much confusion with 0 (zero!) (eg see roll of 19)

how about X/x?

ORIGINAL: abj9562

O0o are really close looking. Somebody somewhere will be unable to distinguish them. Vetererns will recognize what they are based on the location in the tables. I think new players will suffer a learning curve.

Right.
There should be no 0 (zeroes), only - (dashes).

From the 2 Die 10 Land Combat Results Table

3.
(j) Attacker can convert and 'S' or "B' result to an 'R' result.

Should that be "Attacker can canvert an 'S' or "B' result to an 'R' result."?

Unfortunately, the 2D10 table has so many modifiers that it is very difficult to keep them all in mind when resolving combats. I remember many times from the CWiF game when I just knew that the program had made an error in resolution, but when fully research would discover that I had overlooked a modifier. I have been playing the game for more than twenty years, so I can only image what it would be like for a freshman WiF player with their fresh new copy of MWiF.

Additionally, most new player will not read the manuals first; they will load, point and shoot. Many will not initially do the tutorials, but will attempt to struggle through, depending upon experience and intuition to learn the system. Only after an evening or two will they resort to the tutorials or perhaps the manual. Therefore the more clear the resolution can be communicated the better.

So perhaps a resolution summary something like this:

Combat Table: Blitz
Dice roll 12
2 Disorganized corps +4
1 Defending ARM/Mech -2
Defending HQ Support -1
4 Attacking ARM/Mech +4
2 Co-operating MPs -1
Final Dice Roll 16

While I think that the 'O's and 'o's are the best solution currently suggested, might there be some confusion between the 'O's and the zeros?

D (D) O o 0   
 
Instead of these, why not just use a alphabet subscript to identify each situation on the chart. It should eliminate confusion and allow for exact results explanations. Moreover most wargamers are used to subscripted footnotes throughout their rules.

seriously, try adding a column for the attacker disrupted results, with "D"; "D/2" or "half-D" or "1/2 D"; and "-" or "0" or "*" or "none"

trying to convey two types of results, the casualties and the amount of disruption, in the same column makes that column kind of busy.

a simple sentence right at the bottom of the chart - "Surviving defenders are disrupted if they retreat or take more casualties than the attacker", right next to where the attacker disruption is explained, seems easier than adding new "D" or "(D)" results to a table that has never had them before.

but also, as you mentioned in the Zone of Control tutorial discussion, wargamers aren't so thick-headed that they can't figure out to read what an "*" on the CRT means and if they are, they'll never make it to the first land combat anyway.

the land combat form looks real good and will be excellent for avoiding that 'forgotten' modifier when you are doing it in your head over the table. plus, it will probably be spelling out the disruption results with text, i.e. words, anyway, so people will get the hang of it quick, especially after their first 'half-flip' result creates a pop-up window for them to pick which half of the units to 'disrupt'. after that, or maybe after the 2nd or 3rd one, it will be like riding a bike.

ORIGINAL: brian brian

seriously, try adding a column for the attacker disrupted results, with "D"; "D/2" or "half-D" or "1/2 D"; and "-" or "0" or "*" or "none"

trying to convey two types of results, the casualties and the amount of disruption, in the same column makes that column kind of busy.

a simple sentence right at the bottom of the chart - "Surviving defenders are disrupted if they retreat or take more casualties than the attacker", right next to where the attacker disruption is explained, seems easier than adding new "D" or "(D)" results to a table that has never had them before.

but also, as you mentioned in the Zone of Control tutorial discussion, wargamers aren't so thick-headed that they can't figure out to read what an "*" on the CRT means and if they are, they'll never make it to the first land combat anyway.

the land combat form looks real good and will be excellent for avoiding that 'forgotten' modifier when you are doing it in your head over the table. plus, it will probably be spelling out the disruption results with text, i.e. words, anyway, so people will get the hang of it quick, especially after their first 'half-flip' result creates a pop-up window for them to pick which half of the units to 'disrupt'. after that, or maybe after the 2nd or 3rd one, it will be like riding a bike.

I made a start at using more columns, doing away with the '/' and having separate columns for Att and Def. That enabled splitting the losses and the disruptions for each into 2 columns. The result is 9 columns: die + 4 Assault + 4 Blitz. Not very satisfactory.

The real difficulty here stems from trying to adapt the symbology of the standard land CRT to the 2D10 land CRT. The addition of: (1) possible additional loss by the attacker and (2) having 1/2 of the attacker's units stay organized, makes it very complex. That result for rollnig a 19 on the Assault table is confusing no matter who you are and how it is presented.

Well, the original 2d10 CRT is perfectly clear, why bother changing it ?

I will have to agree with Patrice on the 2D10 table representations.
 
The original tables are quite clear and with their colorcoding easy to get an overview for.
 
Could perhaps the original tables be supplied as a printable form for the players use if they so desire ?
 
Lars
 
 

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Well, the original 2d10 CRT is perfectly clear, why bother changing it ?

Ah, I can't agree on that. The dagger and smudge (caduceus?) are hard to tell apart at a glance. Even the dagger and asterisk are not easy to distinguish from any distance. Now experienced players know there is no asterisk at the top of the table, and most have memorized the requisite numbers for achieving a result of "attacker not disorganized", so they do not even have to refer to the table. But that aside, the little symbols are not "perfectly clear".

If you compare the original black and white WIF FE printed version to the version shown above where I used blue and green, I think the question of whether the attacker's units become disorganized or not is much less obvious. Reducing the symbols from 3 to 1 (the one remaining is the +) returns to that status of the original land CRT which only had 1 symbol - the asterisk. [I have no problems at all with the depiction of the standard land CRT.]

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

I will have to agree with Patrice on the 2D10 table representations.

The original tables are quite clear and with their colorcoding easy to get an overview for.

Could perhaps the original tables be supplied as a printable form for the players use if they so desire ?

Lars

You have a color coded copy? I only have black & white (and gray).

The original charts and tables are available as PDF files from ADG and those files will be included in the released product.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

I will have to agree with Patrice on the 2D10 table representations.

The original tables are quite clear and with their colorcoding easy to get an overview for.

Could perhaps the original tables be supplied as a printable form for the players use if they so desire ?

Lars

You have a color coded copy? I only have black & white (and gray).

The original charts and tables are available as PDF files from ADG and those files will be included in the released product.

I have sent the color coded version of the 2D10 from 2002 in email. The 2003 version adds the city modifier limits and is in black and white.

Lars

Just a thought.

In the '2 Die 10 Land Combat Results Table' there is the folowing statement.

2. ...
(a) Defender Assault or Blitz chooses if the terrain effects say so.

Sounds like something a certain Jedi Master might say. How about.

(a) The Defender chooses Assault or Blitz if the terrain effects say so.
or
(a) If the terrain effects says so then the Defender chooses Land CRT.

But I don't have english as my first language so if the original line sound ok to you english speakers then I stand corrected. Or you might have an even better alternative. And yes a simple - seems better than a 0 in the table.

Lars, thanks. This is much better. [The bottom is partially cropped.]

WiF could use more Yoda-speak, it helps you grok the "WiFZen" of the playability trade-offs. But it is already written in Harry-speak, a distant linguistic cousin developed by a race of imprisoned lawyers exiled to a planet called "Terra" by the Imperial Star Fleet.


The way the table choice is defined in the rules is the best presentation of it. Trying to condense it on to the combat chart leads to problems, I think. I would suggest junking that section of the text on the 2d10 table and adding perhaps a pop-up window with the complete text from the rule-book to avoid all confusion here, but I don't know how that fits with the land combat form. Since we are not trying to fit it on to an 8.5x11 piece of paper there seems no reason to use a shortcut version. The computer could indicate how the table is picked as it offers a check box to the appropriate player - "Attacking a city hex requires the Assault table" (no check box offered); "The Defender has the choice of combat table in a mountain hex"; "In this combat the attacker has more ARM and may now choose the combat table"; etc., with an option to see just the table choice rules text, or a link to the combat tutorial or something. ? just thinking out loud. heck, half the time on defense I forget about my option to call blitz when there are no tanks in sight but I'm holding the high ground. on the attack I sometimes forget to switch to assault to protect a single MECH/ARM from being the 1st loss in a blitz. it takes a long time to learn to recall those for every combat. well, for me anyway.

ORIGINAL: brian brian
"Attacking a city hex requires the Assault table" (no check box offered); "The Defender has the choice of combat table in a mountain hex"; "In this combat the attacker has more ARM and may now choose the combat table"; etc., with an option to see just the table choice rules text, or a link to the combat tutorial or something. ?

The defender can call it a blitz even in a city hex.

ORIGINAL: lomyrin
I have sent the color coded version of the 2D10 from 2002 in email. The 2003 version adds the city modifier limits and is in black and white.

Careful here.
You should only take the chart from this 2002 document.

The text on the color coded version of the 2d10 chart also have a minor differences with the latest 2003 chart :
- In the text describing how Fractional odds work with the 2d10 chart. There is the added reference to "odds of 1:1 and higher".
- The city modifiers are isolated in another module, so that we know that they globaly cap at 0.
- The penalty for factories is limited to printed factories in the latest chart.
- In the 2002 2d10 CRT, the white print SS are winterized while they are not in the latest 2003 2d10 CRT.
- The 2002 2d10 CRT don't have the exception for HQ support in the "halve attacking bonuses if attacking units are halved" rule.

sunk by a ghost of the past again, the language 'must be used' stuck in my head for some reason. yet another improvement MWiF will bring us - never forgetting to choose the table.