Units, Scenarios, Options, and Add-ons

[Shannon V. OKeets]

I have been going over the optional rules in detail and thought I would let you see my current thinking. This is a work in progress and if you see any mistakes, please let me know. I apologize for how this looks. I can't seem to get the forum editor to take a table and retain the column structure.

Optional Rules
CWIF MWIF Option WIF FE Rules Reference
NA NA 1. African & Scandinavian maps 2.1.1, 2.1.4, 2.4.2
Yes Yes 2. Divisions 2.2, 2.3.1, 9.5, 11.4.5, 11.14, 11.15, 11.16.1, 11.16.5, 22.4.1
Yes Yes 3. Artillery 2.2, 2.3.1, 11.2, 11.5.9, 11.5.10, 11.8, 11.9, 11.11.2, 11.16.4, 11.16.5, 16.1, 16.3, 22.4.2
NA NA 4. Pacific & Asian map ZOCs 2.2
Yes Yes 5. Fortifications 2.3.1, 4.2, 11.16.1, 22.4.9
Yes Yes 6. Supply units 2.3.1, 2.4.2, 11.11.2, 11.12, 22.4.10
Yes Yes 7. Engineers 2.3.1, 11.11.2, 22.2, 22.4.1
Yes Yes 8. Flying boats 2.3.1, 8.2.9
Yes Yes 9. Ships In Flames units 2.3.1, 4.1.4, 4.2, 11.3, 11.5.8, 13.3.2, 13.5.1, 13.6.1, 13.6.5, 14.4.1, 22.4.7
Yes Yes 10. Territorials 11.16.5, 2.4.2, 4.2, 17.3, 18.1, 19.4, 22.4.5
Yes Yes 11. Limited overseas supply 2.4.2, 22.4.11
Yes Yes 12. Limited supply across straits 2.4.2, 11.10, 13.6.1
Yes Yes 13. HQ supply and support 2.4.3, 11.16.3
Yes Yes 14. Synthetic oil plants 4.2, 13.5.1, 22.4.11
Yes Yes 15. Off-city reinforcement 4.2
No Yes 16. Recruitment limits 4.2
Yes Yes 17. HQ movement 11.11.2
Yes Yes 18. Bottomed ships 11.2
Yes Yes 19. In the presence of the enemy 11.4.2
No Yes 20. Surprised ZOCs 2.2
No ? 21. Task forces (hidden) 11.4.3
No Yes 22. Bounce combat 14.3.3
Partially Yes 23. V-weapons and Atomic bombs 11.7.1, 11.8
Partially Yes 24. Frogmen 22.4.3
Yes Yes 25. SCS transport 11.4.5, 11.14
Yes Yes 26. Amphibious rules 11.13, 11.14, 22.4.12
Yes Yes 27. Optional CV searching 11.5.5
Yes Yes 28. Pilots 4.2, 11.2, 11.5.8, 11.5.11, 13.6.5, 13.6.7, 13.7.1, 14.6, 19.1, 22.4.19
No Yes 29. Food in Flames 13.6.1
Yes Yes 30. Factory construction and destruction 11.7, 13.6.8, 22.2, 22.4.11
Yes Yes 31. Saving build points and resources 11.7, 13.1, 13.3.2, 13.5.1, 13.6.3, 13.6.8
Yes Yes 32. Carpet bombing 11.8, 14.6
Yes Yes 33. Tank busters 11.9, 11.16.4
Yes Yes 34. Motorized movement rates 11.11.2
Yes Yes 35. Bomber (& no paradrop) ATRs 11.12, 11.15, 11.18.1
Yes Yes 36. Large ATRs 11.12, 11.18.1, 11.18.4
Yes Yes 37. Railway movement bonus 11.11.2
Yes Yes 38. Defensive shore bombardment 11.16.2, 15.1
No Yes 39. Blitz Bonus 11.16.1, 11.16.5
Yes Yes 40. Chinese attack weakness 11.16.5
Yes + Yes + 41. Fractional odds 11.16.5
Yes Yes 42. Allied combat friction 11.16.5
Yes Yes 43. 2D10 Land CRT 11.16.6
Yes Yes 44. Extended aircraft rebasing 11.17
Yes Yes 45. Variable reorganization costs 13.6.3
Yes + Yes + 46. Partisans 13.1, 13.7.4
Yes Yes 47. Isolated reorganization limits 13.5
Yes Yes 48. Oil 5, 13.5.1, 21
No Yes 49. Hitler’s War () 13.3.2
No Yes 50. USSR-Japan compulsory peace 13.7.3
No ? 51. En-route aircraft interception 14.2.1
Yes Yes 52. Night missions 14.2.1, 14.2.3, 22.4.2
Yes Yes 53. Twin-engined fighters 14.3.2
Yes Yes 54. Fighter-bombers 14.3.2
Yes Yes 55. Outclassed fighters 14.3.2
Yes Yes 56. Carrier planes 4.2, 11.2, 11.5.2, 11.5.8, 11.5.11, 11.18.4, 13.5.1, 13.6.5, 14.3.2, 14.4, 14.4.1, 14.8, 16.2
No ? 57. Limited aircraft interception 14.2.1
No Yes 58. Internment 14.6.4, 19.1
Partially Yes 59. Flying bombs 14.6, 14.7
Partially Yes 60. Kamikazes 14.6, 14.8
Yes Yes 61. Offensive Chits 16, (16.1 - 16.5)
No Yes 62. The Ukraine 19.12
No Yes 63. Intelligence 22.1
No Yes 64. Japanese command conflict 22.3
Yes Yes 65. Ski troops 22.4.1
Yes Yes 66. The Queens 22.4.4
Mostly Yes 67. City Based Volunteers 4.1.2, 22.4.8
Yes Yes 68. Siberians 22.4.7
Partially Yes 69. Naval supply units 22.4.13
Partially Yes 70. Guards Banner Armies 22.4.14
No Yes 71. Chinese Warlords 22.4.15
No ? 72. Partisan HQs 22.4.16
Partially ? 73. Heavy Weapons Units 22.4.17
Partially ? 74. Air Cav 22.4.18
No ? 75. Cruiser in Flames 13.5.1, 22.4.6
No ? 76. Convoys in Flames 19.4, 22.4.19


CWIF optional rules that are standard rules in WIF FE and will be standard rules in MWIF:
Lend lease,
CV strategic bombing,
Japanese carrier range,
Vlassov (replaced by city based volunteers), and
Carrier plane fighters (needs updating to reflect changes).

CWIF optional rules that were discontinued in WIF FE and will not be included in MWIF:
Separate die rolls on land combat table, and
Territorial conquest.

CWIF optional rules that are not in WIF FE but will be kept in MWIF:
Fog of war,
Scrap units (play testers requested this be optional to simplify play),
Limited view of opponent’s production, and
Facility repair (separated from Option #7 at request of play testers).

MWIF optional rules not in CWIF:
Leaders

MWIF will include the add-ons:
Africa Aflame
Asia Aflame
Carrier Planes in Flames
Leaders in Flames
Mech in Flames
Planes in Flames
Ships in Flames

MWIF will NOT include the add-ons:
America in Flames
Days of Decision
Patton in Flames

I am still undecided about (because I haven’t received copies of them yet) the add-ons:
Cruisers in Flames
Convoys in Flames
Politics in Flames

[Froonp]

Optional Rules
CWIF MWIF Option WIF FE Rules Reference
No Yes 64. Japanese command conflict 22.3

I thought it was included in CWiF, but I may be wrong.

No ? 72. Partisan HQs 22.4.16
Partially ? 73. Heavy Weapons Units 22.4.17
Partially ? 74. Air Cav 22.4.18
No ? 75. Cruiser in Flames 13.5.1, 22.4.6
No ? 76. Convoys in Flames 19.4, 22.4.19

Why is there a question Mark for those options ?
If there is a problem creating the counters, I can help you if you want, otherwise its just "more units" and "more rules", and it definitely is part of WiF FE as it is at the present time since 2 years ago (issued in 2003).

CWIF optional rules that were discontinued in WIF FE and will not be included in MWIF:
Territorial conquest.

What's this ? I do not see what this option is.

CWIF optional rules that are not in WIF FE but will be kept in MWIF:
Scrap units (play testers requested this be optional to simplify play),

This definitely is in WiF FE.

MWIF will NOT include the add-ons:
America in Flames
Patton in Flames

At least, include the counters for AiF & PatiF. If you need a helping hand entering them (typing them in the game), we can help you (there is also the Excel Spraedsheet at my website showing the counters statistics).

I am still undecided about (because I haven’t received copies of them yet) the add-ons:
Cruisers in Flames
Convoys in Flames
Politics in Flames

Boy, these are just "more counters" for the most of them, and for the rule, they are included in the RAW7 booklet that you have. Again, if you need help tying more counters in the game, we are here to help you. I personaly entered dozens of counters into CWiF to help Chris.
I could understand that you do not add the rules for PoliF, but I could not understand that you don't add the extra counters there are in this countersheet (who need no more rules).

[Greyshaft]

CWIF optional rules that are not in WIF FE but will be kept in MWIF:
Scrap units (play testers requested this be optional to simplify play),

How else do you get the old planes out of the mix? I can't imagine playing a game in 1946 where the CW still has the opportunity of Gloster randomly producing either a Gladiator or a Meteor

When you say "CWIF optional rules that are not in WIF FE but will be kept in MWIF:" I am presuming that you mean they will still be optional in MWIF ie switched on/off by players at start of game?

Could "Task Force Hidden" be a game option decided by players at start?

No ? 51. En-route aircraft interception 14.2.1

More trouble than its worth IMHO. It has the capacity to really slow down the asynchronous games

[Mziln]

I am still undecided about (because I haven’t received copies of them yet) the add-ons:
Cruisers in Flames
Convoys in Flames
Politics in Flames

In the RaW [:D]

Cruisers in Flames: CL's, ASW rule changes, Rough Seas Option 75, and naval unit cost changes.

Convoys in Flames: ASW rules, SUB-hunting aircraft, German Auxiliary Cruisers, Tankers, Milchcow SUBs, Schnorkel SUBs, Walther SUBs, Flying SUBs, Supply SUBs, and SUBs with Missiles.

Politics in Flames: Rumania goes 4 levels (modified by barriers as necessary) towards the other side. Divisional units, Chinese warlords, Partisan HQs, Heavy weapons units, and Air Cavalry Option.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

I was a little simplistic in staing some of the 'options'. I knew that at the time but didn't want to be super precise about all 76 of the options. To clarify:

My definition of an optional rule is one that the players can turn on or off at the start of a game.

Some CWIF play testers found having to go thru the scrap units phase tedious (say, for the Barbarossa scenario) and wanted the whole issue of scrapping units optional. Please note, if you want the abiltiy to scrap units, you simply turn the option on. No big deal.

I ran this list by Chris twice so my statement that Japanese command conflict was not implemented in CWIF is based on his reply.

Territorial conquest was an option once upon a time but it was never implemented in CWIF. Since it is not in WIF Final Edition, I see no reason to implement it now.

Options 72 through 76 were introduced in recent (vis-a-vis circa CWIF) add-ons. I do not currently have copies of Cruisers in Flames, Convoys in Flames, Politics in Flames, America in Flames, and Patton in Flames (they are suppose to be on their way to me). Until I do, I do not want to commit myself to doing something about which I know next to nothing. Once I have an opportunity to reveiw them personally, and thoroughyl, I will be able to make an informed decision. Until that time though, I have them down as ?.

Your desire for additional units to be included presents me with no problems. If you then say you want them to have capabilities that are different from the existing 60+ unit types, then I have a problem. I do not intend to include America in Flames, Patton in Flames, or Days of Decision in MWIF (Version 1). Some of the other add-ons (see the list above) I still have on the 'maybe' list. As to the general process of adding new units, the players will have the ability to edit the comma separated values files for the units (air, land, naval, and other are in 4 different files) and change them howsoever they think is best.

Adding new unit types means adding more code to support their unique capabilities. There has to be a line drawn somewhere or I'll end up coding in all the rules for Flashpoint Germany. I will draw a line! And if I do it right there will an equal number of people mad at me for (1) not including features they want, and (2) wasting time writing code for features they do not want and thereby delaying the publication of the game. I knew this would be the case when I signed on for the project. I won't lose any sleep over it. I will lose sleep if the project falls behind schedule.

The thing about hidden task forces is that MWIF (like CWIF) has the fog of war option which lets you know the number and types of units in a stack of naval units but not the specific units. This isn't the same as hidden task forces but it is close. I'm undecided about including hidden task forces becasue (1) I'm not sure it adds that much more given the fog of war option, and (2) it deviates from a fundamental principle of the MWIF design. That is, every unit has a location. It may be on the map, in a force pool, in construction, dead and buried, whereever. Nonetheless all 3100+ units are somewhere and the program knows exactly where. In the fog of war option MWIF simply withholds unit details from the opposing player. Hidden task forces are different. They report to the opposing player about a group of naval units (a task force) rather than about a stack of naval units (where each naval unit has a type). This might seem to be a minor distinction but from the programming point of view it is a big headache that affects such fundamental routines as displaying the units on the map.

[Froonp]

No ? 51. En-route aircraft interception 14.2.1

More trouble than its worth IMHO. It has the capacity to really slow down the asynchronous games

Strange that in the real game it is a lot less trouble than it is worth, because it is worth an enormous lot, and is only really used one or twice during a game. The rest of the time, it only obliges the players to choose flying paths for their bombers that are not in range of would-be interceptors (avoid the interceptors).
MWiF could emulate this behavior by, when you fly a mission :
- Highlight the map hexes where enemy fighters can intercept, so that you are able to avoid those areas.
- Allow the mission player to define way points (this is already in CWiF) for the mission.
- Optionaly trace a colored line on the map, when the mission is completely defined, showing the complete bombers' path. This colored line could be immediately drawn on the map between the bomber's base hex & the target hex when the target hex is defined (because you have to define the target hex before defining the flying path), and then this line would be broken in several segments when you click the waypoint hexes, for finaly showing the complete flying path when you are finished.

[Froonp]

Some CWIF play testers found having to go thru the scrap units phase tedious (say, for the Barbarossa scenario) and wanted the whole issue of scrapping units optional. Please note, if you want the abiltiy to scrap units, you simply turn the option on. No big deal.

What I remember from the playtest process is that what was tedious was to redo the scrapping process each time, and Chris provided an Automated Scrapping process, he did not remove scrapping. Scrapping was always part of CWiF.

[Froonp]

Options 72 through 76 were introduced in recent (vis-a-vis circa CWIF) add-ons. I do not currently have copies of Cruisers in Flames, Convoys in Flames, Politics in Flames, America in Flames, and Patton in Flames (they are suppose to be on their way to me). Until I do, I do not want to commit myself to doing something about which I know next to nothing. Once I have an opportunity to reveiw them personally, and thoroughyl, I will be able to make an informed decision. Until that time though, I have them down as ?.

If you have RAW7, you already have all the rules for CoiF & CLiF, there is nothing more in the kits you'll receive. You only miss the countersheets. You can see reduced copies of those countersheets at my website.
Regards
Patrice

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

No ? 51. En-route aircraft interception 14.2.1

More trouble than its worth IMHO. It has the capacity to really slow down the asynchronous games

Strange that in the real game it is a lot less trouble than it is worth, because it is worth an enormous lot, and is only really used one or twice during a game. The rest of the time, it only obliges the players to choose flying paths for their bombers that are not in range of would-be interceptors (avoid the interceptors).
MWiF could emulate this behavior by, when you fly a mission :
- Highlight the map hexes where enemy fighters can intercept, so that you are able to avoid those areas.
- Allow the mission player to define way points (this is already in CWiF) for the mission.
- Optionaly trace a colored line on the map, when the mission is completely defined, showing the complete bombers' path. This colored line could be immediately drawn on the map between the bomber's base hex & the target hex when the target hex is defined (because you have to define the target hex before defining the flying path), and then this line would be broken in several segments when you click the waypoint hexes, for finaly showing the complete flying path when you are finished.

When I put down a question mark for options #51 and #57, my thoughts were similar to those expressed by Greyshaft in the first box above.

After reading your reply, Froonp, I am coming around to your point of view. To summarize your comments, the interface design could reduce the amount of trouble from the player's point of view. I agree. Let's put options #51 and #57 on the list as part of the interface design thread, which I hope to start this week. However, I would strongly recommend that this option not be turned on as part of PBEM, and to also be turned off when playing Fog of War (in the latter case flying long bombing missions could be used as a sort of recon mission to learn the ranges of the opponent's fighters).

[Mziln]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

My definition of an optional rule is one that the players can turn on or off at the start of a game.

22.4 Optional Rules and Units

X.X.1 Divisions Option 2
Each division type goes into a new force pool. ARM and MECH divisions count against Armour gearing limits. CAV divisions count against cavalry gearing limits. Other divisions count against infantry gearing limits. Divisions are not restricted from being built ahead (see 13.6.5 Building units) if their equivalent corps type is still available in the force pools, and vice versa.

X.X.2 Artillery Option 3
If you are playing with this rule, there is a new gearing limit class - artillery.

X.X.3 Fortification Units Option 5
Fortification units are a new gearing limit class.

X.X.4 Supply units Option 6
Supply units are a new gearing limit class.

X.X.5 Engineer Divisions Option 7
Some engineer divisions (ENGs) are motorized and receive the benefits of being motorized. Some other engineers have the same special abilities as MAR units. You can play engineers as combat and/or construction engineers.

X.X.6 Territorials Option 10
Some major powers and minor countries have one or more territorial units available in the force pools from the start of the game.

X.X.7 Synthetic oil plants Option 14
The synthetic oil units represent plants designed to turn coal into fuel oil. Such plants were built extensively by Germany during the war but also to some extent by Japan.

X.X.8 Frogmen Option 24
The Italian frogmen and Japanese and Commonwealth mini-sub units are the same unit type for all purposes. We call them all “frogmen”.

X.X.9 Amphibious Units Option 26
Amphibious units (AMPH) form a new force pool. They count against ship gearing limits.

X.X.10 Japanese Command Conflict Option 64
Throughout the war, the Imperial Japanese navy fought a series of bloody disputes with the Imperial Japanese army. They fought over everything from resource allocation to the strategic direction of the war. You would need 2 Japanese players to reflect that result but this rule will complicate the Japanese player’s life a little.

X.X.11 Ski Troop Divisions Option 65

X.X.12 The Queens Option 66 (Rule 22.4.4 The Queens Option 66 (SiF))
This unit represents two converted passenger liners (Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth) that were justly famous for their speed. You use it like a faster than usual TRS except that it cannot transport HQ-A, ARM, MECH, artillery or aircraft units. The Queens can replace a TRS unit from the start of a scenario.

X.X.13 City Based Volunteers’ Option 67
There are several units with the name of a city printed on their back in AfA, AiF, LiF and PoliF. These counters represent volunteers who fought or potentially would have fought for the major power whose background color the counters share. As examples, Vlassov was a successful Soviet general who defected to the Germans after his capture, the SS recruited personnel from the occupied areas and Japan used some Chinese and potentially would have used some Indians or Siberians as well.

X.X.14 Siberians Option 68 (Rule 22.4.7 Siberians Option 68 (AfA))
Each Siberian unit can replace a Soviet INF unit from the start of a scenario. In 1939 games, they must start on the Asian or Pacific map. In other games, they can start anywhere. You decide after set up which units, if any, you wish to replace. Put any Siberians you don’t start on the map into the INF force pool.

X.X.15 Naval Supply Units Option 69
Naval supply units Upgrade and downgrade minor ports.

X.X.16 Guards Banner Armies Option 70
The 8 Russian armies included in LiF are Guards Banner Armies. These are kept as reserves, but do not arrive when other reserves do.

X.X.17 Chinese Warlords Option 71
The Chinese warlord units represent forces loyal to one particular Warlord in China rather than the central Government

X.X.18 Partisan HQs Option 72
Tito and Zoya K. are treated the same as any other HQI except that you cannot purchase them.

X.X.19 Heavy weapons units Option 73
During the war, most countries upgraded their units with heavier weapons in an attempt to gain an advantage over their opponents.

X.X.20 Air Cavalry Option 74
Air Cav (ACV) units are a new unit type.

X.X.21 Light Cruisers & Rough Seas Option 75
The light cruisers in CliF replace those provided in World in Flames and depict every CL and CAA of WWII.

X.X.22 Convoys in Flames Option 76
This SiF option introduces several units that represent in greater detail the naval battles conducted against merchant marine shipping, especially battles by and against submarines.

Yes, I left out A-bombs and V weapons.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Some CWIF play testers found having to go thru the scrap units phase tedious (say, for the Barbarossa scenario) and wanted the whole issue of scrapping units optional. Please note, if you want the abiltiy to scrap units, you simply turn the option on. No big deal.

What I remember from the playtest process is that what was tedious was to redo the scrapping process each time, and Chris provided an Automated Scrapping process, he did not remove scrapping. Scrapping was always part of CWiF.

So, what you are saying is that the scrapping option should be titled: Manual or Automatic. I can live with that, BUT ...
Whenever I hear the word 'automatic' I cringe (huddle into a ball in fear). That is because I have learned that automatic means two things: (1) the programmer has to implement the feature, taking into consideration all the details brilliantly becasue if he doesn't (2) the program does things that I, as a user, consider really stupid.

The conditions under which the AI Assistant scraps (does not scrap) planes would have to be very clear.

[Froonp]

So, what you are saying is that the scrapping option should be titled: Manual or Automatic. I can live with that, BUT ...
Whenever I hear the word 'automatic' I cringe (huddle into a ball in fear). That is because I have learned that automatic means two things: (1) the programmer has to implement the feature, taking into consideration all the details brilliantly becasue if he doesn't (2) the program does things that I, as a user, consider really stupid.

The conditions under which the AI Assistant scraps (does not scrap) planes would have to be very clear.

I'm not advocating for an Automatic Scrap feature to be in the game, I was just saying that I seem to remember that CWiF had, for the playtest purposes.
And I still feel that for the playtest purpose it can be a good thing.
For the game, I'd prefer to be able to save (into a file) the list of the units I'm scrapping, so that I can scrap the same units next time I play.
Eventualy, I could be able to edit this file and modify it, out of the game, but that's not the most important.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Options 72 through 76 were introduced in recent (vis-a-vis circa CWIF) add-ons. I do not currently have copies of Cruisers in Flames, Convoys in Flames, Politics in Flames, America in Flames, and Patton in Flames (they are suppose to be on their way to me). Until I do, I do not want to commit myself to doing something about which I know next to nothing. Once I have an opportunity to reveiw them personally, and thoroughyl, I will be able to make an informed decision. Until that time though, I have them down as ?.

If you have RAW7, you already have all the rules for CoiF & CLiF, there is nothing more in the kits you'll receive. You only miss the countersheets. You can see reduced copies of those countersheets at my website.
Regards
Patrice

Through hard experience over 35 years of programming, I have learned to never commit to programming tasks unless I know exactly what I am committing to. This discussion will be on hold until I have in my own hot little hands brand new copies of the Add-ons that I can go over carefully.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Mziln
22.4 Optional Rules and Units

X.X.1 Divisions Option 2
Each division type goes into a new force pool. ARM and MECH divisions count against Armour gearing limits. CAV divisions count against cavalry gearing limits. Other divisions count against infantry gearing limits. Divisions are not restricted from being built ahead (see 13.6.5 Building units) if their equivalent corps type is still available in the force pools, and vice versa.

X.X.2 Artillery Option 3
If you are playing with this rule, there is a new gearing limit class - artillery.

X.X.3 Fortification Units Option 5
Fortification units are a new gearing limit class.

X.X.4 Supply units Option 6
Supply units are a new gearing limit class.

X.X.5 Engineer Divisions Option 7
Some engineer divisions (ENGs) are motorized and receive the benefits of being motorized. Some other engineers have the same special abilities as MAR units. You can play engineers as combat and/or construction engineers.

X.X.6 Territorials Option 10
Some major powers and minor countries have one or more territorial units available in the force pools from the start of the game.

X.X.7 Synthetic oil plants Option 14
The synthetic oil units represent plants designed to turn coal into fuel oil. Such plants were built extensively by Germany during the war but also to some extent by Japan.

X.X.8 Frogmen Option 24
The Italian frogmen and Japanese and Commonwealth mini-sub units are the same unit type for all purposes. We call them all “frogmen”.

X.X.9 Amphibious Units Option 26
Amphibious units (AMPH) form a new force pool. They count against ship gearing limits.

X.X.10 Japanese Command Conflict Option 64
Throughout the war, the Imperial Japanese navy fought a series of bloody disputes with the Imperial Japanese army. They fought over everything from resource allocation to the strategic direction of the war. You would need 2 Japanese players to reflect that result but this rule will complicate the Japanese player’s life a little.

X.X.11 Ski Troop Divisions Option 65

X.X.12 The Queens Option 66 (Rule 22.4.4 The Queens Option 66 (SiF))
This unit represents two converted passenger liners (Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth) that were justly famous for their speed. You use it like a faster than usual TRS except that it cannot transport HQ-A, ARM, MECH, artillery or aircraft units. The Queens can replace a TRS unit from the start of a scenario.

X.X.13 City Based Volunteers’ Option 67
There are several units with the name of a city printed on their back in AfA, AiF, LiF and PoliF. These counters represent volunteers who fought or potentially would have fought for the major power whose background color the counters share. As examples, Vlassov was a successful Soviet general who defected to the Germans after his capture, the SS recruited personnel from the occupied areas and Japan used some Chinese and potentially would have used some Indians or Siberians as well.

X.X.14 Siberians Option 68 (Rule 22.4.7 Siberians Option 68 (AfA))
Each Siberian unit can replace a Soviet INF unit from the start of a scenario. In 1939 games, they must start on the Asian or Pacific map. In other games, they can start anywhere. You decide after set up which units, if any, you wish to replace. Put any Siberians you don’t start on the map into the INF force pool.

X.X.15 Naval Supply Units Option 69
Naval supply units Upgrade and downgrade minor ports.

X.X.16 Guards Banner Armies Option 70
The 8 Russian armies included in LiF are Guards Banner Armies. These are kept as reserves, but do not arrive when other reserves do.

X.X.17 Chinese Warlords Option 71
The Chinese warlord units represent forces loyal to one particular Warlord in China rather than the central Government

X.X.18 Partisan HQs Option 72
Tito and Zoya K. are treated the same as any other HQI except that you cannot purchase them.

X.X.19 Heavy weapons units Option 73
During the war, most countries upgraded their units with heavier weapons in an attempt to gain an advantage over their opponents.

X.X.20 Air Cavalry Option 74
Air Cav (ACV) units are a new unit type.

X.X.21 Light Cruisers & Rough Seas Option 75
The light cruisers in CliF replace those provided in World in Flames and depict every CL and CAA of WWII.

X.X.22 Convoys in Flames Option 76
This SiF option introduces several units that represent in greater detail the naval battles conducted against merchant marine shipping, especially battles by and against submarines.

Yes, I left out A-bombs and V weapons.

Good point. I'll update my table with the additions listed above.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

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.

The graphics are being done by Rob Armstrong of Bullseye graphics, who did a lot of the art work for the WIF series.
Rob Crandall lends an ear and provides useful ideas and insights from time to time but is not part of the coding team.

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
The conditions under which the AI Assistant scraps (does not scrap) planes would have to be very clear.

Amen. Scrapping planes is one of those repetitive gut-twisting decisions with which WiF abounds.

Do I scrap this newly destroyed fighter? But then I'll lose the other on-map unit protecting <important target>. But if I don't then in the production phase I might have to randomly rebuild this unit with its pissy attack factor of 3 instead of the new super-duper units with an attack factor of 7 which just arrived in my force pool... aaargh... decisions... decisions

IMO scrapping has to stay. I could see the information collection being automated but not the actual decision making process. So when you lose (say) a fighter then at the end of the combat you get a dialog box saying:

You have just lost a Sopwith Pup.
The Sopwith Pup has an attack factor of 1
Your on-map fighter force (including units on production spiral) has an average attack factor of 1.2
Your production pool has an average attack factor of 0.9
There are 6 Sopwith Pups in the countermix.
Three are in the force pool (including the one you just lost)
Two are in production, due in Mar/Apr 1917 and Jul/Aug 1917
One is on the map at Chateau-Thierry.

Do you want to scrap the Sopwith Pup?


BTW, did you ever see the WWI version of WiF ? [:)]

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft
Scrapping planes is one of those repetitive gut-twisting decisions with which WiF abounds.

Do I scrap this newly destroyed fighter? But then I'll lose the other on-map unit protecting <important target>. But if I don't then in the production phase I might have to randomly rebuild this unit with its pissy attack factor of 3 instead of the new super-duper units with an attack factor of 7 which just arrived in my force pool... aaargh... decisions... decisions

IMO scrapping has to stay. I could see the information collection being automated but not the actual decision making process. So when you lose (say) a fighter then at the end of the combat you get a dialog box saying:

You have just lost a Sopwith Pup.
The Sopwith Pup has an attack factor of 1
Your on-map fighter force (including units on production spiral) has an average attack factor of 1.2
Your production pool has an average attack factor of 0.9
There are 6 Sopwith Pups in the countermix.
Three are in the force pool (including the one you just lost)
Two are in production, due in Mar/Apr 1917 and Jul/Aug 1917
One is on the map at Chateau-Thierry.

Do you want to scrap the Sopwith Pup?


BTW, did you ever see the WWI version of WiF ? [:)]

Hey, I may be old but even I wasn't around during WW I![:D]

Improving the interface for scrapping planes was the very first item I put on my list for MWIF. When you start a new game of CWIF, it comes up first when you have absolutely no knowledge about anything and there you are having to figure out what to scrap before you do anyting else. I understood immediately why the play testers wanted it removed (i.e., made optional). It would be even more annoying if you were playing WIF as a novice and trying the Barbarossa scenario as a 'tutorial'.

This really belongs in the interface thread, but ...
My first thought was to have a screen display of all your fighters: on map, in production, in the force pool, and additions due to the force pool at the start of the next year. There aren't that many fighters so they should all be visible at once. These four boxes, with fighter units in each, would give you a complete overview of your current and (potentially) future fighters. Any that did not have pilots assigned would also be noted. As you move the cursor over each fighter its brothers in arms would be highlighted so you would know the consequences or scrapping that unit. What I am doing here is basically what I do when I play over the board: I evaluate all my fighters before scrapping any.

The averages that you described have the limitation that averages always have: they are a single number that represents a group. When a group is small, it is almost always better to look at the individual elements of the group instead of the average. [Sorry, I use to teach statistics and my tendency to lecture is quasi-ingrained.]

[Froonp]

The averages that you described have the limitation that averages always have: they are a single number that represents a group. When a group is small, it is almost always better to look at the individual elements of the group instead of the average. [Sorry, I use to teach statistics and my tendency to lecture is quasi-ingrained.]

I agree with this about averages (I studied statistics too), but I love what Greyshaft wrote (and I'd love to see a WWI version of WiF FE & MWiF).
To make things more useful, you may display the standard deviance as well as the average ? What do you think ? You wouldn't label it as Std Dev, but you could put : Average 5,3 combat factors +/- 0,7 for example. Standard deviance may not exactly be the +/- error, but it looks and means alike.
Patrice

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

The averages that you described have the limitation that averages always have: they are a single number that represents a group. When a group is small, it is almost always better to look at the individual elements of the group instead of the average. [Sorry, I use to teach statistics and my tendency to lecture is quasi-ingrained.]

I agree with this about averages (I studied statistics too), but I love what Greyshaft wrote (and I'd love to see a WWI version of WiF FE & MWiF).
To make things more useful, you may display the standard deviance as well as the average ? What do you think ? You wouldn't label it as Std Dev, but you could put : Average 5,3 combat factors +/- 0,7 for example. Standard deviance may not exactly be the +/- error, but it looks and means alike.
Patrice

Us math guys would understand it but it is likely to be of little use to most people. There are a lot of numbers that could be provided (percentile ranking by air-to-air, tactical bombing, air-to-sea, and strategic bombing factors to name but a few).

I still like just showing the players all the units. Letting them sort the planes by one of the combat factors would be a nice touch. For example, "Sort in descendng order by tactical bombing factor." That way you could see how many planes in the force pool are better/worse that the one you are thinking about scrapping. That is usually the major criterion for my decisions when scrapping a plane.

[Froonp]

I still like just showing the players all the units. Letting them sort the planes by one of the combat factors would be a nice touch. For example, "Sort in descendng order by tactical bombing factor." That way you could see how many planes in the force pool are better/worse that the one you are thinking about scrapping. That is usually the major criterion for my decisions when scrapping a plane.

Yes I do exactly the same when I'm scrapping something (not only air units), as well as assessing the overall number of units and if it matches my needs.