Trade Agreement Form - Modifications

[Shannon V. OKeets]

As promised in my monthly report, here is the revised (in progress) Trade Agreement form.

Most of you are probably not aware of this, but all the forms in MWIF went through a lively discussion during development: pros and cons from all sides were welcome, read, and considered.

So, in keeping with that earlier practice, wadda ya think?

==========
The change is the addition of the second table at the bottom of the form. For the selected trade in the upper table, the bottom table shows which resources are currently being used to fulfill the trade agreement. So, for the 3 examples in the screenshot, you see the Swedish resources going to Germany, the German resources going to Italy, and the US resources going to the Commonwealth.

One of the players suggested this a month or so ago, I was kicking myself for not having thought of this earlier. Grouped by trade agreement, it gives a nice overview of resources –> destinations w/action. I have several obvious changes to made:
1: Replace Current with Computed.
2: Add a column to display whether the resource line is from Computed, Override, or Default settings.
3: Replace some of the None entries with reasonable values (e.g., build points are from capital to capital).
4: Put some code behind the buttons on the bottom right so they can be used to change values.
5: Add another couple buttons to save the settings for a resource line as Default or Override.
5: Rethink the note at the bottom of the page.

[Timian]

This is great Scott / Really, really great . . . I like how it shows Oil and Non-Oil Resources (and where they're heading), but what about Build Points? How will they look? Will the Lending Nation be able to change which Factory the Build Point(s) are being shipped from (a.k.a., India vs. the UK)?* Thanks, Don.

*Needless to say, I'm "assuming" that the Lending Nation can change which Oil and/or Non-Oil Resources are being shipped to xyz as well.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Timian

This is great Scott / Really, really great . . . I like how it shows Oil and Non-Oil Resources (and where they're heading), but what about Build Points? How will they look? Will the Lending Nation be able to change which Factory the Build Point(s) are being shipped from (a.k.a., India vs. the UK)?* Thanks, Don.

*Needless to say, I'm "assuming" that the Lending Nation can change which Oil and/or Non-Oil Resources are being shipped to xyz as well.

See the right side of the screenshot - there is a third example with build points.

[Timian]

Blind . . . My bad / Thanks Steve . . . Don.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

As promised in my monthly report, here is the revised (in progress) Trade Agreement form.

Most of you are probably not aware of this, but all the forms in MWIF went through a lively discussion during development: pros and cons from all sides were welcome, read, and considered.

So, in keeping with that earlier practice, wadda ya think?

==========
The change is the addition of the second table at the bottom of the form. For the selected trade in the upper table, the bottom table shows which resources are currently being used to fulfill the trade agreement. So, for the 3 examples in the screenshot, you see the Swedish resources going to Germany, the German resources going to Italy, and the US resources going to the Commonwealth.

One of the players suggested this a month or so ago, I was kicking myself for not having thought of this earlier. Grouped by trade agreement, it gives a nice overview of resources –> destinations w/action. I have several obvious changes to made:
1: Replace Current with Computed.
2: Add a column to display whether the resource line is from Computed, Override, or Default settings.
3: Replace some of the None entries with reasonable values (e.g., build points are from capital to capital).

Did you mean "(e.g., build points are from capital to capital)" as an example or as that is in the rules? Because it isn't.

[Timian]

Actually Paul, Factory to Capital. The Game defaults to Capital to Capital, but you can change to Factory to Capital. For example, Antananarivo (on Madagascar) is the Free French Capital. The Commonwealth vs. shipping a Build Point from the UK, can ship from India. Hope I'm making sense, Don.

[paulderynck]

I was referring to this rules passage in RAW7, 13.6.4: "During the production step, you transport the promised build points to any city or major port in the recipient’s home country (Britain’s in the case of the Commonwealth). You do this in exactly the same way as you transport resources..."

So factory to storage location which can be a capital (where you can store double) or another city or a major port.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

I was referring to this rules passage in RAW7, 13.6.4: "During the production step, you transport the promised build points to any city or major port in the recipient’s home country (Britain’s in the case of the Commonwealth). You do this in exactly the same way as you transport resources..."

So factory to storage location which can be a capital (where you can store double) or another city or a major port.

I was referring to the program filling in for missing values for build points. If the player has a default or override setting, then those would be shown.

[paulderynck]

Ahh, got it. Thanks.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Here is today's version.

[BrianJH]

As a suggestion, instead of (or maybe as well as) the ODC column, could you color the rows Green for Default, Blue for Override, and Black for Computed, the same way we see resource routes in Production Planning. More consistent I think.

Brian.

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: BrianJH


As a suggestion, instead of (or maybe as well as) the ODC column, could you color the rows Green for Default, Blue for Override, and Black for Computed, the same way we see resource routes in Production Planning. More consistent I think.

Brian.

Agreed.
Is this change also effecting sequence for the production planning?

The sequence for calculating build points should be:
o routes for traded resources
o use non-convoyed and traded resources to make build points
o routes for traded build points
o routes for non-traded convoyed resources
o use newly routed resources to make build points

[paulderynck]

Makes sense since promised BPs must be delivered if possible. So it could happen that home country BP production gets reduced due to CP chain constriction and then reduced again by what was promised.