Units, Scenarios, Options, and Add-ons

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Units, Scenarios, Options, and Add-ons.

I Add-ons
I am pretty sure that the first version of MWIF will include most of the add-on modules with the exception of Days of Decision, Patton in Flames, and America in Flames. I realize there are some of you who would really like to have DoD included. If it were easy to do, I would. It isn’t. The DoD mechanics are quite distinct from WiF and would require writing many additional software routines to implement them. Please note that the sheer number of special rules is already enormous. Even excluding DoD there is a ton of rule specific programming involved.

II Scenarios
Those of you who have seen CWIF have seen what I envision as the scenarios: the 11 scenarios listed in the WiF Final Edition. [CWIF beta only had 3 of them set up.]

III Options
I expect to include all the options listed in Rules as Written 7.0 (RaW 7) as game options.

The only addition I am thinking about concerns fog of war. In CWIF fog of war means that all the enemy units are visible but for units that are not in the front line all you can see are their backs. This means that you can see that there is a fighter in a specific hex but you do not know which fighter.

Is it worth creating a second level of fog of war? The second level would only let you see units in the front line. Any units behind the line would not be seen. This change poses several problems vis-a-vis WiF compatibility. For example, what about port attacks? Do you just send planes to a port hoping that there are targets there? How about strategic bombing? Would ground strikes be limited to only units in the front line? It’s possible to make all units within 2 hexes of an enemy corps visible, if that strikes you as a reasonable compromise. Maybe this whole idea should just be discarded?


IV Units
Right now CWIF has all the units included in RaW 7. In my naivete I think this is all that is needed. I am planning on allowing players to change the names of units during game play (thereby addressing the aggravation of the “USS Bearn”). I also expect to make the unit lists available offline - in a spreadsheet. Players can edit the unit lists before starting a game and then simply request their own hand tailored unit list when a game starts. I do not want to enable players to modify units (other than their names) during game play. You see, I have this complex about imposing parental authority at times so players can’t cheat.

So do you have any thoughts about these subjects before I start writing code concerning them?

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I Add-ons
I am pretty sure that the first version of MWIF will include most of the add-on modules with the exception of Days of Decision, Patton in Flames, and America in Flames. I realize there are some of you who would really like to have DoD included. If it were easy to do, I would. It isn’t. The DoD mechanics are quite distinct from WiF and would require writing many additional software routines to implement them. Please note that the sheer number of special rules is already enormous. Even excluding DoD there is a ton of rule specific programming involved.

I think it would be valuable to include the counters of AiF, PatiF & PoliF to the game (making them optional would be ok). Only the counters, and the Heavy units rule from RAW7.
I say this because I find that these units and this rule are a good addition to the regular 39-45 WiF Campaign. They help solving the "great fighter race" and the "ufo problem" even if playing with advance building, and allow even more flexibility for those who want it, by allowing upgrade of land units either on the field or in the construction pool / spiral.

II Scenarios
Those of you who have seen CWIF have seen what I envision as the scenarios: the 11 scenarios listed in the WiF Final Edition. [CWIF beta only had 3 of them set up.]

As far as there is the grand 39-45 campaign (extendable to 46), Im happy

III Options
I expect to include all the options listed in Rules as Written 7.0 (RaW 7) as game options.

The only addition I am thinking about concerns fog of war. In CWIF fog of war means that all the enemy units are visible but for units that are not in the front line all you can see are their backs. This means that you can see that there is a fighter in a specific hex but you do not know which fighter.

Is it worth creating a second level of fog of war? The second level would only let you see units in the front line. Any units behind the line would not be seen. This change poses several problems vis-a-vis WiF compatibility. For example, what about port attacks? Do you just send planes to a port hoping that there are targets there? How about strategic bombing? Would ground strikes be limited to only units in the front line? It’s possible to make all units within 2 hexes of an enemy corps visible, if that strikes you as a reasonable compromise. Maybe this whole idea should just be discarded?

WiF does not have any rule for fow, and I think that such grand strategic wargame has no need for fow rules. The real life commanders we as players are supposed to be in the game had no fow problems at the scale of WiF. I mean that they knew where the other side's force were, even if they were not sure of the level of strength of the units, and this is already factored in the game through the dices. I mean that, ok you know that there is the 1 SS Panzerkorp in front of you, but it does not mean that it will be efficient, you can roll over it, or the reverse, depending of the result of the dices. Well, I'm not sure I explain things correctly, I'm french and I am at work...

IV Units
Right now CWIF has all the units included in RaW 7. In my naivete I think this is all that is needed. I am planning on allowing players to change the names of units during game play (thereby addressing the aggravation of the “USS Bearn”). I also expect to make the unit lists available offline - in a spreadsheet. Players can edit the unit lists before starting a game and then simply request their own hand tailored unit list when a game starts. I do not want to enable players to modify units (other than their names) during game play. You see, I have this complex about imposing parental authority at times so players can’t cheat.

Those were included in CWiF (renaming, but not listing). CWiF also included a valuable feature who was : allowing the player to put a note on a unit, to help not forgetting why the unit was send here or there, or else.

So do you have any thoughts about these subjects before I start writing code concerning them?

That's all for the moment, need to work too

[Smiffus64]

Though you perhaps would have liked some more discussion, I'm actually fine with all your suggestions except [;)] for the no changing of unit stats, I'd like to have some possibility for modding the units.

Is it possible to do a CRC check (or something like that) on the unit values file before starting a multiplayer game?

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Is it worth creating a second level of fog of war?

No. Not really.

As you say, too many of the desicions in WiF is based on knowledge that would be removed via such a level of FoW. Such a FoW level will only lead to lots of new ways to frustratingly commit suicide, like dropping paratroopers on unknown infantry divisions, or pointless waste of resources, like portstriking hexes containing one norwegian destroyer instead of a transport fleet etc.

[mlees]

I.
The units in Patton in flames and America in flames are good for extending the war to 1950. If there is going to be a scenerio or option for extending the "Global War" scenerio past the "drop dead" end date of fall '45, then they will be needed. I vote: Yes, please.

DoD would be nice to have, but the game would be a fine one without it. I vote: No, not needed. (However, think: Expansion Pack!)

II.

OK. No comments needed from me here.

III.
I will have to vote no to FoW.

While it makes for more of a "realistic" game (the Theatre commanders did not usually know where that enemy carrier task force was, sometimes even when it was attacking a shore installation), it would fundamentally change the WiF format.

While in real life, the carrier force striking an enemy port may not know what they might "catch" inport, in the table top game, the players most surely did. I think that the surprise rolls (already in the game), and combat result dice rolls, help to keep the results from being too (unrealistically) predictable.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Good stuff. Thanks for the input. I have added units from Patton in Flames and America in Flames to the list of "desirable features". I'm not sure what you mean by PoliF.

Entending play beyond 1945 is easy and already in CWIF.

Adding notes to units is easy and obvious in retrospect.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

I think of unit modifications being done offline. That is, MWIF will dump all the unit particulars to a comma separated values file (CSV). These can be read and written by most spreadsheet and database programs. You dump the CSV and then load it into, say, a spreadsheet. You make any changes you want in the spreadsheet (adding or deleting unints) and then export the results to a new CSV. MWIF will let you read in the modified CSV in place of the standard unit file. This gives you pretty much complete control over the units. However, once a game starts, changing the units will not be possible.

Why do you want to do a CRC check?

[Froonp]

I'm not sure what you mean by PoliF.

PoliF stands for Politics in Flames. It is countersheet 30, and it contains a bunch of new units, both heavies (to use with the Heavies rule), and standard units.
You can see it here :
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/froon/WiF/count ... __6103.jpg
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/froon/WiF/counters/index.htm

Adding more units never was a problem in CWiF, as there was a handy CWiF Editor, and I even added a bunch of units for Chris, back in the time when we were testing CWiF and adding kits of units.

Best Regards

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I think of unit modifications being done offline. That is, MWIF will dump all the unit particulars to a comma separated values file (CSV). These can be read and written by most spreadsheet and database programs. You dump the CSV and then load it into, say, a spreadsheet. You make any changes you want in the spreadsheet (adding or deleting unints) and then export the results to a new CSV. MWIF will let you read in the modified CSV in place of the standard unit file. This gives you pretty much complete control over the units. However, once a game starts, changing the units will not be possible.

Why not use a "simple" Editor as the one CWiF already has to modify counters and even the map ?

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I think of unit modifications being done offline. That is, MWIF will dump all the unit particulars to a comma separated values file (CSV). These can be read and written by most spreadsheet and database programs. You dump the CSV and then load it into, say, a spreadsheet. You make any changes you want in the spreadsheet (adding or deleting unints) and then export the results to a new CSV. MWIF will let you read in the modified CSV in place of the standard unit file. This gives you pretty much complete control over the units. However, once a game starts, changing the units will not be possible.

Yeah, that works. Ive betatested most of paradox games, and they use CSVs alot too. Its easy to mod, and works.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

To be perfectly honest, I haven't looked at the editor that came with CWIF. In the source code the editor is interlaced with the game. Rob Crandall reported there to be 1500 conditional compilation blocks (they separate the editor source from the game source with a lot of code applicable to both). I have been focused on the game and am rather ruthlessly removing all the conditionals related to the editor. It simplifies the code, makes it easier to read, easier to maintain, and less dangerous to modify. I still have all the original CWIF source which I could go back to if I decide to make the editor available in the future. I don't expect to - see below.

In previous software projects I have always tried to separate the data from the code. Usually that means putting the data in a database that the program reads when it fires up. The data can then be reviewed and maintained without the need of the program. Intertwining the two leads to the problem of having to modify the program to change the data. I chose the CSV format because it is the most universally used one today. Previously I use straight ASCII text files that could be read using any text editor. The CSV files enable differentiating fields, which in this case is really indicated.

I do not see the map editor as a part of the deliverables for MWIF. It would be nice to have and it was essential when Chris created the map. However, the map now exists and for the most part I do not expect to be making any big changes to it. Small stuff can be handled in the database I have set up to hold the particulars on all 70,200 hexes. I instantiated the database by dumping a CSV file from CWIF. If someone wants to create a radically different map, and have a graphical user interface to do so, I fear I am going to disappoint them. My goal is to get MWIF to the player community as soon as possible. Eliminating the map/unit editor seemed to me (and still does) to be one simplification that would yield big dividends in time and effort with little expense to the final product.

[Froonp]

In previous software projects I have always tried to separate the data from the code. Usually that means putting the data in a database that the program reads when it fires up. The data can then be reviewed and maintained without the need of the program. Intertwining the two leads to the problem of having to modify the program to change the data. I chose the CSV format because it is the most universally used one today. Previously I use straight ASCII text files that could be read using any text editor. The CSV files enable differentiating fields, which in this case is really indicated.

I agree with you, data MUST be separate from the code.
But, I think it was already the case with CWiF, as the units and map data were contained into the WIF.dat (635 kb) and the UNIT.DAT (82,9 kb) files.
The Editor was a distinct executable file than the game (Editor.exe 1,25 MB and WiFD.exe 3,29 MB - the D in WiFD.exe standed for "debug"), so I do not quite understand what you write about the conditional compilation blocks (I'm not a programmer myself [:)])
Thanks for your involvement Steve, and Best Regards !

[Shannon V. OKeets]

As a simple example, all the map names are hard coded into the program. They are not in the wif.dat file. If you want to change the name of a city, you need to recompile the program. As another example, there is special code related to which hexes constitute the Burma road and code relating to its closure. WIF is full of all these little special bits as to what can/did happen in certain parts of the world. That is its strength but it also makes the programming very difficult. I want to pull all the data related to what terrain is where out of the code so I can look at it without haveing to fire up the Delphi 2005 development system.

The separate executibles that you see were created from a lot of the same source listing(s). Chris sets some parameters at the beginning and then generates either the editor or the game. The source code runs to over 100,000 lines (think of it as 3 or 4 three ring binders each of which is 3 inches thick).

[Froonp]

Well, thanks for sharing this with us, that's interesting (at least for me).
I didn't know that the editor and the game where mixed up to that point.
I hope you'll be able to extract the data properly !

Regards

Patrice

[Shannon V. OKeets]

There is a discussion about unit breakdown in the thread about maps. It came up concerning the unified map.

[c92nichj]

I am in Favor of fog of war option where you can see values of units close to your border, and see the type and size of unit elsewhere, but not if it is a 10-6 ARM or a 7-6 ARM.
The second option of FOW is a bit too much for my taste, no invisible units, please.

[Mziln]

Abbreviations (just in case somone dosn't know):

AfA - Africa Aflame
AiF - America in Flames
AsA - Asia Aflame
CliF - Cruisers in Flames
CoiF - Convoys in Flames
CVPiF - Carrier Planes in Flames
DoD - Days of Decision
LiF - Leaders in Flames
MiF - Mech in Flames
PatiF - Patton in Flames
PiF - Planes in Flames
PoliF - Politics in Flames
SiF - Ships in Flames

CWiF Fog of war is fine by me.

[Froonp]

About units :

There was some sort of color coding on the top of the counters in CWiF, to show different status of units (disrupted, out of supply, supplied, isolated, tranported, transporting, etc...), will you keep this or will you devise something else ?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

About units :

There was some sort of color coding on the top of the counters in CWiF, to show different status of units (disrupted, out of supply, supplied, isolated, tranported, transporting, etc...), will you keep this or will you devise something else ?

I like CWIF's color coding on top of the units to indicate status. I might tweak it a bit. I don't plan on thinking about that until I get around to the user interface thread.

Which reminds me. 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?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Mziln

Abbreviations (just in case somone dosn't know):
MWIF
AfA - Africa Aflame yes

AiF - America in Flames no

AsA - Asia Aflame yes

CliF - Cruisers in Flames yes

CoiF - Convoys in Flames yes

CVPiF - Carrier Planes in Flames yes

DoD - Days of Decision no

LiF - Leaders in Flames yes

MiF - Mech in Flames yes

PatiF - Patton in Flames no

PiF - Planes in Flames yes

PoliF - Politics in Flames ? new to me - will investigate

SiF - Ships in Flames yes


CWiF Fog of war is fine by me.

I edited your original (above) adding the column for MWIF as I currently envision it. Thanks for translating the abbreviations.