Option 47

[WarHunter]

What is option 47?

Where is it found in the rules?

Why is it important?

Is it a house rule that became more?

[Centuur]

From RAW:

Option 47: (Isolated reorganization) You can only turn a unit faceup
if it can trace a path to a primary supply source for that unit. You
trace the path in the same way as a basic supply path, including via
overseas supply paths (see 2.4.2) except that it can be of any length.

I think that if you've read this, you will agree that this is an option which is used by a lot of players, since it is historically right to assume that surrounded units can't be reoganised...

I think it's a pity that this optional rule isn't functional in MWIF at the moment, because it really is an important one.

[Larry Smith]

It would be relatively easy to implement, too, since in a way, similar subroutines are already being used for the Oil rules. All you'd have to do is make all units oil dependent, but by such a small amount - say 0.01, or even 0.005, depending on how small of a oil fraction the game will keep track of - and that's that. if the smallest fraction is 0.05, then you'd have an issue, but my point is that the subroutine to do the checks is there, and works. It would just need to be adapted to suit the units that are not oil dependent.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Larry Smith

It would be relatively easy to implement, too, since in a way, similar subroutines are already being used for the Oil rules. All you'd have to do is make all units oil dependent, but by such a small amount - say 0.01, or even 0.005, depending on how small of a oil fraction the game will keep track of - and that's that. if the smallest fraction is 0.05, then you'd have an issue, but my point is that the subroutine to do the checks is there, and works. It would just need to be adapted to suit the units that are not oil dependent.

CPU cycles is my concern for implementing this rule. Trying to find a path of infinite length on the Asia map can take a long time - especially if there are a dozen or so units OOS but not isolated.

[paulderynck]

How difficult would it be to include only the ability to disorganize a unit manually? (Somewhat of a debug functionality.) Make it available only during the final re-org phase and only able to be implemented by the owning player, so if both players agree to play Option 47, the effects can be implemented.

I do recall the issues with it in beta testing and why it slowed the game execution down tremendously trying to ensure units way off in the hinterlands truly had absolutely no path to a supply source.

A classic example of how the human brain is still superior to the computer for certain tasks.

[Centuur]

For the oil reorganisation, the check in MWIF is made in that phase only. For isolation, Steve wanted to do this check after each supply calculation, so players could see if a unit was simply out of supply or isolated. This is of course the best way to do this, seeing on how players would like the information to be as good as possible, to prevent units from getting isolated...

[CrusssDaddy]

In my experience, usually on the Asia map this involves bypassed ChiComm units trying to trace to Urumqi or Kashgar or far south, potentially dozens of hexes in any case. As a house rule, we would look suspiciously at giant supply lines that snaked through desert, mountains, etc. endlessly to establish supply improbably far, far away: when flipped, those guys would stay flipped until relived from the outside. This also alleviated littering the map with control markers.

Maybe as a compromise that retains the spirit of the rule without taking ages to compute, the computer could cut off its supply search after 15 or 20 hexes? That seems a reasonable distance to preserve some need to truly pocket bypassed forces.

Otherwise, it's inconceivable playing without 47.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

In my experience, usually on the Asia map this involves bypassed ChiComm units trying to trace to Urumqi or Kashgar or far south, potentially dozens of hexes in any case. As a house rule, we would look suspiciously at giant supply lines that snaked through desert, mountains, etc. endlessly to establish supply improbably far, far away: when flipped, those guys would stay flipped until relived from the outside. This also alleviated littering the map with control markers.

Maybe as a compromise that retains the spirit of the rule without taking ages to compute, the computer could cut off its supply search after 15 or 20 hexes? That seems a reasonable distance to preserve some need to truly pocket bypassed forces.

Otherwise, it's inconceivable playing without 47.

warspite1

Sounds sensible if it means a chance of this being coded.

[AlbertN]

I agree this rule is quite important - even a "manual flip" of units could do, even if for a newb like me could come down harsh. Some pockets are quite evident in many cases even to someone like me.

[AxelNL]

Good discussion guys. Crussdaddy has a reasonable proposal, I wonder how many others will support this?
Perhaps the maxx range of hexes could be user-defined?

[brian brian]

I've never understood why this rule is an optional. I haven't played without it since my 2nd or 3rd game of World in Flames in about 1991, playing as a House Rule even before Final Edition came out.

The worst would be paying without the Oil Rule due to game issues and seeing an isolated enemy HQ become a Ghost Army Group HQ.

It seems to be a sad irony that WiF is a game that gives the players easy logistics in the interests of playability and now MWiF has to do the same?

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: AxelNL

Good discussion guys. Crussdaddy has a reasonable proposal, I wonder how many others will support this?
Perhaps the maxx range of hexes could be user-defined?

If this rule is that critical and run times with an "infinite" range are prohibited then implementing this with a user defined (variable) range seems to be a good compromise. Though I'm not part of the beta, I could see this implemented in beta and someone run tests to derive lag time versus range and coming up with a value that allows for the intent of this rule without impacting run time. But having the range as variable would allow users with faster or slower computers to customize as necessary. And as computers get faster, in a decade or so, then an infinite range might be possible.

[Viktor_Kormel_slith]

I don´t think that rule is so critical but I think limited supply range calculations could work to fix it and these way everybody will be happy![:'(]

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

In my experience, usually on the Asia map this involves bypassed ChiComm units trying to trace to Urumqi or Kashgar or far south, potentially dozens of hexes in any case. As a house rule, we would look suspiciously at giant supply lines that snaked through desert, mountains, etc. endlessly to establish supply improbably far, far away: when flipped, those guys would stay flipped until relived from the outside. This also alleviated littering the map with control markers.

Maybe as a compromise that retains the spirit of the rule without taking ages to compute, the computer could cut off its supply search after 15 or 20 hexes? That seems a reasonable distance to preserve some need to truly pocket bypassed forces.

Otherwise, it's inconceivable playing without 47.

That is my intended solution. However it remains on my task list as a not 'super' high priority.

[CrusssDaddy]

Does the boldface type indicate you are shouting? Should your customers on this thread deploy boldface type to prod you toward elevating that task in importance on your list? Or should they use the more traditional ALL CAPS AND SUPERFLUOUS PUNCTUATION!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!!?!?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

Does the boldface type indicate you are shouting? Should your customers on this thread deploy boldface type to prod you toward elevating that task in importance on your list? Or should they use the more traditional ALL CAPS AND SUPERFLUOUS PUNCTUATION!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!!?!?

warspite1

WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT STUPID POST ALL ABOUT???!!!????!!!

[CrusssDaddy]

Hold on, I had it a bit wrong. It's supposed to be ALL CAPS AND SUPLERFUMOUS PUNTUATION AND MISPELLPIGNS??????!?!!!??!!$

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

Does the boldface type indicate you are shouting? Should your customers on this thread deploy boldface type to prod you toward elevating that task in importance on your list? Or should they use the more traditional ALL CAPS AND SUPERFLUOUS PUNCTUATION!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!!?!?

I quoted your entire post but made bold the portion to which I was replying. So the portion of my text in bold corresponds to the portion of your post in bold.

I sometimes do this by underlining the corresponding text portions - or by using color. I was lazy this time and just used bold.

Your response seems a little excessive.[8|]

[CrusssDaddy]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

Does the boldface type indicate you are shouting? Should your customers on this thread deploy boldface type to prod you toward elevating that task in importance on your list? Or should they use the more traditional ALL CAPS AND SUPERFLUOUS PUNCTUATION!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!!?!?

I quoted your entire post but made bold the portion to which I was replying. So the portion of my text in bold corresponds to the portion of your post in bold.

I sometimes do this by underlining the corresponding text portions - or by using color. I was lazy this time and just used bold.

Your response seems a little excessive.[8|]

You feel no urgency to accomplish the minor work required to fix this, is that what you are confirming?

[wworld7]

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

Does the boldface type indicate you are shouting? Should your customers on this thread deploy boldface type to prod you toward elevating that task in importance on your list? Or should they use the more traditional ALL CAPS AND SUPERFLUOUS PUNCTUATION!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!!?!?

I quoted your entire post but made bold the portion to which I was replying. So the portion of my text in bold corresponds to the portion of your post in bold.

I sometimes do this by underlining the corresponding text portions - or by using color. I was lazy this time and just used bold.

Your response seems a little excessive.[8|]

You feel no urgency to accomplish the minor work required to fix this, is that what you are confirming?

CrusssDaddy, Steve stated (ie: confirmed) this is ON his list, it just is not a "super" high priority.

I like that Steve takes a few minutes to answer questions here periodically. I would rather he spend his time working on the game
instead of expending his limited time repeating an answer because you don't like his answer and then try to warp whatever he says into a negative.