I like this. I could add rule references but the tooltips are always correct and rule compliant. If there are any bugs it would be that the game mechanics deviate from what the tooltip says. The tooltip needs to be very short so adding lots of rule paragraphs to it could clutter the view somehow. And as you know in many cases a whole bunch of rules work together to form a "can do" or "cannot".
WW2T (World War II Tactics) - a new computer game based on ASL rules
von Marwitz
Forum Guru
You could make the tool-tip rules reference optional then. Check the box to enable/disable it or use a hotkey. If not needed, then disabled. If the tool-tip prevents you doing something and you don't understand why, then quick click to enable it and it will provide references.
von Marwitz
Ok, yes, I will add this to my list. Something comparable will be made available for DRM in the future. Right now just the sum is displayed but I plan to add a "DRM" button accessible from the event displayed in order to be able to look at how it actually got calculated.
von Marwitz
Forum Guru
Seems making a lot of sense to me and will go a long way to help people learning and understanding the DRMs.
von Marwitz
von Marwitz
I'm not a computer or programming expert but after I have seen that a simple game as Third Reich was too much to be fully implemented in a *working* PC version I have lost since 1996 any hope to have a PC game that simply knows and applies the rules of a complex wargame avoiding errors. And of course any serious AI is just a mere dream for optimistic people.
I hope to have day a perfect ASL pc game knowing the rules better than me but I think this is nowadyas something out of range. Basically because even the most skilled PC programmer of the world should know the ASLRB as Klas and Perry to begin with.
Besides he should have tons of time to develop the project, and tons of people helping him, and this probably is still not enough if you see how a *professional* attempt by Matrix games for WIF have failed despite all these things were available for 10+ years.
Not counting that ASL is much more complex than WIF, and any scenario could have a SSR that cancels or changes a basic ASLRB rule creating more problems.
The final objective, althought appetible, seems too little if you consider time and effort necessary to achieve it.
but good luck!!!
Hello Enrico,
thank you for your feedback, yes, a healthy dose of scepticism is more than adequate! But then on the other hand, computer game programming/software development in general has become so immensely productive over the last 20 yrs that nowadays a single programmer can very often be as effective as a team of 5-10 people 20 yrs ago. Look at all those app developers, you will find thousands that are just one-man-companies. WiF looks to me from a distance like being based on a custom framework that requires some heavy lifting. I for my part take advantage of a game engine that is highly productive and allows me to maintain versions for all major gaming platforms (I could offer an app already if I wanted, but refrain from it so far) without wasting much time. This in itself is a huge advantage not available to publishers just 10 yrs ago except for the biggest ones.
You are right though regarding the complexity of ASL and I spent much time thinking about whether it is possible at all. I won't convince anyone of it by talking, so I should better shut up and work on the next update.
But that is alright and I'm more than happy with the discussion going on here because I cannot expect much more than some kind of benevolent interest from people like you. My assumption is that in a year from now WW2T will be the closest thing you can put your hands on in terms of an ASL-like computer game. There will stll be many bits and pieces missing but then it is up to you whether you can live with it or the scenario does not require the missing rules - or not. So the most likely outcome is that both worlds then happily co-exist.Ben
Meanwhile version 0.1.50a is in preparation. It will cover Concealment and with it some significant UI changes on how to access information about enemy units. I hope I can manage to push it out before going on vacation in a week from now but there is a chance that testing requires more time than that.
For those too lazy to give the current Alpha version a try please have a look at this modest promotional video:
[video=youtube;7znEJnfcRJ4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7znEJnfcRJ4[/video]
Also thanks a lot to those people here on the forum who were willing to playtest with or without me in the last couple of weeks. This has been very beneficial to the overall quality of the last release.
For those too lazy to give the current Alpha version a try please have a look at this modest promotional video:
[video=youtube;7znEJnfcRJ4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7znEJnfcRJ4[/video]
Also thanks a lot to those people here on the forum who were willing to playtest with or without me in the last couple of weeks. This has been very beneficial to the overall quality of the last release.
Apologies if this has been brought up. However, SSR's being one of the main features of ASL, how will the system deal with SSR's since by definition, they deviate from the standard rules?
Hello Carl,
yes, this is a valid "concern".
The long answer is: I started with WW2T by implementing a rule engine that was fed with human-readable text files that contained the rule definitions in a straightforward IF-THEN form. It looked like this:
Code:
// 10.1 Morale Check
if
$scenarioPlayer : ScenarioPlayer
$infantry : Infantry
$moraleCheck : MoraleCheck { $infantry.id == infantryID; $MATH.Plus(dr,modifier) <= $infantry.morale }
then
remove $moraleCheck
$scenarioPlayer.Log("MC passed for unit #" + $infantry.id)
endMostly SSRs will have to be implemented and fixed in code like all other rules. Once they are available the scenario designer could just switch the on and off or select the rule coverage. There are certain parts of the rules (those that are very much based on numbers and tables) that are stored in XML files and can easily be changed or extended (for example the IFT). But if you would for example define a SSR that in this particular scenario there is no Ambush possible one would have to decide how to bend the rules in this case. One easy solution could be that the terrain features for this are not available in this map. And since the map is accessible for the scenario designer and not a printed board he could simple exchange all wood hexes for example with a "special" wood terrain that does not count as ambush terrain.
As developer of WW2T I see my goal like this: For a long time it won't be possible to exactly re-create a majority of existing scenarios of ASL with WW2T. Simply because the rules don't exist yet. Those scenarios that can be played will be very much like the originals (>90%), but still not exact. The main reason is the map iself because it is not and can not be an exact copy of the original artwork. I do not see this as a problem, to be honest. I've read a thread here on gamesquad about how people deal with deviations in VASL maps from the originals and there seem to be people who go back to the original boards for checking LOS. This doesn't make sense in my view. The purpose of _not_ letting players check LOS upfront - before the decision to shoot has been taken - is based on the assumption that you as a commander don't have a "god like" overview of the terrain. You should not know it, you have to guess! So if a map slightly varies (from the original) or over the seasons (!) this would just increase the realism of the game and be much more exciting in my view. I find it rather profane if someone wins against me because he knows all LOS in and out.
Coming back to SSRs: A WW2T scenario based on an ASL scenario will be very close but not a clone. Do you see a problem with this? I hope that someday people will develop original content for WW2T and then those will have SSRs that are available like any other rule that is available in WW2T.
Having said all of this: I'm still trying and will be for the forseeable future try to be as close as possible to the details of ASL. But I've already worked on rules that do not make sense the way they have been developed and there will be a day when I will take the freedom to change this. I will give you one provocative example: The Sniper is a weird mixture of a system you cannot influence in a tactical way but in its details ("he" walks around randomly but you can choose the victim IF again random events happen). This is just wrong in my eyes. It should be either fully random or you should be able to tactically influence his whereabouts (because that's his assignment) but not which unit he picks. The problem with this simply is that this is a huge interruption of game play for no particular reason I would say (not talking about the Sniper itself, I'm talking about the decisions and random selection events after a successful sniper attack).
When I started many months ago my biggest concern was that ASL is just too "interactive" in order to be played smoothly. When playing the board game interruptions don't feel that bad because you are anyway spending much more time to think and discuss rules and possibilities. But in WW2T the pace is much higher and even though everything in the Infantry Movement Phase works exactly as in the original game system it still feels quite good I would say and runs seamlessly. I hope I can preserve this.
Ben
Last edited:
hello Ben,
first of all, please do not take this as a distruptive criticism, I would really see a day something close to ASL like the thing you are projecting.
but now that your are walking throught your project its limits are more visible. The above example about ambush is the reason why WWT2 will never be a true ASL by PC.
I do not think any Designer will even try to recreate a SSR the way you depict. There are too many SSRs possible, much more than a programmer could imagine thus most of times your program will be simply unable to recreate the required one, unless someone "change" the basic rules just for that scenario adding a special case.
And consider that sometime SSRs last only for one turn, adding a special case to a special case.
Your say : Mostly SSRs will have to be implemented and fixed in code like all other rules. Once they are available the scenario designer could just switch the on and off or select the rule coverage
good luck... there are thousands of SSR different for a comma, and this in ASL makes all the difference. There are every month new scenarios, and Designers invent every day a new SSR, or slightly change the old ones... try to find, collect, understand, implement, test, store in the program memory and make available at request for WWT2 users all the SSRs our scenario designers invent is plainly impossible.
If you read a few SSRs of recent scenarios you see that changes in the rules cannot easily arranged but require a serious rewrite of the program. Think for example at the special "mandatory" banzai charge of the Japanese hidden units in SSR 2 of scenario AP 90. A programmer nightmare since it "may" be directed against a roadblock and do not require a leader. Also only hidden units can (must) start this banzai charge BUT only at the start of turn 4.
Clearly this approach requires an epic effort to get basically nothing, since most SSR are unique and not repeatable. More, the designers deliberately do not copy SSR of other colleagues for a variety of reasons.
Also note that a program not" friendly user" and requiring a good skill to be manipulated to arrange SSRs with artifices, like the one about ambush, will probably be avoided by people not loving this kind of amusement.
You are a computer programmer, do not think all people have your same pleasure and attitude to work in front of a screen.
About the boards I agree with you and do not see any problem even if some los can slighty differ.
But I have to disagree about the philosophy behid your Sniper example.
Or you can recreate ASL as close as possible, including the mechanics you do not like, or perhaps is better if you create your own system and call it the way you like but not ASL (because it is not ASL anymore). I dare to say that very few people will be happy if the sniper (or whatever rule ) does not work as written in the rules.
In conclusion I think that ASL is the worst possible game to create by PC. Its myriad of rules, special cases, and SSRs - the heart of the system - make it simply impossible to recreate in a program.
After seeing your demo above I say it is a pity you do not use your remarkable skills to try something doable like A3R, PoG, BtB, UF!
but again and ever good luck!
Last edited:
No worries, those are all valid points you bring up and I'm rally eager to learn which components or complexities make ASL so addictive for different types of players.
Yes, that is how the situation is right now. You can bend the rules whenever and wherever you want as a scenario designer. From the viewpoint of a game designer I would say that this is problematic since ASL already provides us with the most complex rule set ever invented. Why change these rules then all the time? Mostly this is done to add even more realism to a scenario in the way that a particular historical situation is depicted correctly (like in the example of the banzai charge you've described). Sometimes this is simply done to distinguish one scenario from another by adding "specifics" and sometimes this is done just for the pleasure of the scenario designer. Especially if a SSR is added in order to increase the exactness of a historical scenario or campaign I'm all for it.
I do not agree that this is impossible. What you describe are rules that become effective only after certain events or in certain turns of the game. This is not too difficult once those rules are generally available.
Agreed, the effort required even to implement the main ASL rules set will be epic. But taken from my progress so far it does not look impossible. I would be interested to hear your commentary on why the designers mostly do not copy SSRs of other scenarios.
Absolutely. Right now the situation with WW2T is that you can (and I did so) design the maps and scenarios inside the game with the exception of the Victory Conditions which are only "programmable" in XML. So this already requires some skills and not everybody is able to do this. So whenever the first person comes along and approaches me with the idea of designing a scenario for WW2T he/she would need to be on a certain level - not a programmer - but proficient enough with text editors and probably XML.
Why don't you like my Sniper example? ;-) You have just defended the myriads of SSR that change the rules. Haven't they been invented because the original rules fall short of how it "should be". With the Sniper I'm quite sure that I have spotted a real weakness in the rules (there are not many I have to admit) and so for now I take the freedom to deviate from it. BUT if people like you tell me that this is a no-go and it should be implemented as is then I'd be quite happy to do so but then please also explain to me the logic behind it (the multiple change between randomness and decision taking by players and the reasons why this is random and that is influenceable). You have defended the necessity of adding x SSR to every scenario and even said that this is the "heart of the system". You have to see me with WW2T more like a scenario designer then probably. A scenario designer that takes the freedom to slighly tweek (very few) parts of the ASL system in order to make it playable as a real computer game.
Again, why would someone complain about a "streamlined" Sniper rule if he easily accepts 5 SSR in each scenario?
WW2T will be for the time being just "close" to ASL simply because it will take 1-2 years before the chapters A-D have been implemented. It is not called ASL. But I hope it will be as close as possible, with depth and complexity and most rules implemented literally. As I mentioned earlier, apart from the many rules not added to WW2T right now, the Sniper rule is the only one so far where I've deviated deliberately and this is not set in stone. Imagine you could play a huge historical campaign in WW2T in much shorter time with much more interaction and no worrying about the rules and your result is automatically added to your tournament track record - would you then say, no, I won't play this because one particular SSR is not available? Even though 99.9% of the rules are like in ASL?
Thank you Enrico, yes, it remains a daunting task. But it is already fun to play WW2T and the people I've played against were mostly pleased with the exactness of the rule set behind it. I never heard "This is not ASL!" - but maybe that's because they are too polite to say so
Ben
Yes, Dash is not implemented yet, but it is on the short list of rules coming next. I'm still busy with Concealment and since I'm on vacation right now progress is slow. I hope I can get a release done in August.
Please also have a look at rule coverage.
Ben
witchbottles
Forum Guru
Ben,
outstanding work. Great thinking outside the box - like giving VASL the " You can't do that" rules umpire so that newbies getting into the game can learn what they can and cannot do, and all players will improve their play when those pesky rules they did wrong for so many years finally come to light and they say - "ahhh. huh? okay... look that one up. dammit, you're right. file that one away for reference - got it."
Some knick knacks from the knick knack cupboard that might be cool if you ever find time to plug them in.
Jackson's sounds - triggered by events, oh yeah............ nothing better than a loud rendition of Mozart's Requiem Mass when your opponent rolls his fourth ROF DR of 2 or 3 in a row.... I cringe at the sound of a jericho Horn as the Stuka comes ripping in to pickle off that bomb.... the ratatattatat when a LMG all alone manages to stop an enemy infiltrator..... the possibilities are endless..... Visuals would be kind of cool - topping that list is the MUST have of a tank turret flying off when the tank becomes the victim of a Critical Hit that takes it out...
other less time consuming niceties....
how about when you try to do something against the rules, you get a pop up box with the rules ref in it? Something like ( NOT ALLOWED: SEE A7.63) or something.
just my .02 Great work, Ben!
outstanding work. Great thinking outside the box - like giving VASL the " You can't do that" rules umpire so that newbies getting into the game can learn what they can and cannot do, and all players will improve their play when those pesky rules they did wrong for so many years finally come to light and they say - "ahhh. huh? okay... look that one up. dammit, you're right. file that one away for reference - got it."
Some knick knacks from the knick knack cupboard that might be cool if you ever find time to plug them in.
Jackson's sounds - triggered by events, oh yeah............ nothing better than a loud rendition of Mozart's Requiem Mass when your opponent rolls his fourth ROF DR of 2 or 3 in a row.... I cringe at the sound of a jericho Horn as the Stuka comes ripping in to pickle off that bomb.... the ratatattatat when a LMG all alone manages to stop an enemy infiltrator..... the possibilities are endless..... Visuals would be kind of cool - topping that list is the MUST have of a tank turret flying off when the tank becomes the victim of a Critical Hit that takes it out...
other less time consuming niceties....
how about when you try to do something against the rules, you get a pop up box with the rules ref in it? Something like ( NOT ALLOWED: SEE A7.63) or something.
just my .02 Great work, Ben!
Rock SgtDan
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2012
- Messages
- 2,579
- Reaction score
- 125
- Location
- State of Confusion
- First name
- Dan
- Country
-
Don't be put off by the ossified grogs who assert that you must exactly duplicate "their" game or you will be a failure. Screw them -- they'll be dead soon and good riddance.
Put in whatever you can and you will have a wonderful computer-aided game that might actually ATTRACT NEW PLAYERS.
Put in whatever you can and you will have a wonderful computer-aided game that might actually ATTRACT NEW PLAYERS.
Ben, I happily spend the time to answer your question about the reason Designers mostly do not copy SSRs from other scenarios and about your policy of "rules deviated deliberaltely" since I admire the effort you put in this project and your polite answers.No worries, those are all valid points you bring up and I'm rally eager to learn which components or complexities make ASL so addictive for different types of players.
Yes, that is how the situation is right now. You can bend the rules whenever and wherever you want as a scenario designer. From the viewpoint of a game designer I would say that this is problematic since ASL already provides us with the most complex rule set ever invented. Why change these rules then all the time? Mostly this is done to add even more realism to a scenario in the way that a particular historical situation is depicted correctly (like in the example of the banzai charge you've described). Sometimes this is simply done to distinguish one scenario from another by adding "specifics" and sometimes this is done just for the pleasure of the scenario designer. Especially if a SSR is added in order to increase the exactness of a historical scenario or campaign I'm all for it.
I do not agree that this is impossible. What you describe are rules that become effective only after certain events or in certain turns of the game. This is not too difficult once those rules are generally available.
Agreed, the effort required even to implement the main ASL rules set will be epic. But taken from my progress so far it does not look impossible. I would be interested to hear your commentary on why the designers mostly do not copy SSRs of other scenarios.
Absolutely. Right now the situation with WW2T is that you can (and I did so) design the maps and scenarios inside the game with the exception of the Victory Conditions which are only "programmable" in XML. So this already requires some skills and not everybody is able to do this. So whenever the first person comes along and approaches me with the idea of designing a scenario for WW2T he/she would need to be on a certain level - not a programmer - but proficient enough with text editors and probably XML.
Why don't you like my Sniper example? ;-) You have just defended the myriads of SSR that change the rules. Haven't they been invented because the original rules fall short of how it "should be". With the Sniper I'm quite sure that I have spotted a real weakness in the rules (there are not many I have to admit) and so for now I take the freedom to deviate from it. BUT if people like you tell me that this is a no-go and it should be implemented as is then I'd be quite happy to do so but then please also explain to me the logic behind it (the multiple change between randomness and decision taking by players and the reasons why this is random and that is influenceable). You have defended the necessity of adding x SSR to every scenario and even said that this is the "heart of the system". You have to see me with WW2T more like a scenario designer then probably. A scenario designer that takes the freedom to slighly tweek (very few) parts of the ASL system in order to make it playable as a real computer game.
Again, why would someone complain about a "streamlined" Sniper rule if he easily accepts 5 SSR in each scenario?
WW2T will be for the time being just "close" to ASL simply because it will take 1-2 years before the chapters A-D have been implemented. It is not called ASL. But I hope it will be as close as possible, with depth and complexity and most rules implemented literally. As I mentioned earlier, apart from the many rules not added to WW2T right now, the Sniper rule is the only one so far where I've deviated deliberately and this is not set in stone. Imagine you could play a huge historical campaign in WW2T in much shorter time with much more interaction and no worrying about the rules and your result is automatically added to your tournament track record - would you then say, no, I won't play this because one particular SSR is not available? Even though 99.9% of the rules are like in ASL?
Thank you Enrico, yes, it remains a daunting task. But it is already fun to play WW2T and the people I've played against were mostly pleased with the exactness of the rule set behind it. I never heard "This is not ASL!" - but maybe that's because they are too polite to say so
Ben
In my opinion SSRs tend to be unique for several reasons.
1) Designers love to give a special "flavor" to their work and must show imagination and inventiveness, otherwise some critic could find the scenario has nothing of special;
2) Designers think (hope) their peculiar SSR help to recreate the battle better than anything else. Thus the SSR at their eyes is both necessary AND perfect, and fits only in the specific case of that battle...
3) A Designer that openly copies a SSR from other scenarios could be publicly despised on these pages and accused to steal work and ideas even if, clearly, there is no copyright infringement;
4) any Designer genuinely think to write the best SSR possible (otherwise why design THAT specific SSR?), so there is no real reason to copy anything from anyone. And if a SSR from another design is good enough to be "taken", then it is taken as "general concept" only, and the Deisgner (try to) improve it changing something.
May be some scenario Designer here could add further reasons.
About about your policy of "rules deviated deliberaltely" I think this is a sure way to avert interest from your project and attract cheap criticism.
Who is in the ASL world from more than 10-15 years remember the religious wars all times a rule has been "officially" changed. ASLers do not love changes. ASLers barely admit official changes or re-write of a rule that is obscure or poorly written (H-W, WA) or simply wrong ( Platoon-Movement). Nothing more. There is also a diffuse criticism about SSRs that reflect the opinion of Designer about a specific rule rather than a true design need. For example a SSR requiring also heavy SWs must be crew-manned or suffer a penalty.
so I believe not many players would love your change in the sniper process or any other deliberate change in the basic rules. BTW you know there are pages and articles about the art to place your sniper and to avoid at the best the enemy sniper. At higher playing level a correct sniper management could make the difference. Why cancel this contest of skills?
In conclusion let me specify I do not think that enforcing all ASL rules in a program is absolutley impossible. I know it is technically possible. I think that it is impossible for a SMC without the help of a FANATIC squad of experts working professionally on the project for many years, including a group of players that specifically check ALL the rules are implemented in the right way, and the special cases of the pertinent Q&A have been also considered. A team that of course will never stop its work since he must update costantly the new SSRs created by the designers at each new release.
again and ever good work and luck!
Last edited:
Guys,
just wanted to let you know that a new version of WW2T has just been released. It comprises Concealment rules (concealed, hidden, dummy units). This has made the Setup Phase slightly more elaborate and added 2 new commands (Mop Up and Search) to the command list. Concealment gain and loss after Setup is handled fully automatically. For testing purposes I've added a new scenario based on the Tractor Factory scenario. It is not an exact copy of that scenario because I do not support Fanatic units nor the sequential setup necessary for it so far. But it should be good enough for a proof of concept I hope.
The next release won't take that long, promised. I will work on some of the missing rules for Fire Attacks most likely.
just wanted to let you know that a new version of WW2T has just been released. It comprises Concealment rules (concealed, hidden, dummy units). This has made the Setup Phase slightly more elaborate and added 2 new commands (Mop Up and Search) to the command list. Concealment gain and loss after Setup is handled fully automatically. For testing purposes I've added a new scenario based on the Tractor Factory scenario. It is not an exact copy of that scenario because I do not support Fanatic units nor the sequential setup necessary for it so far. But it should be good enough for a proof of concept I hope.
The next release won't take that long, promised. I will work on some of the missing rules for Fire Attacks most likely.
Version 0.1.52a has been released meanwhile. It brings the following updates:
Features
Ben
Features
- Squad Spraying Fire
- MG Spraying Fire
- AFPh SW limits
- Concealment reveal action
- ESC key to deselect all
- MF spent/remaining displayed during movement
- Location control for Concealed/Dummy units
- More than 2 SW assigned to unit accessible
- Units moving into Offboard are removed from play
- Remaining units after KIA result break
- Residual FP attacks first
- FT against Factory building without TEM
Ben
Version 0.1.55a is out
This version is about fixing and adding missing bits and pieces to Morale (checks) and SW portage as well as SW Covered Arc and Squad Assault Fire. It also features Smoke Grenades for those Squads qualified to use them.
Features
This version is about fixing and adding missing bits and pieces to Morale (checks) and SW portage as well as SW Covered Arc and Squad Assault Fire. It also features Smoke Grenades for those Squads qualified to use them.
Features
- Event displayed for Rout interdiction
- Broken Units marked with red highlight
- Low Crawl command in Rout Phase
- MMG, HMG Field of Fire/Covered Arc limits
- Portage: Leader lends his capacity to squad, broken unit limits
- Squad Assault Fire
- Smoke Grenades
- Morale Check and Task Check after leader is eliminated or breaks
- New artwork for leaders and hex grid
- Event bar event copy text disappeared when event list full
- Rout path hexes showed illegal path under certain circumstances
- Tooltip no longer spoils Line of Sight
- Sniper counter disappeared if stacked with friendly units
- Tooltip lingered on when button clicked
Version 0.1.64 of WW2T has just been released. It'lll be the last version that covers just infantry combat related rules. It comes with 4 fun-to-play scenarios and features many advanced rules (like Concealment, Fire Groups, Fire Lanes (new!) etc.). A new “Report” button has been added to the upper right hand corner of each counter stack in the map. Clicking on it will present you with all details regarding events affecting each unit or weapon (like Morale Checks etc.). The web service has been overhauled. You can now search for certain matches (either you know the match ID or the host player’s name or you can filter for specific scenarios). Also all traffic to it is now SSL enciphered. There is a password reminder button in case you’ve lost your password. Most importantly: from now on every rated match will count for your Elo score! Each player starts with 1000 points. You score will be calculated after each finished match based on the outcome (won or lost) and how high your opponent’s Elo score is. Winning against a stronger opponent will result in more points than winning against a weaker player. I put a lot of effort into functionality that allows you to recover from a lost network connection or other engine related bugs. Both players can try to reconnect from inside the match if they dropped out. Also, if at match end the result could not be submitted due to network issues you can submit the result later from the match page of the web service. Of course both sides have to submit the same outcome otherwise the match cannot be finished. If you find out during game play that you have no chance of winning the match you can capitulate during each Rally phase. This version is tested very well and can be regarded as stable.
Please give it a try. If you are looking for an opponent it might make sense to post on the WW2T forum as well since our community admittedly is tiny so far.
http://www.ww2t.com/forums/forum/opponent-wanted/
With this version and working on WW2T for over a year already I will start to communicate the game to a broader audience. It would be great if you could check out my post on Steam (Greenlight) and support the game there!
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=606832722
I've started now to implement the first basic set of ordnance rules.
Best,
Ben
http://www.ww2t.com/
Please give it a try. If you are looking for an opponent it might make sense to post on the WW2T forum as well since our community admittedly is tiny so far.
http://www.ww2t.com/forums/forum/opponent-wanted/
With this version and working on WW2T for over a year already I will start to communicate the game to a broader audience. It would be great if you could check out my post on Steam (Greenlight) and support the game there!
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=606832722
I've started now to implement the first basic set of ordnance rules.
Best,
Ben
http://www.ww2t.com/
Last edited: