I recently posted an initial offering of a Waterloo (AH, 1962) module, and got to thinking of how I would like to extend it. Besides the obvious Oblique-Hex-Grid (Are you there Brent?), I would like to build a combat-recording mechanism. My initial thouhgts of having a map-board on the side like in Russian Front, which would (in no particular order):
mark combats on the main map-board
display images of the attacking and defending counters assigned the battle
calculate odds
track die roll made
provide go-to functionality between Combat- and Map- boards
verify eligibility of units in each combat
verify completeness of combat specification before allowing resolution to begin
Would anyone out there care to comment on this proposal? Design changes are best and most efficiently made early on, so speak up now to be heard first.
P. Geerkens
P.S. Where or what is the UCP where I can automate my signature?
I recently posted an initial offering of a Waterloo (AH, 1962) module,
and got to thinking of how I would like to extend it. Besides the
obvious Oblique-Hex-Grid (Are you there Brent?), I would like to
build a
combat-recording mechanism. My initial thouhgts of having a map-
board on
the side like in Russian Front, which would (in no particular order):
mark combats on the main map-board
display images of the attacking and defending counters assigned the
battle
I would think you would just want to move the counters themselves onto
the battle board.
calculate odds
Not sure that this will be at all easy to do. At least not until the
newer version of Vassal comes out with the beanshell and full
expressions editor.
In any case, this is potentially problematic, especially if you can
have multi-hex combats. I suppose this could be an issue with moving
units to and from the battle board as well.
track die roll made
provide go-to functionality between Combat- and Map- boards
verify completeness of combat specification before allowing
resolution
to begin
This gets into the realm of trying to enforce the rules, which is
something that Vassl doesn’t try to do. So I wouldn’t expect it to be
particularly easy. So, I’m not sure that this really is something you
want to try to automate. In any case, you would want the verification
to be advisory rather than compulsory, just to handle cases where
something unusual or unexpected comes up. You don’t want to
accidently make the game unplayable in some odd circumstances.
Would anyone out there care to comment on this proposal? Design
changes
are best and most efficiently made early on, so speak up now to be
heard
first.