New to the game - Basic Questions

[AlbertN]

It's

Germany at war with Russia

OR

Controls Belgrade (as historical)

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: composer99

The rules have to be read with attention to context, including the examples of play.

Given the example of play of a bounce combat precludes a second bounce combat (the DC result that player Boris rolls is said to have "no effect", even though in a regular air combat it could trigger a bounce combat), we can safely say that recursive bouncing is off the table.

Exactly. Examples in the rules often illustrate that the most convoluted interpretation of what a rule says - is indeed the incorrect one.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

Here's the situation, Germany allowed both the USSR's claim on Bessarabia and Hungary's and Blugaria's demands on Rumania. My question is on the condition(s) for Germany to align Rumania. Is the "or" that I've underlined and bolded in the statement below from the "Rules as Codes" a true logical "OR"? That is, if any one of the three conditions, such as Germany declaring war on the USSR, is met then Rumania aligns with Germany?

If Germany allows their claims:

Germany can declare Rumania aligned with Germany during any Axis declaration of war step if Germany has declared war on the USSR (not if the USSR has declared war on Germany), is at war with Yugoslavia, or controls Belgrade.

ORIGINAL: Cohen

It's

Germany at war with Russia

OR

Controls Belgrade (as historical)

OR

is at war with Yugoslavia

[rkr1958]

Thanks guys. Now another ... I'm starting to understand more subtles but wanted to make sure I have this right. So the situation is that the US is still neutral but has selected entry option 15, "Resources to Western Allies." This option, in effect, allows the US to save more than 1 oil point per turn while neutral. Sort of ...

The US could send up to 5 resources per turn to the CW. These resources if oil, could be sent overland to Canada and saved by the CW. Once the US enters then the CW could send some or even all of these saved oil points back to the US through trade (overland without using any CPs). In effect, this option allows the US to save up to 6 oil points per turn (1 directly in the US and 5 indirectly in Canada) prior to entry. Am I understand this correctly?

[paulderynck]

Yes that is correct. There are times though, where the CW will use some of that oil. If Germany is hell bent on a BoA, the CW needs oil saved in the UK as insurance that an awful turn of convoy losses won't cost her too much production. Or pass the option early enough, and some of the oil may turn into French BPs.

But in essence, you are now thinking like a true WiF gamer as to how it may help the USA save oil for later. But usually, the US has enough oil for full production plus all her re-orgs anyway.

[composer99]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

Here's the situation, Germany allowed both the USSR's claim on Bessarabia and Hungary's and Blugaria's demands on Rumania. My question is on the condition(s) for Germany to align Rumania. Is the "or" that I've underlined and bolded in the statement below from the "Rules as Codes" a true logical "OR"? That is, if any one of the three conditions, such as Germany declaring war on the USSR, is met then Rumania aligns with Germany?

If Germany allows their claims:

Germany can declare Rumania aligned with Germany during any Axis declaration of war step if Germany has declared war on the USSR (not if the USSR has declared war on Germany), is at war with Yugoslavia, or controls Belgrade.

Cohen and pauldernyck didn't quite come out and say it, but the answer is yes, it's a logical 'OR'. As long as any one of the three conditions (declared war on USSR, at war with Yugoslavia, or controls Belgrade) is true, Germany can align Rumania.

(This would mean, for instance, that even if USSR declared war on Germany, Germany could still align Rumania as long as it satisfies one of the other conditions.)

[Joseignacio]

ORIGINAL: composer99

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

Here's the situation, Germany allowed both the USSR's claim on Bessarabia and Hungary's and Blugaria's demands on Rumania. My question is on the condition(s) for Germany to align Rumania. Is the "or" that I've underlined and bolded in the statement below from the "Rules as Codes" a true logical "OR"? That is, if any one of the three conditions, such as Germany declaring war on the USSR, is met then Rumania aligns with Germany?

If Germany allows their claims:

Germany can declare Rumania aligned with Germany during any Axis declaration of war step if Germany has declared war on the USSR (not if the USSR has declared war on Germany), is at war with Yugoslavia, or controls Belgrade.

Cohen and pauldernyck didn't quite come out and say it, but the answer is yes, it's a logical 'OR'. As long as any one of the three conditions (declared war on USSR, at war with Yugoslavia, or controls Belgrade) is true, Germany can align Rumania.

(This would mean, for instance, that even if USSR declared war on Germany, Germany could still align Rumania as long as it satisfies one of the other conditions.)

True story bro!

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

ORIGINAL: composer99


Cohen and pauldernyck didn't quite come out and say it, but the answer is yes, it's a logical 'OR'. As long as any one of the three conditions (declared war on USSR, at war with Yugoslavia, or controls Belgrade) is true, Germany can align Rumania.

(This would mean, for instance, that even if USSR declared war on Germany, Germany could still align Rumania as long as it satisfies one of the other conditions.)

True story bro!

[:D]

Thanks!

[rkr1958]

The following situation seems a bit gamey to me and I arrived at it by accident. The situation is that France fell two turns ago (Jul/Aug 1940) and the Germans are wanting to get on with taking care of the Balkans and mobilizing in the East for the summer '41 attack on Russia. However, Gort and a CW 7-4 corps decided to stick around in France and take up residency in La Harvey, which can only be attacked from one hex. The Germans have lost 1 ground unit and three air units in their vain attempt to clear this hex. Honestly, trading Gort and the 7-4 corps for all the disruption that they're causing to the Germans at this time in the game is well worth it. Is this sort of "tactic" normal? If so, how do the experienced axis players usually deal with it?

[paulderynck]

Quite normal. Often the CW holes up in the "Bordeaux Redoubt" if they can retire there in good order when they see France is about to expire and Vichyfication is very likely.

The Axis has two choices. Passive - screen them off and treat the hex as a PoW camp (which it is) and move on. That is easier for Le Havre since the Allies face the same problems attacking out of it and German supply sources are closer. Active - commit the air resources needed to drive the CW supply out of the adjacent sea zone, ground strike the hex and mop them up. Actually Le Havre isn't even a city, which means it can be Blitzed. Even a 1/R result is quite acceptable. A good motorized corps plus an HQ for the loss of a motorized division is a very good trade.

[Joseignacio]

I have resisted in Bourdeaux, with a stack one of which was an AA, leaving by sea when it was getting rough with all of them.

But Le Havre seems to be a cool place too. It doesn't make the germans go all the way down to the Spanish border, land an air units alike when they should be going to USSR, but the support not only of the Navy but in this case the planes based in the south of England make it nice too.

And if I am not wrong you don't need (for FTC) to have an HQ anymore, you could send an inf which is cheaper...

[Centuur]

As Paul has said, this is quite normal.

To get those units out, you can use ART too. Put those in the hex south of Le Havre and they can assist in bombarding the hex. Ground strike the units with a Stuka to get the necessary disorganised unit (additional +2) and force them out using the Blitzkrieg table with Guderian providing ground support in the attack. That should be enough. It takes some preparation to do so, but it's better to kill those units than to have them sitting on your doorstep.

[rkr1958]

Thanks guys! So the lesson that I learned as the Germans with respect to the BEF is that some priority needs to be put towards destroying or forcing out the BEF while the French campaign is still hot.

Shifting gears ...

I think I'm continuing to understand more of the subtleties with production and oil. And, I'm really enjoying this aspect of the game though time consuming. And, since I had no prior experience with or even own the paper of cardboard version (i.e., WiF), I'm getting comfortable using the MWiF production interface. With all that said, I wanted to pass along another nugget that I just learned about managing oil.

The situation is that the US is neutral and therefore can only save 1 oil point per turn. All 40 of her factories are working but her production multiplier is only 0.25, which means that I could idle two factories and still get 10 build points per turn. If I could save more oil, or had option 15 which would enable the US to ship resources to the Western Allies, I would idle the two factories, save one point per turn and ship the rest to the CW in Canada. I've discussed this (different) nugget before. Now what I figured out today was that during the oil use phase, the US could consume up to two oil points going to factories (i.e., the two idle factories) or idle oil point(s) and still save an oil point per turn. This nugget may have been obvious to you veteran (M)WiF players but it wasn't to me until today. This game has has as may layers as an onion. I REALLY like and enjoy it!

[paulderynck]

If you mean you can use more than 0.45 of an oil resource for re-org, and still produce it or save it - that's a bug.

If you mean you have a PM of .25 and 41 oil plus non-oil resources, then certainly you can idle two factories, produce the same number of BPs, re-organize and thus consume two oil resources, and still save an oil.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

If you mean you can use more than 0.45 of an oil resource for re-org, and still produce it or save it - that's a bug.

If you mean you have a PM of .25 and 41 oil plus non-oil resources, then certainly you can idle two factories, produce the same number of BPs, re-organize and thus consume two oil resources, and still save an oil.

Sorry for the confusion. What I'm trying to say is that I can consume one or more oil points that are either idle or intended for production and still save one oil point per turn while neutral. In this specific case, this has no impact on US production if they can keep 38 or more factories churning at a production multiplier of 0.25. Again, this is probably painfully obvious to you veteran (M)WiF players, but it wasn't to me until today.

[brian brian]

Going back to the idea of "Left Behind" BEF forces, I think this is proper Allied play in general. Defensive Shore Bombardment optional in play makes this even more true, and it shouldn't be that difficult for the Allies to maintain supply across the North Sea, even from Luftwaffe attack.

I like to simply leave two British (not other CW) MIL in Rouen. Although this gives the Germans more frontage to attack, this then also exposes more of their units to disorganization on a bad roll. Maybe the Germans will risk their Engineer on the place if the Allies are lucky. If they are dumb/lazy enough to include a Panzer in the attack without a MOT division, the British can go for luck on the Blitz table to make it the casualty in the attack, and/or possibly retreat to Le Havre as well and start the process over again. Putting the AA/AT there is effective though possibly expensive, and I'd rather have it on the line at the Garonde river. If the Germans don't take the bait, the Royal Navy should have the flexibility to evacuate later if the units are needed elsewhere.

Yes, the units deployed in these tactics will be killed. But so what...they aren't real human beings that would not have been ordered into such tactics by the historical commanders. The goal is to make the Germans waste their air missions and combat powers, simply to buy time for other areas on the map, such as the line in the Pyrennees. Every impulse the Germans waste in northern France is one more they will want to have in front of Gibraltar later on.

With a built-out CW MIL pool and a good infantry gearing, the two lost MIL re-appear in England the next turn, ready for the next delaying tactic - Bilbao, perhaps?

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Going back to the idea of "Left Behind" BEF forces, I think this is proper Allied play in general. Defensive Shore Bombardment optional in play makes this even more true, and it shouldn't be that difficult for the Allies to maintain supply across the North Sea, even from Luftwaffe attack.

I like to simply leave two British (not other CW) MIL in Rouen. Although this gives the Germans more frontage to attack, this then also exposes more of their units to disorganization on a bad roll. Maybe the Germans will risk their Engineer on the place if the Allies are lucky. If they are dumb/lazy enough to include a Panzer in the attack without a MOT division, the British can go for luck on the Blitz table to make it the casualty in the attack, and/or possibly retreat to Le Havre as well and start the process over again. Putting the AA/AT there is effective though possibly expensive, and I'd rather have it on the line at the Garonde river. If the Germans don't take the bait, the Royal Navy should have the flexibility to evacuate later if the units are needed elsewhere.

Yes, the units deployed in these tactics will be killed. But so what...they aren't real human beings that would not have been ordered into such tactics by the historical commanders. The goal is to make the Germans waste their air missions and combat powers, simply to buy time for other areas on the map, such as the line in the Pyrennees. Every impulse the Germans waste in northern France is one more they will want to have in front of Gibraltar later on.

With a built-out CW MIL pool and a good infantry gearing, the two lost MIL re-appear in England the next turn, ready for the next delaying tactic - Bilbao, perhaps?

One of my exploitable flaws (and I have many) when I play WW2 games (e.g., MWiF, CEaW-GS, Panzer Corps, Battlefield Academy, AH's 3rd Reich) is that I like to "play" them as a simulation of what happened or might realistically have happened in WW2 at the scale and fidelity of the game. I play this way whether or not I'm playing an opponent (hence exploitable) or solitaire. So if I'm playing the Soviets I have no problem was massive losses and without concern for individual units. When I'm playing the Western Allies (i.e., CW, USA or France), I don't play that way because historically their militaries didn't / don't operate that way. I know it's just a game and the counters aren't real. But, losing the RN because it's no longer needed or throwing away corps size units just to inconvenience the axis is not how I enjoying playing.

[rkr1958]

Question. What exactly does the first number (3.1) in the "To Reorg. units: 1.85/3.1" line on the production form under oil resources mean? Specifically, when I mouse over that line I get a pop up that defines the two numbers as, "Count of oil resources/points needed to reorganize disorganize units. I think I understand the second number (3.1). It's how much oil I need to reorganize all my units that require oil. But the first number? How can the count of oil resources not be a whole number (i.e., 1.85)?

[paulderynck]

The first number is the cost to re-org at that instant. The second is the cost if everything at sea were to RTB and then be re-orged. When playing with oil. Italy, Japan and the CW are the most liable to budget less than the max or to try to shave their cost down to the next lower "X.45". This is done by selectively leaving units at sea and/or selectively leaving the poorest naval units non-oiled.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

The first number is the cost to re-org at that instant. The second is the cost if everything at sea were to RTB and then be re-orged. When playing with oil. Italy, Japan and the CW are the most liable to budget less than the max or to try to shave their cost down to the next lower "X.45". This is done by selectively leaving units at sea and/or selectively leaving the poorest naval units non-oiled.

Thanks! Now that makes sense. Is it me or is the message in the pop-up confusing?

Oh ... I think I see what the "/" means now. It isn't a break between two definitions (i.e., defining 1.85 / 3.1). It could be read as "Count of oil resources (i.e., points) needed to reorganize all disorganize units."