Cosmetic. Show Unused Convoys

[rkr1958]

The "Show Unused Convoys" count for the Azanian Sea displays that the CW, or allies in general, are 1 CP short of the needed 4. However, there are 3 CW and 1 Dutch, who is aligned / owned by the CW, there. While this bug is cosmetic it does add to the time required for making sure the convoy routes are set up properly. In this specific case the "-1U" caused me to have to take the time to go to that sea area, count the number of routes going through it and the number of CPs that were there.

[rkr1958]

Game file attached.

[paulderynck]

This comes from using the Convoys in Flames optional. I really wonder if that's worthwhile. The naval basing issues alone with so many minors that don't cooperate would drive me batty and IMO adds virtually nothing to the game. Plus you really have to question how realistic it is that all those merchant marine folks are suddenly incompatible in all the nations of the world's ports when they co-existed fine during peacetime?

They say CLiF favors the Allies and so you need COiF to re-balance, but another option (that I prefer) is to play with neither. YMMV.

Not that it isn't a bug (or at least appears to be one).

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

This comes from using the Convoys in Flames optional. I really wonder if that's worthwhile. The naval basing issues alone with so many minors that don't cooperate would drive me batty and IMO adds virtually nothing to the game. Plus you really have to question how realistic it is that all those merchant marine folks are suddenly incompatible in all the nations of the world's ports when they co-existed fine during peacetime?

They say CLiF favors the Allies and so you need COiF to re-balance, but another option (that I prefer) is to play with neither. YMMV.

Not that it isn't a bug (or at least appears to be one).

Thanks! A follow-up question, which I think you answered in your response but I want to confirm. If I understand it correctly then ships of different nationalities that are stacked together in the same port suffer a 1 MP penalty when they move out to sea. Does this also apply to ships of different nationalities controlled by the same major power? For example, the CW controls CW, Dutch and Norwegian ships / CPs? Does it apply it that case? Even if it applied here I assume it does NOT apply to British, Australian and New Zealand? The way I'm playing it now is based on the an assumption that the answers to these are yes.

I can somewhat understand applying the 1 MP penalty for RN and USN ships stacked together. But, as I think you pointed out, it's maddening having to make sure that the Dutch, Norwegain and the CW don't wind up in the same port or if they do suffering a 1 MP penalty because I forgot and returned a Norwgain CP to the Plymouth.

[paulderynck]

No it only applies to majors in the same port and of course in most COiF games the French and the US could never be in the same port as the Poles, Norwegians, Dutch, Belgians, Spanish, Portuguese, Greek, or North Nonomurans...

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

No it only applies to majors in the same port and of course in most COiF games the French and the US could never be in the same port as the Poles, Norwegians, Dutch, Belgians, Spanish, Portuguese, Greek, or North Nonomurans...

So it does NOT apply to Norwegians, Dutch, (Poles) and CW being in the same port? Assuming, of course, all those three minors are aligned with / controlled by the CW.

[Orm]

Just beware of the CPs and other ships from incompletely conquered minors. The ships from the completely conquered minors count as MP ships but the ships from incompletely conquered minors count as minor country units. Hence they suffer from co-operation issues. [:(]

It is common that convoy points from Netherlands and Belgium can not stack together in a port. Nor can they base in other minor countries. Egypt, for example.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: Orm

Just beware of the CPs and other ships from incompletely conquered minors. The ships from the completely conquered minors count as MP ships but the ships from incompletely conquered minors count as minor country units. Hence they suffer from co-operation issues. [:(]

It is common that convoy points from Netherlands and Belgium can not stack together in a port. Nor can they base in other minor countries. Egypt, for example.

So I check the allied relations and this is what I have:

Belgium - Incmplt Conquered
Netherlands - Incmplt Conquered
Netherlands East Indies - Algined
Norway - Cmplt Conquered
Poland - Cmplt Conquered.

So as I understand it? Ships / CPs from Norway and Poland are treated for all purposes as CW and they or the RN suffer NO co-operations issues? Ships / CPs from Belgium and the Netherlands do and need to be kept separate in port from each other and everyone else in other to no suffer the 1 MP penalty?

[Orm]

There are two rules here that mix together.

*Major Power ships may stack in the same port as another MPs ships if both nations co-operate. If they do so they lose one in movement allowance... (you know the effect). US and CW ships are good example of this rule. The Polish and Norwegian ships are considered as CW ships for this rule (after their home nation is conquered) so a former Polish CP stacking, in a port, with a US cruiser and the rule take effect.

*Co-operation rules for minor countries. For example Netherlands and Belgium. Their ships may freely stack with CW ships in port and that included ships from a conquered Norway and Poland (since they are considered CW ships). But the Netherlands and Belgian ships may not stack together in a port. Nor may they stack with any other major power than CW ( or whichever nation that control them). And they may not stack in another aligned minor country port. Like Egypt, Syria, Morocco, Burma and so on. But they can stack in Gibraltar since that is a territory. And in India, South Africa, New Zeeland and so on since they are part of the major power CW. The Dutch CP may not even stack, in a port, with the US cruiser (so the movement allowance penalty can never occur here since they can't stack).

I hope I didn't confuse things to much.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: Orm

There are two rules here that mix together.

*Major Power ships may stack in the same port as another MPs ships if both nations co-operate. If they do so they lose one in movement allowance... (you know the effect). US and CW ships are good example of this rule. The Polish and Norwegian ships are considered as CW ships for this rule (after their home nation is conquered) so a former Polish CP stacking, in a port, with a US cruiser and the rule take effect.

*Co-operation rules for minor countries. For example Netherlands and Belgium. Their ships may freely stack with CW ships in port and that included ships from a conquered Norway and Poland (since they are considered CW ships). But the Netherlands and Belgian ships may not stack together in a port. Nor may they stack with any other major power than CW ( or whichever nation that control them). And they may not stack in another aligned minor country port. Like Egypt, Syria, Morocco, Burma and so on. But they can stack in Gibraltar since that is a territory. And in India, South Africa, New Zeeland and so on since they are part of the major power CW. The Dutch CP may not even stack, in a port, with the US cruiser (so the movement allowance penalty can never occur here since they can't stack).

I hope I didn't confuse things to much.

Orm, thanks! Honestly, I'm still a bit confused. Let me ask very specific questions. By the way, sorry on my part being so dense with this. [&:]

1. I noticed that the ships / CPs from the countries that were completely conquered (i.e., Poland and Denmark) have a blue strip (CW color) across the top of their counter. Are these ships / CPs any different from other CW (i.e., RN) ships / CPs?

2. The Belgium conquest is incomplete. If a Belgium ship / CP is stacked in port with a CW ship / CP do one or both suffer the +1 MP?

3. The Dutch conquest is incomplete and the CW has aligned the Dutch East Indies. If a Dutch ship / CP is stacked in port with a CW ship / CP do one or both suffer the +1 MP. Correct?

4. Belgium and Dutch Ships / CPs cannot base in CW aligned countries unless it's their own country. Correct?

5. Belgium and Dutch Ships / CPs cannot base together. Correct?

Phew ... how in the world do you manage the rules of this game with cardboard and paper? Thank goodness for the computer and not having to enforce the rules. It's difficult enough for me just to understand the implication of all rules (if that's possible).

[paulderynck]

1. No - they are treated as CW units "for all purposes".

2. No - applies only to two or more major powers in the same port (all of which obviously can cooperate with every unit in the port, so there'd be no Dutch or Belgian ships allowed unless only CW ships were present, so that combination can never occur, nor lose a movement point for that reason. Edit: except of course if either later on becomes completely conquered - in which case - see 1)

3. see 2.

4. True, unless they become completely conquered later on, in which case, see 1 - but remember the CW has 6 home countries. So those ships can also base in any of those. They can also base (but not together) in any CW Territories (i.e. an entity that is not a minor country). And of course they cannot base together (i.e. Belgian and Dutch with or without CW ships) due to co-operation issues (unless one of the two or both later on becomes completely conquered, in which case - see 1).

5. see 4.

r.e. "Phew" - we double check the rule book -- a lot!

And thinking about all the above, how tough would you figure that was to program?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

1. No - they are treated as CW units "for all purposes".

2. No - applies only to two or more major powers in the same port (all of which obviously can cooperate with every unit in the port, so there'd be no Dutch or Belgian ships allowed unless only CW ships were present, so that combination can never occur, nor lose a movement point for that reason. Edit: except of course if either later on becomes completely conquered - in which case - see 1)

3. see 2.

4. True, unless they become completely conquered later on, in which case, see 1 - but remember the CW has 6 home countries. So those ships can also base in any of those. They can also base (but not together) in any CW Territories (i.e. an entity that is not a minor country). And of course they cannot base together (i.e. Belgian and Dutch with or without CW ships) due to co-operation issues (unless one of the two or both later on becomes completely conquered, in which case - see 1).

5. see 4.

r.e. "Phew" - we double check the rule book -- a lot!

And thinking about all the above, how tough would you figure that was to program?

warspite1

Edit: never mind

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

1. No - they are treated as CW units "for all purposes".

2. No - applies only to two or more major powers in the same port (all of which obviously can cooperate with every unit in the port, so there'd be no Dutch or Belgian ships allowed unless only CW ships were present, so that combination can never occur, nor lose a movement point for that reason. Edit: except of course if either later on becomes completely conquered - in which case - see 1)

3. see 2.

4. True, unless they become completely conquered later on, in which case, see 1 - but remember the CW has 6 home countries. So those ships can also base in any of those. They can also base (but not together) in any CW Territories (i.e. an entity that is not a minor country). And of course they cannot base together (i.e. Belgian and Dutch with or without CW ships) due to co-operation issues (unless one of the two or both later on becomes completely conquered, in which case - see 1).

5. see 4.

r.e. "Phew" - we double check the rule book -- a lot!

And thinking about all the above, how tough would you figure that was to program?

[&o] (Wish there were a hats off smiley. I guess the bowing one will have to do. [;)] )

[Orm]

r.e. "Phew" - we double check the rule book -- a lot!

I think I double check with the rule book almost every time I play. Or post about rules on the forum.

[brian brian]

I think most face-to-face players stick with the option of declaring all Minor Country Convoy Points to be units of their controlling Major Power, even if they might use the colorful minor country CP counters from Convoys in Flames on the map. Although the FAQ discusses that in terms of whether such CPs are then subject to Surprise upon DOW, I think that is a terrible line of reasoning to pursue. Just make all CPs Major Power units and be done with it. I think MWiF would profit from that approach in terms of coding and game play as merchant ships didn't have Cooperation issues. Heck, they didn't even stay in a single sea area like they do on the WiF map - Convoys move from port to port, continuously. Saying a Norwegian merchant ship couldn't dock in British Guiana is just stupid.

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I think most face-to-face players stick with the option of declaring all Minor Country Convoy Points to be units of their controlling Major Power, even if they might use the colorful minor country CP counters from Convoys in Flames on the map. Although the FAQ discusses that in terms of whether such CPs are then subject to Surprise upon DOW, I think that is a terrible line of reasoning to pursue. Just make all CPs Major Power units and be done with it. I think MWiF would profit from that approach in terms of coding and game play as merchant ships didn't have Cooperation issues. Heck, they didn't even stay in a single sea area like they do on the WiF map - Convoys move from port to port, continuously. Saying a Norwegian merchant ship couldn't dock in British Guiana is just stupid.

I also believe that certain rules regarding minor countries ships are historically not right. Dutch military vessels were seen in the ports of Ceylon and Egypt during WW II, but the rules in WiF don't allow this. To me, there is a flaw there...

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I think most face-to-face players stick with the option of declaring all Minor Country Convoy Points to be units of their controlling Major Power, even if they might use the colorful minor country CP counters from Convoys in Flames on the map. Although the FAQ discusses that in terms of whether such CPs are then subject to Surprise upon DOW, I think that is a terrible line of reasoning to pursue. Just make all CPs Major Power units and be done with it. I think MWiF would profit from that approach in terms of coding and game play as merchant ships didn't have Cooperation issues. Heck, they didn't even stay in a single sea area like they do on the WiF map - Convoys move from port to port, continuously. Saying a Norwegian merchant ship couldn't dock in British Guiana is just stupid.

I also believe that certain rules regarding minor countries ships are historically not right. Dutch military vessels were seen in the ports of Ceylon and Egypt during WW II, but the rules in WiF don't allow this. To me, there is a flaw there...

warspite1

I raised this point in the Development forum. The annoying thing is that it would actually be a whole lot simpler to code (I presume) and at the same time be historically accurate to simply treat all naval vessels - whether captured or aligned, whether through conquest or incomplete conquest, as belonging (for all purposes) to the appropriate major power.
In a game with (necessarily) a billion rules, I would love to know why ADG did not go for the simple, historic approach.

[brian brian]

Harry pretty solidly and pretty regularly resists all suggestions to add Exceptions to the rules, and that consistently trumps whatever the content of that proposed Exception might be.

Simultaneously, I would expect he would suggest anyone play the game however they wish to play it and if you'd rather not worry about the cooperation of minor country naval vessels then don't.

Of course Steve can't just take that option as simply as that, but for the Convoy Points at least, there is rules language supporting the idea of treating them as Major Power units. (I would leave them Surprised on the Surprise Impulse though).

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Harry pretty solidly and pretty regularly resists all suggestions to add Exceptions to the rules, and that consistently trumps whatever the content of that proposed Exception might be.

Simultaneously, I would expect he would suggest anyone play the game however they wish to play it and if you'd rather not worry about the cooperation of minor country naval vessels then don't.

Of course Steve can't just take that option as simply as that, but for the Convoy Points at least, there is rules language supporting the idea of treating them as Major Power units. (I would leave them Surprised on the Surprise Impulse though).

warspite1

But that is what I find so perplexing about this rule. It would need no exceptions - it would be the same for all major powers. All naval units are treated as though they were units of the major power. Give me one instance where the Germans, British, Japanese et al did not put captured/aligned ships to use in their navy. The only barrier to their use was for reasons such as lack of spare parts (e.g. Littorio's) lack of repair resources/fuel (French fleet and the Italians/Germans) the ships were too obsolete to be of any practical use (some of the Norwegian/Danish/Yugoslav ships to name but three). Even here though, where appropriate the Germans put them in service as AA ships etc.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Harry pretty solidly and pretty regularly resists all suggestions to add Exceptions to the rules, and that consistently trumps whatever the content of that proposed Exception might be.

Simultaneously, I would expect he would suggest anyone play the game however they wish to play it and if you'd rather not worry about the cooperation of minor country naval vessels then don't.

Of course Steve can't just take that option as simply as that, but for the Convoy Points at least, there is rules language supporting the idea of treating them as Major Power units. (I would leave them Surprised on the Surprise Impulse though).

warspite1

But that is what I find so perplexing about this rule. It would need no exceptions - it would be the same for all major powers. All naval units are treated as though they were units of the major power. Give me one instance where the Germans, British, Japanese et al did not put captured/aligned ships to use in their navy. The only barrier to their use was for reasons such as lack of spare parts (e.g. Littorio's) lack of repair resources/fuel (French fleet and the Italians/Germans) the ships were too obsolete to be of any practical use (some of the Norwegian/Danish/Yugoslav ships to name but three). Even here though, where appropriate the Germans put them in service as AA ships etc.

This is no issue when the ships are captured or from completely conquered minors. It is only a concern when the minor is aligned.