In case someone is interested on how WIF (no MWIF) is evolving...
Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets
- paulderynck
- Posts: 8356
- Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
- Location: Canada
RE: In case someone is interested on how WIF (no MWIF) is evolving...
You can use the CPs that will RTB to New Caledonia as part of a chain that ships Australian resources to Mexico (for onward shipment by rail to Canada), but in the first two turns the CW can get by with one less resource and still build max, so with a couple more CPs (toward and into the Caribbean) that chain can ship one Australian resource to Canada and the New Caledonia resource to the west coast of France.
You can set up French and CW CPs "knowing" that they can cooperate in resource transport by the end of the turn. You can't start out with anything lent, but you can certainly treat the CW & Fr CPs as a combined pool.
You can set up French and CW CPs "knowing" that they can cooperate in resource transport by the end of the turn. You can't start out with anything lent, but you can certainly treat the CW & Fr CPs as a combined pool.
Paul
RE: In case someone is interested on how WIF (no MWIF) is evolving...
Thanks for your reply. I kinda figured I'd be deciding on French and CW convoys in tandem. For me, it's easier to do this using the boardgame than MWIF, as I can go back and forth as I please. I know it's possible to do that too in MWIF, but I've always found the convoy/production UI a bit confusing, so I tend to say "close enough" and move on. With the boardgame, I'm being more methodical.
- Jagdtiger14
- Posts: 1685
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:58 pm
- Location: Miami Beach
RE: In case someone is interested on how WIF (no MWIF) is evolving...
Does anyone know if in WiF8 a neutral US is allowed to send resources and BP's to WAllies/USSR after the US entry option is selected?
Thanks
Thanks
Conflict with the unexpected: two qualities are indispensable; first, an intellect which, even in the midst of this obscurity, is not without some traces of inner light which lead to the truth; second, the courage to follow this faint light. KvC
- paulderynck
- Posts: 8356
- Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
- Location: Canada
- Joseignacio
- Posts: 2798
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 11:25 am
- Location: Madrid, Spain
RE: In case someone is interested on how WIF (no MWIF) is evolving...
I guess:
27. Lend lease to western Allies (Ge/It 9)* - The US can’t give build points (see 13.6.4) to the Commonwealth or France until you choose this option. In future turns the US may give up to 5 build points a turn (see 13.6.4) to each of the CW and France (unlimited while the USA is at war with Germany). US convoy points can’t be used to transport these build points while the US is a neutral major power.
You may only choose this option if US entry option 15 has been chosen in a prior turn.
28. Truman committee formed (5)* - The US can’t produce 4-turn LNDs while neutral until this option is chosen. The US is no longer restricted in the number or class of any units she builds (see 13.6) each turn. The US may now destroy (TiF option 31: and disband) units (see 4.3) while neutral.
You may only choose this option if US entry options 12 and 22 have already been chosen in prior turns.
29. North Atlantic escorts (Ge/It 8)* - After you choose this option and while neutral, up to 5 US CVs and/or SCS in the 0 section of the North Atlantic sea area may take part in any combat round in which Allied convoys are included, while still reamining neutral. There is no US entry effect for fighting.
You may only choose this option if US entry option 11 has been chosen in a prior turn.
30. Lend lease to USSR (Ge/It 11)* - The Allies can’t give or receive build points (see 13.6.4) to or from the USSR until you choose this option. In future turns the US, CW and/or France may give or receive 1 build point each per turn to or from the USSR while the USSR is at war with any Axis major power. This increases to 5 each per turn while Germany and the USSR are at war and unlimited while the US is also at war with Germany. US convoy points can’t be used to transport these build points while the US is neutral.
You may only choose this option if US entry option 19 has been chosen in a prior turn.
- paulderynck
- Posts: 8356
- Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
- Location: Canada
RE: In case someone is interested on how WIF (no MWIF) is evolving...
That answer makes sense (along with #15 & #19, but excluding #28 and #29). It's the question that doesn't.
Paul
RE: In case someone is interested on how WIF (no MWIF) is evolving...
Well actually, I think there's confusion with this part.
Compare US Entry Option from the WifCE rule book:
#15. Resources to western Allies (Ge/It 6) – The US can’t give resources to the Commonwealth or France until you choose this option. In future turns the US can give up to 5 resources per turn each to the CW and France (unlimited while the USA is at war with Germany). US convoy points can’t be used to transport these resources unless US entry option 38 is chosen.
together with
#32. US refutes naval war zones (9) - The USA may use its own convoy points to ship any resources and/or builds points that the USA is lend-leasing to any Allied major power. Any US convoy points that could be carrying resources to an Allied major power may be attacked by any active Axis units even if they are not at war with the USA.
and
#38. Arm merchantmen (9)* - After you choose this option and while neutral, up to 5 US CVs and/or SCS in the 0 section of any sea area may take part in any combat round in which Allied convoys are included, while still remaining neutral. There is no US entry effect for the naval combat itself. Prerequisite: US entry option 29.
So if I have chosen options #15 and #32, but not #38. Can the western allies use US convoys to ship lent US resources, or not?
#15 says you can't, as you need to have chosen #38, yet #32 by itself, says you can.
Brian.
- paulderynck
- Posts: 8356
- Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
- Location: Canada
RE: In case someone is interested on how WIF (no MWIF) is evolving...
You are quoting from RAW8 and that is all under discussion ATM. My opinion - RAW8 tried to be more precise but muddied the waters by mistyping option 38 in place of option 32.
Read RAW7 and you'll see that neither 32 or 38 is mentioned in 15, 19, 27 and 30. It was left to the reader to read 32 and actually figure it all out.
As written RAW8 has a problem because you still can't use US CPs after passing both options 32 and 38.
Read RAW7 and you'll see that neither 32 or 38 is mentioned in 15, 19, 27 and 30. It was left to the reader to read 32 and actually figure it all out.
As written RAW8 has a problem because you still can't use US CPs after passing both options 32 and 38.
Paul
RE: In case someone is interested on how WIF (no MWIF) is evolving...
ORIGINAL: paulderynck
As written RAW8 has a problem because you still can't use US CPs after passing both options 32 and 38.
Really!? Paul, you've got me interested as to which rule says that?
Is it this one..
end of Rule 13.6.1 just before Search and Seizure
Neutral major powers may only transport resources and
build points for, and/or contribute to the convoy chain of, another major
power if the rules specifically allow it (see 5.1, and 13.3.2, US entry
options 9, 17, 27 and 30).
And are you suggesting, because the rule references in the brackets, leaves out option 32 (and option 38), that they don't apply to this rule when choosing these options? My interpretation would be that the rule would still apply to options #32, and #38, and any other relevant rule, despite its omission.
Or am I missing something else?
Brian.
- paulderynck
- Posts: 8356
- Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
- Location: Canada
RE: In case someone is interested on how WIF (no MWIF) is evolving...
I shall attempt elucidation on the matter. (as my statement about still can't use was misleading - should have said "still can't use after passing 32")
RAW7 = no US CP usage (except for China) until Option 32 is passed. Option 32 says the US may use its own CPs. So, reasonably, you need to pass Option 32 and then all lends can be carried by US CPs. But the chain must be entirely US CPs end-to-end because a neutral and an active can't share CP pipelines. You could have FREX a parallel CP pipeline of 2 CW and 2 US CPs in each sea zone, taking 4 BPs to Russia once Russia is active.
RAW8 = by stating option 38 is needed (in 15, 19, 27 and 30) before you can use US CPs; the rules have been significantly muddied. 38 doesn't say anything about using US CPs. So to do so, do you need to pass 32 and 38 or just 38? What good would 32 be by itself? If you passed only 38 you'd likely have arguments when you started using US CPs for those lends. This is why I think it was an attempted clarification but there's a typo of '38' in place of '32'.
In any event, you still can't "hand-off" those lends within a CP pipeline, while the US is neutral. Not sure everyone realizes that.
RAW7 = no US CP usage (except for China) until Option 32 is passed. Option 32 says the US may use its own CPs. So, reasonably, you need to pass Option 32 and then all lends can be carried by US CPs. But the chain must be entirely US CPs end-to-end because a neutral and an active can't share CP pipelines. You could have FREX a parallel CP pipeline of 2 CW and 2 US CPs in each sea zone, taking 4 BPs to Russia once Russia is active.
RAW8 = by stating option 38 is needed (in 15, 19, 27 and 30) before you can use US CPs; the rules have been significantly muddied. 38 doesn't say anything about using US CPs. So to do so, do you need to pass 32 and 38 or just 38? What good would 32 be by itself? If you passed only 38 you'd likely have arguments when you started using US CPs for those lends. This is why I think it was an attempted clarification but there's a typo of '38' in place of '32'.
In any event, you still can't "hand-off" those lends within a CP pipeline, while the US is neutral. Not sure everyone realizes that.
Paul
RE: In case someone is interested on how WIF (no MWIF) is evolving...
ORIGINAL: paulderynck
I shall attempt elucidation on the matter. (as my statement about still can't use was misleading - should have said "still can't use after passing 32")
RAW7 = no US CP usage (except for China) until Option 32 is passed. Option 32 says the US may use its own CPs. So, reasonably, you need to pass Option 32 and then all lends can be carried by US CPs. But the chain must be entirely US CPs end-to-end because a neutral and an active can't share CP pipelines. You could have FREX a parallel CP pipeline of 2 CW and 2 US CPs in each sea zone, taking 4 BPs to Russia once Russia is active.
RAW8 = by stating option 38 is needed (in 15, 19, 27 and 30) before you can use US CPs; the rules have been significantly muddied. 38 doesn't say anything about using US CPs. So to do so, do you need to pass 32 and 38 or just 38? What good would 32 be by itself? If you passed only 38 you'd likely have arguments when you started using US CPs for those lends. This is why I think it was an attempted clarification but there's a typo of '38' in place of '32'.
In any event, you still can't "hand-off" those lends within a CP pipeline, while the US is neutral. Not sure everyone realizes that.
Thanks Paul, yes that summarizes the issues the way I see things as well. With the way the rule is written now, I can but only presume people will be using their own house rules to make this workable until something official comes out.
I'll be playing it pretty much along the lines that the mention of 'Option 38' is a misprint, and play it as though 'Option 32' was the intended prerequisite and extending this prerequisite to options 19, 27 and 30 as well.
Brian.
RE: In case someone is interested on how WIF (no MWIF) is evolving...
So the main issue is a typo in US entry option 15 -- it should say 32 instead of 38? If that's it, perhaps we should pass it on to Harry/ADG?
I looked in the most recent errata and didn't find this issue addressed. An unrelated issue is addressed, though:
I looked in the most recent errata and didn't find this issue addressed. An unrelated issue is addressed, though:
13.3.2, US entry option 32 – To attack US convoys the Axis unit must be at war with the potential recipient (not just
active).
- paulderynck
- Posts: 8356
- Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
- Location: Canada
RE: In case someone is interested on how WIF (no MWIF) is evolving...
The jury may still be out. The website says the current living rules are being typeset and will be re-posted soon.
Paul
RE: In case someone is interested on how WIF (no MWIF) is evolving...
OK; I can wait. I won't get to any of those USE options anytime soon. I'm just starting the first turn of my first solitaire game with the Collector's Edition.
RE: In case someone is interested on how WIF (no MWIF) is evolving...
30 mins of unboxing here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jJ2rHJWcnE&t=694s
"Yes darling, I served in the Navy for eight years. I was a cook..."
"Oh dad... so you were a God-damned cook?"
(My 10 years old daughter after watching "The Hunt for Red October")
"Oh dad... so you were a God-damned cook?"
(My 10 years old daughter after watching "The Hunt for Red October")
RE: In case someone is interested on how WIF (no MWIF) is evolving...
And for some reason wargaming has a reputation as being a hobby for out-of-shape nerds with poor social skills [:'(]
This is why I tend to keep my interest in military history/wargaming quiet, especially from women.
I usually go with, "I'm a big history buff", which is neutral and makes one sound somewhat interesting. "I love re-fighting WW2 battles in excruciating detail", is not so endearing to the fairer sex [;)]
Cheers, Neilster
Cheers, Neilster
- paulderynck
- Posts: 8356
- Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
- Location: Canada
RE: In case someone is interested on how WIF (no MWIF) is evolving...
Or to put it another way, when you say "wargamer", be careful how you pronounce "war".
Paul
RE: In case someone is interested on how WIF (no MWIF) is evolving...
ORIGINAL: Neilster
And for some reason wargaming has a reputation as being a hobby for out-of-shape nerds with poor social skills [:'(]
I must confess that I posted the link before watching the whole video. Boy, it turned out to be terminally dull [>:]
Now that I do have my copy (only the "Deluxe" package with the WWII expansions - I'm not interested in Patton in Flames etc.) I could do a better job by filming my unwrapping with my iPhone. [8|]
"Yes darling, I served in the Navy for eight years. I was a cook..."
"Oh dad... so you were a God-damned cook?"
(My 10 years old daughter after watching "The Hunt for Red October")
"Oh dad... so you were a God-damned cook?"
(My 10 years old daughter after watching "The Hunt for Red October")
RE: In case someone is interested on how WIF (no MWIF) is evolving...
I will shortly be putting my Patton in Flames up on ebay.
I'm pretty sure its unopened.
I'm pretty sure its unopened.
RE: In case someone is interested on how WIF (no MWIF) is evolving...
My copy of the Collector's Edition Deluxe came on Tuesday and today 3 of us sat down and played just the battle for Poland in 39 from the Global War campaign. Next week we're doing the Guadalcanal scenario to look over the naval and naval air rules in more detail. I've seen lots of little changes, some not so little from version 7.
I do like what they did with the offensive chits making them more flexible in their use. The new oil rules too are pretty involved, more bookkeeping to do each turn keeping track of your oil every impulse.
Also so many changes in the options. It's going to take us a few weeks to get a handle on all of this.
I do like what they did with the offensive chits making them more flexible in their use. The new oil rules too are pretty involved, more bookkeeping to do each turn keeping track of your oil every impulse.
Also so many changes in the options. It's going to take us a few weeks to get a handle on all of this.