Matrix Games Forums

Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets UpdatedBattle Academy Mega Pack is now availableClose Combat: Gateway to Caen Teaser TrailerDeal of the Week Alea Jacta Est
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Rules Clarification List

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> Rules Clarification List Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Rules Clarification List - 10/17/2006 7:47:16 PM   
pak19652002

 

Posts: 280
Joined: 1/2/2005
Status: offline
This topic has been raised on several threads here and also on the Yahoo! group. I am compiling a list of rule disputes and clarifications that will be submitted to ADG for final ruling. To do this, I have started with two existing lists totaling around 200 questions. I am editing and thinning those lists presently.

I ask you to submit to this thread disputed or ambiguous rules for consideration. This will help ensure that I don't miss any questions that arise coincidentally on other threads and will help you to avoid repeating questions that have already been submitted.

This thread is NOT for answering or debating any of these questions. My sole objective is to cast a wide net to identify high-priority questions that only ADG can answer. Many of these disputes have rattled around the Yahoo! group for years and this is an attempt to anwer them definitively. Please do not try to debate them here. If this urge becomes irresistable, take the issue to the Yahoo! group. They will be happy to debate it to death...and beyond.

Please follow the following guidelines:

1) Each question should relate to only one issue. Don't try to cram three or four questions into one sentence.

2) Try to format the questions so they can be answered yes or no. The second preference would be questions that can be answered with one or two words. If you just can't do it (e.g., English is not your first language), then pose the question as best you can and I'll reformat it.

3) Provide examples, if needed.

Feel free to submit any questions you like, but try to focus on major issues that have come up in your WiF games or discrepancies you've found in CWiF. Since this thread is not providing answers, don't post simple questions that you could have looked up in the rule book! Do that, or go over to the Yahoo! group and ask them.

For the veterans, I only ask you to resist the temptation to try to answer questions posted here. I know it's difficult, but this will only muddy the waters and make my job more difficult.

When the list is in decent shape, I will post it here and on the Yahoo! group for review. I'm hoping to have the first draft ready in two weeks.

Thanks,

Peter
Post #: 1
RE: Rules Clarification List - 10/17/2006 8:47:06 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 17922
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
Peter,

Thank you for taking on such a difficult task.

< Message edited by Shannon V. OKeets -- 10/17/2006 8:48:50 PM >


_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to pak19652002)
Post #: 2
RE: Rules Clarification List - 10/17/2006 10:16:37 PM   
Greyshaft


Posts: 2224
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
Give that man a spot on the test team!
Oh... wait... he's already on the test team

_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 3
RE: Rules Clarification List - 10/17/2006 10:29:58 PM   
pak19652002

 

Posts: 280
Joined: 1/2/2005
Status: offline
Those who are about to die, salute you!

--Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part I.




quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Peter,

Thank you for taking on such a difficult task.


(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 4
RE: Rules Clarification List - 10/17/2006 11:14:30 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7894
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
Do you really intend to send your 200 questions to Harry for a Yes / No answer ?

I think it would be good if the learned ones about the rules see if they agree abut the answers, and only ask Harry about the rules where there is no agreement.

Also, I think that there might be questions you have on your list, that already have an answer in the Compilation of Clarifications from Harry (1996-1998), or subsequent clarificatiosn(1998-1999), or the FAQ (2004).

Both these means of solvint the diputes, plus some hot debates on the WiF Discussion list (yahoo group ) might shorten the list to a few tens.

Even if you send your questions to Harry only 10 per 10, if you intend to send him 200 I think you should think again .

Also, I asked Harry why he wasn't taking a more active part in the MWiF project, and he answered me that he had other things cooking for the moment, but that he would take a more active part when he will be finished with these.

(in reply to pak19652002)
Post #: 5
RE: Rules Clarification List - 10/18/2006 12:02:59 AM   
pak19652002

 

Posts: 280
Joined: 1/2/2005
Status: offline
NO, NO, NO! I intend to send him far fewer than 200. The part of this that is going to take time is weeding the questions to a reasonable number and then formatting the remainder in as simple and straightforward way as possible. I can't say if they all can be answered yes/no, but it is a worthy goal. I've read Harry's answers to imprecise questions that spawned new debates!

Let's just get them all out in the open first.

I'm not sure I have the first two documents you mentioned. The third (FAQ), I do have.

Peter




quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Do you really intend to send your 200 questions to Harry for a Yes / No answer ?

I think it would be good if the learned ones about the rules see if they agree abut the answers, and only ask Harry about the rules where there is no agreement.

Also, I think that there might be questions you have on your list, that already have an answer in the Compilation of Clarifications from Harry (1996-1998), or subsequent clarificatiosn(1998-1999), or the FAQ (2004).

Both these means of solvint the diputes, plus some hot debates on the WiF Discussion list (yahoo group ) might shorten the list to a few tens.

Even if you send your questions to Harry only 10 per 10, if you intend to send him 200 I think you should think again .

Also, I asked Harry why he wasn't taking a more active part in the MWiF project, and he answered me that he had other things cooking for the moment, but that he would take a more active part when he will be finished with these.


(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 6
RE: Rules Clarification List - 10/18/2006 12:11:52 AM   
pak19652002

 

Posts: 280
Joined: 1/2/2005
Status: offline
Patrice:

The dates I have on the files from the Yahoo! group are as follows:

1) FAQ by Jeff Wang, February 2004

2) WiF rules player aid: Date 06/2005; Author: Harold Martin-Vignerte; Updated for raw 07-aug-2004

To your knowledge, are those the latest versions of the documents? Are the other two lists you mentioned something different? If so, please send them.

So far, I've created a master spreadsheet and dumped all these in. I'll be paring and editing soon; after I feel like I've got most of the questions in hand.

Peter

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 7
RE: Rules Clarification List - 10/18/2006 12:22:19 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7894
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pak19652002

Patrice:

The dates I have on the files from the Yahoo! group are as follows:

1) FAQ by Jeff Wang, February 2004

I have the same.

quote:

2) WiF rules player aid: Date 06/2005; Author: Harold Martin-Vignerte; Updated for raw 07-aug-2004

I have the same. However this one is not directly from Harry. It may not be worthless however, but it is not as valuable as his word.

quote:

To your knowledge, are those the latest versions of the documents? Are the other two lists you mentioned something different? If so, please send them.

I've got this :
- 1 PDF file (by Larry Whalen) that is a compilation of 153 clarifications document direct from Harry, from july 96 to october 98.
- 49 word files who are clarifications direct from Harry, from october 98 to march 99.
All those files should have been taken into account when the people making the FAQ did it, but I prefer keeping them for real reference to the original word of Harry.
The compilation plus 49 word files all zipped are about 1 MB. I can send them to you.
The dates may seem quite ancient, but the information is still valuable. For example, the bit about the 79th ARM DIV can be found in the PDF compilation file, in one of the previous 153 files, and also on your 2004 FAQ.

quote:

So far, I've created a master spreadsheet and dumped all these in. I'll be paring and editing soon; after I feel like I've got most of the questions in hand.

Peter

Great. I hope we'll se it soon

(in reply to pak19652002)
Post #: 8
RE: Rules Clarification List - 10/18/2006 12:32:23 AM   
pak19652002

 

Posts: 280
Joined: 1/2/2005
Status: offline
Yes, please send. I am still wrestling with the best way to manage all this. I'm reading the questions and thinking about it. This new information will help. I don't want to spend a lot of time rewriting questions that have already been answered or that are obvious. I also want to prioritize the questions so that the most important ones get addressed first. I'm not qualified to do any of this, however, so I am probably going to get the document out, as ugly as it may be, early so you can look at it.

Peter

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 9
RE: Rules Clarification List - 10/18/2006 4:32:47 AM   
trees trees

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 6/6/2006
From: Manistee, MI
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
he answered me that he had other things cooking for the moment


COOL, a new Harry game? Yay!

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 10
RE: Rules Clarification List - 10/18/2006 11:43:12 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7894
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: trees trees
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
he answered me that he had other things cooking for the moment


COOL, a new Harry game? Yay!

I don't know.
I know there are reprints of countersheets, a new annual, and khaki in flames, I am not sure at all about the latest, but this was rumored to be a reprinting of all the CW counters in khaki instead of deep blue. It was a demand from the WiF FE Discussion list that Harry seems to have followed.

(in reply to trees trees)
Post #: 11
RE: Rules Clarification List - 10/18/2006 2:21:21 PM   
christo

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 11/24/2005
From: adelaide, australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: trees trees
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
he answered me that he had other things cooking for the moment


COOL, a new Harry game? Yay!

I don't know.
I know there are reprints of countersheets, a new annual, and khaki in flames, I am not sure at all about the latest, but this was rumored to be a reprinting of all the CW counters in khaki instead of deep blue. It was a demand from the WiF FE Discussion list that Harry seems to have followed.


If that is the case, should MWIF be khaki as well ? (ducks and runs for cover...)

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 12
RE: Rules Clarification List - 10/19/2006 8:56:18 AM   
Neilster


Posts: 2235
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: christo
If that is the case, should MWIF be khaki as well ? (ducks and runs for cover...)

It might be a good option. I'd play with it, despite the potential of a clash with some terrain, for the authentic feel of spiffing, khaki-clad chaps, often with stiff upper lips, hitting Jerry for six. Well....the Italians anyway. "Wizard show, old bean!"

That reminds me of an actual wartime headline. "British push bottles up Rommel's rear". Sounds nasty.

Cheers, Neilster


< Message edited by Neilster -- 10/19/2006 8:58:10 AM >

(in reply to christo)
Post #: 13
RE: Rules Clarification List - 10/19/2006 9:37:24 AM   
pak19652002

 

Posts: 280
Joined: 1/2/2005
Status: offline
I hope the counters are left just the way they are. Blue is one color I can see really well and another set of tan/khaki/green/yellow counters would push me over the edge! Why mess with the color anyway?

(in reply to Neilster)
Post #: 14
RE: Rules Clarification List - 10/19/2006 9:58:44 AM   
christo

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 11/24/2005
From: adelaide, australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pak19652002

I hope the counters are left just the way they are. Blue is one color I can see really well and another set of tan/khaki/green/yellow counters would push me over the edge! Why mess with the color anyway?


The problem does not seem to be so marked with the computer but with the board game it is somewhat difficult to differentiate the dark blue from the black numerals/ writing on the units

(in reply to pak19652002)
Post #: 15
RE: Rules Clarification List - 10/19/2006 9:22:25 PM   
mlees


Posts: 2261
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline
Think of it this way: Your sets with the blue CW units will become collector's item's! Woot! Ebay, here I come. My retirement is assured!

(in reply to christo)
Post #: 16
RE: Rules Clarification List - 10/19/2006 11:37:36 PM   
Zorachus99


Posts: 912
Joined: 9/15/2000
From: Palo Alto, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

Think of it this way: Your sets with the blue CW units will become collector's item's! Woot! Ebay, here I come. My retirement is assured!


You have noticed that those counters degrade faster than any others in the game? I usually end up buying new countersheets because of the CW counters degrade.

Of course I use putty on my counters to keep them from moving between gaming sessions.

_____________________________

Most men can survive adversity, the true test of a man's character is power. -Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to mlees)
Post #: 17
RE: Rules Clarification List - 10/20/2006 5:23:02 PM   
mlees


Posts: 2261
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline
quote:

You have noticed that those counters degrade faster than any others in the game?


Of course, you only have that problem if you actually have the space to set up the game.

All I have space for nowadays is to open the box and sniff the rulebook to bring back old memory's.

(in reply to Zorachus99)
Post #: 18
RE: Rules Clarification List - 12/19/2006 9:44:35 PM   
c92nichj


Posts: 440
Joined: 1/14/2005
Status: offline
ANother rule question.

What nationality is a notional unit that occupies a territory such as New caledonia?

In our current game New caledonia became part of Vichy france so that makes me believe that the notional is vichy french and hence is out of supply unless the axis can trace a supply path back to metropolitan vichy france.

Or is it new caledonian and always in supply in it's home territory?

(in reply to pak19652002)
Post #: 19
RE: Rules Clarification List - 12/19/2006 10:06:01 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7894
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: c92nichj
ANother rule question.

What nationality is a notional unit that occupies a territory such as New caledonia?

In our current game New caledonia became part of Vichy france so that makes me believe that the notional is vichy french and hence is out of supply unless the axis can trace a supply path back to metropolitan vichy france.

Or is it new caledonian and always in supply in it's home territory?

A notional unit that occupies an hex in New Caledonia is of New Caledonian nationality, so it draws it supply from any New Caledonian supply source. There are none, because there are no "friendly city in the unit’s unconquered home country".

As New Caledonia is a Minor country aligned to Vichy France, a New Caledonian notional could draw supply on "any friendly city in an unconquered home country of a major power the unit co-operates with". Minor country units only cooperate with their controller Major Power, so a New Caledonian notional can draw supply from a Vichy city in the Vichy Home Country.

So I think that you played it right.

(in reply to c92nichj)
Post #: 20
RE: Rules Clarification List - 12/19/2006 10:15:06 PM   
c92nichj


Posts: 440
Joined: 1/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: c92nichj
ANother rule question.

What nationality is a notional unit that occupies a territory such as New caledonia?

In our current game New caledonia became part of Vichy france so that makes me believe that the notional is vichy french and hence is out of supply unless the axis can trace a supply path back to metropolitan vichy france.

Or is it new caledonian and always in supply in it's home territory?

A notional unit that occupies an hex in New Caledonia is of New Caledonian nationality, so it draws it supply from any New Caledonian supply source. There are none, because there are no "friendly city in the unit’s unconquered home country".

As New Caledonia is a Minor country aligned to Vichy France, a New Caledonian notional could draw supply on "any friendly city in an unconquered home country of a major power the unit co-operates with". Minor country units only cooperate with their controller Major Power, so a New Caledonian notional can draw supply from a Vichy city in the Vichy Home Country.

So I think that you played it right.

But new caledonia is not a minor country but just a territory, as it does not have a capital city, that's why I thought the notional would be of Vichy nationality rather than New caledonian

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 21
RE: Rules Clarification List - 12/19/2006 10:46:45 PM   
Incy

 

Posts: 296
Joined: 10/25/2003
Status: offline
Notional is Metropolian Vichy french, because this is a territory. Unless there is a unit in the hex, in which case the notional is of the same nationality as the unit.

(in reply to c92nichj)
Post #: 22
RE: Rules Clarification List - 12/19/2006 11:12:50 PM   
Mziln


Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline
First: New Caledonia is a territory not a minor country.

AfA Option 10: Territorials belonging to a territory (e.g. Aden or New Caledonia) may be placed in any city or port in that territory.


Second: The notional unit is the same nationality as any major power or minor country with a real unit in the hex (owner’s choice if more than one). If there are no real units, it is the same nationality as the major power or minor country that controls the hex.

Third: Vichy France is a neutral major power run by the Axis major power that installed the Vichy government.

So it would have to trace back to Vichy if no other units were present.




< Message edited by Mziln -- 12/19/2006 11:22:23 PM >

(in reply to c92nichj)
Post #: 23
RE: Rules Clarification List - 12/20/2006 12:04:14 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7894
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln

First: New Caledonia is a territory not a minor country.

AfA Option 10: Territorials belonging to a territory (e.g. Aden or New Caledonia) may be placed in any city or port in that territory.


Second: The notional unit is the same nationality as any major power or minor country with a real unit in the hex (owner’s choice if more than one). If there are no real units, it is the same nationality as the major power or minor country that controls the hex.

Third: Vichy France is a neutral major power run by the Axis major power that installed the Vichy government.

So it would have to trace back to Vichy if no other units were present.

You're right, as New Caledonia is a Territory, as you quoted above, the notional is Vichy French.

(in reply to Mziln)
Post #: 24
RE: Rules Clarification List - 1/27/2007 12:46:22 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 17922
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
This topic came up previously but I am not sure we reached a consensus on it.

I am currently revising the DOW and alignment code so it writes entries out to the Game Record Log. This serves serveral purposes, the primary one, that is my reason for doing this now, is to separate the Player's decision making from the implementation of the results in the simulated game. For example, as the USSR player, you declare war on Iran/Persia. This event is recorded in the local game record log and it is also sent to other players (over the Internet or PBEM). Lastly, it is implemented in the local copy of the simulation. When the other players receive the transmission, their copy of the game record log and copy of the simulation are brought up-to-date. They also receive an informative message on the screen announcing the DOW.

The need/benefit of separating the player decision from the implementation should be clear: 1 player makes the decision, but every player's copy of the simulation is modified. This also enables me to have the code read from existing game record logs and modify the simulation/game. That is, to replay a game. As part of that, I am recording all the die rolls and the modifications to the die rolls in effect at the time of the event. And the probability of succees too. This way you can look back and see what your chances of success were, and how lucky/unlucky you were on die rolls.

The formats for all the decisions in MWIF I developed in detail in the last quarter of 2005. During the first half of 2006 I wrote routines to define the record log formats (turned text writeups into code), and transfer them into and out of simple string structures for transmission over the Internet/by email. In the second half of 2006 I started implementing the code that takes the value of game variables and transfers them into the records. Now I am completing that code and writing the last piece in this 5 piece process of taking game record log entries and updating the values of game variables.

Game variables 2-> game record log record format 3-> string 6-> transmission 7-> string 4-> game record log format 5-> game variables.

Step 1 was defining the game record log formats. They were 462 of them at my last count.
Step 6 and 7 are NetPlay (and EMPlay - PBEM). I have NetPlay code from Dan awaiting my incorporation into the main program.

========
My question:

Are alignment and DOW done simultaneously or sequentially?

Right now the program presents a list of countries that a major power can align and a second list that he can DOW on. It is up to the player to decide which to do first. Once a major power has decided on both, then another major power on the same side gets to decide on DOW and aligning countries.

How much latitude should the players have in determining the order in which these decisions are made? Does the CW know the results of the US DOW attempt(s) before making his decisions? Should one major power be allowed to align a country, then wait to see how another major power on the same side makes out in aligning a country before deciding about DOW? The reason this comes up is that both DOW and alignments can affect US Entry levels so the order can have significant effects.

I have no personal preference/bias here. I just want to code it so it executes correctly (in accordance with RAW).

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 25
RE: Rules Clarification List - 1/27/2007 3:38:02 AM   
Jimm


Posts: 574
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: York, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL:

Are alignment and DOW done simultaneously or sequentially?



Not sure I follow the coding issue you have Steve but from a game play position I would say sequential, reason being this is how it follows when you play the game with cardboard. You do- then once done is done, and devil take you if you get it wrong way round....




(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 26
RE: Rules Clarification List - 1/27/2007 4:10:10 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7894
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Are alignment and DOW done simultaneously or sequentially?

Right now the program presents a list of countries that a major power can align and a second list that he can DOW on. It is up to the player to decide which to do first. Once a major power has decided on both, then another major power on the same side gets to decide on DOW and aligning countries.

How much latitude should the players have in determining the order in which these decisions are made? Does the CW know the results of the US DOW attempt(s) before making his decisions? Should one major power be allowed to align a country, then wait to see how another major power on the same side makes out in aligning a country before deciding about DOW? The reason this comes up is that both DOW and alignments can affect US Entry levels so the order can have significant effects.

I have no personal preference/bias here. I just want to code it so it executes correctly (in accordance with RAW).

Relevant rule is 9.

DoWs must be made before Alignements, because they are 2 different paragraphs in RAW, and that RAW is written in sequence of play order (See 1.1 -- things written before other things, are done in that order). DoWs are described in 9.2, 9.3, 9.4 (US), 9.5 (Neutrality Pacts), 9.6 (reserves), 9.7. Aligning countries is described in 9.8, with only 1 alignement per major power.

So :
1) DoWs are announced (9.2). First are announced all DoWs against Major Powers (9.2), then all DoWs against Minor Countries (9.2).
2) All US Entry rolls for all DoWs are made (9.2).
3) USA makes its DoW (9.4).
4) Breaking of Neutrality pacts and ensuying DoWs (9.5).
5) Reserves are called for eligible countries (9.6).
6) Control of minor countries is decided, and its armed forces are set up (9.7).
7) Minors are aligned, maximum 1 per major power per DoW phase (9.8).

In step 1), I think that all DoW are announced (selected in dialog boxes), not secretly. As players don't know the US entry result of each other's DoWs, as they are made in step 2), I see no problem in having all DoW being coordinated between major powers on the same side. That is, if the CW check the box to DoW Persia for example, and that the Russian player make this too thereafter, all players should have the opportunity to review each others' DoWs and decide to not make some of their DoWs that they do not wish to make anymore now that they know that their ally will make it too.
Except US DoW who are clearly announced in step 3) of my list, that is after all doWs have been announced and rolled for, but before Neutrality pact are checked to be broken and ensuying DoWs made.
Same for alignements, I think that they can be coordinated between players. A player should be able to review all of his allies alignements and still decide on his own alignements in consequence.

I've written to Harry a while back (october 2006) about whether US DoWs results were known for other countries DoWs, and here is what he answered :
*****************************
Gidday Patrice,

Good question, the way we play (I think) is that we don't know the results of the US entry rolls before we make our declarations of war.

Regards
Harry

> The question is :
>
> If the Neutral USA are amongst the countries declaring their wars, do the
> other Major Power "know" the result of the USA attempt to declare war
> before announcing their declaration of war, or not ?

*****************************

You can ask him again because this answer ("the way we play (I think) is that") may seems not very firm, but the RAW seems to support what he says.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 27
RE: Rules Clarification List - 1/27/2007 4:21:39 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 17922
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimm
quote:

ORIGINAL:

Are alignment and DOW done simultaneously or sequentially?



Not sure I follow the coding issue you have Steve but from a game play position I would say sequential, reason being this is how it follows when you play the game with cardboard. You do- then once done is done, and devil take you if you get it wrong way round....

Ok. DOW (9.6) by every major power on the phasing side and then Aligning countries (9.8) by the same group. These should be completely separate phases, with pDeclareWar preceding pAlign.

The problem was whether the consequences of a US attempted DOW was rolled for before or after the other Allied major powers DOW. For example, the US attempts to declare war on Japan, does the CW know whether the US succeeded before deciding to DOW on Japan too in the same impulse? If the CW goes first, do the resulting US Entry effects occur before the US declares war? Can the Allied players choose whether the US or CW DOW's first?

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Jimm)
Post #: 28
RE: Rules Clarification List - 1/27/2007 4:39:36 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 17922
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Are alignment and DOW done simultaneously or sequentially?

Right now the program presents a list of countries that a major power can align and a second list that he can DOW on. It is up to the player to decide which to do first. Once a major power has decided on both, then another major power on the same side gets to decide on DOW and aligning countries.

How much latitude should the players have in determining the order in which these decisions are made? Does the CW know the results of the US DOW attempt(s) before making his decisions? Should one major power be allowed to align a country, then wait to see how another major power on the same side makes out in aligning a country before deciding about DOW? The reason this comes up is that both DOW and alignments can affect US Entry levels so the order can have significant effects.

I have no personal preference/bias here. I just want to code it so it executes correctly (in accordance with RAW).

Relevant rule is 9.

DoWs must be made before Alignements, because they are 2 different paragraphs in RAW, and that RAW is written in sequence of play order (See 1.1 -- things written before other things, are done in that order). DoWs are described in 9.2, 9.3, 9.4 (US), 9.5 (Neutrality Pacts), 9.6 (reserves), 9.7. Aligning countries is described in 9.8, with only 1 alignement per major power.

So :
1) DoWs are announced (9.2). First are announced all DoWs against Major Powers (9.2), then all DoWs against Minor Countries (9.2).
2) All US Entry rolls for all DoWs are made (9.2).
3) USA makes its DoW (9.4).
4) Breaking of Neutrality pacts and ensuying DoWs (9.5).
5) Reserves are called for eligible countries (9.6).
6) Control of minor countries is decided, and its armed forces are set up (9.7).
7) Minors are aligned, maximum 1 per major power per DoW phase (9.8).

In step 1), I think that all DoW are announced (selected in dialog boxes), not secretly. As players don't know the US entry result of each other's DoWs, as they are made in step 2), I see no problem in having all DoW being coordinated between major powers on the same side. That is, if the CW check the box to DoW Persia for example, and that the Russian player make this too thereafter, all players should have the opportunity to review each others' DoWs and decide to not make some of their DoWs that they do not wish to make anymore now that they know that their ally will make it too.
Except US DoW who are clearly announced in step 3) of my list, that is after all doWs have been announced and rolled for, but before Neutrality pact are checked to be broken and ensuying DoWs made.
Same for alignements, I think that they can be coordinated between players. A player should be able to review all of his allies alignements and still decide on his own alignements in consequence.

I've written to Harry a while back (october 2006) about whether US DoWs results were known for other countries DoWs, and here is what he answered :
*****************************
Gidday Patrice,

Good question, the way we play (I think) is that we don't know the results of the US entry rolls before we make our declarations of war.

Regards
Harry

> The question is :
>
> If the Neutral USA are amongst the countries declaring their wars, do the
> other Major Power "know" the result of the USA attempt to declare war
> before announcing their declaration of war, or not ?

*****************************

You can ask him again because this answer ("the way we play (I think) is that") may seems not very firm, but the RAW seems to support what he says.

Like ships in the night, our posts crossed over pitch-black sea.

I follow your logic but propose changing the label for your 4th step to: US rolls for attempted DOWs against Germany/Italy/Japan. That the US is going to make an attempt to DOW on one of the Axis major powers is done in step 1.

What I envision here are two different, but similar forms for Aligning countries and DOW. The form consists of a matrix with the phasing side's major powers as the columns and the target DOW/Align countries as the rows. Some of the cells will be blank (possible) some will be black (impossible). For example, the US might be able to DOW on Germany, but the CW can't because they are already at war.

On the side are check boxes for each major power on the phasing side: Proposed and Final. By clicking Proposed the MP lets other MPs review and enter their selections. By clicking Final, the MP says his decisions are final. Once all MPs have Final checked, the 1st step is complete.

At that point the program can performed steps 2 -> 4 by itself and only come back to the players for decisions if step 5 (reserves) or 6 (minors) require setting up units.

Aligning countries would proceed in the same manner.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 29
RE: Rules Clarification List - 1/27/2007 4:45:54 AM   
Mziln


Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline

Yup, Sequential. MWiF is probably safer for the players because it shows which minors you can align before you accidentally DOW them.


9. Declaring war
All major powers on this side announce which major powers on the other side they are declaring war on this impulse. They then all announce which neutral minor countries they are declaring war on this impulse.

9.8 Aligning minors
If a neutral minor can align with your major power (see 19.6, 19.7 and 19.8), you can declare that it is aligning with you. You can only declare one minor aligned with your major power in each friendly impulse.



13.3.1 Entry markers
The US entry level is changed by the entry markers you draw. You will have an entry level against Japan and another against Germany and Italy. This is explained in 9.4.

Only you will know your entry levels, although your opponents will make guesses based on the entry options you choose and may learn some information from intelligence operations (option 63: see 22.1).

You can look at your own markers after you have committed them to a particular entry pool but you can’t show them to anyone else (even on your own side).


< Message edited by Mziln -- 1/27/2007 4:58:46 AM >

(in reply to Jimm)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> Rules Clarification List Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.141