Matrix Games Forums

War in the West gets its first update!Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm version 2.08 is now available!Command gets huge update!Order of Battle: Pacific Featured on Weekly Streaming SessionA new fight for Battle Academy!Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager is out for Mac!The definitive wargame of the Western Front is out now! War in the West gets teaser trailer and Twitch Stream!New Preview AAR for War in the West!War in the West Manual preview
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: A few questions about the rules

 
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 >> RE: A few questions about the rules Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/16/2009 10:39:52 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7951
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sajbalk

Two new topics:

1. With unlimited divisional breakdown, are minors also given this ability?

2. Under RAW 5.1, if USSR DOW Hungary, GER may choose to receive another USSR oil or keep another GER build point per turn. Also under RAW 5.1 there is another section that states if GER aligns Hungary, the USSR gives GER one less resource per turn.

If the USSR DOW a neutral Hungary, which GER then aligns, how do these sections interact?



Why not asking this question to the rules discussion group too, where Harry could have his word ? I'd like t hear him about this issue.

(in reply to sajbalk)
Post #: 61
RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/17/2009 3:50:23 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 4746
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: sajbalk

Two new topics:

1. With unlimited divisional breakdown, are minors also given this ability?

2. Under RAW 5.1, if USSR DOW Hungary, GER may choose to receive another USSR oil or keep another GER build point per turn. Also under RAW 5.1 there is another section that states if GER aligns Hungary, the USSR gives GER one less resource per turn.

If the USSR DOW a neutral Hungary, which GER then aligns, how do these sections interact?



Why not asking this question to the rules discussion group too, where Harry could have his word ? I'd like t hear him about this issue.

Interesting. They appear contradictory but both effects can be implemented so that's what I'd do. I think as Germany I'd give up a resource and take an oil, and also I'd align Hungary to Italy.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 62
RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/17/2009 3:58:13 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 19318
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: sajbalk

Two new topics:

1. With unlimited divisional breakdown, are minors also given this ability?

2. Under RAW 5.1, if USSR DOW Hungary, GER may choose to receive another USSR oil or keep another GER build point per turn. Also under RAW 5.1 there is another section that states if GER aligns Hungary, the USSR gives GER one less resource per turn.

If the USSR DOW a neutral Hungary, which GER then aligns, how do these sections interact?



Why not asking this question to the rules discussion group too, where Harry could have his word ? I'd like t hear him about this issue.

Interesting. They appear contradictory but both effects can be implemented so that's what I'd do. I think as Germany I'd give up a resource and take an oil, and also I'd align Hungary to Italy.

Sort of makes DOWing Hungary a bad idea for the USSR.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 63
RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/17/2009 5:31:07 AM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 1847
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
Why Italy though?

If the Germans align it they can send in the dreaded 'peacekeepers' (in this case I like them) and passively fight Russians. Also they CAN break the pact, but they don't HAVE to.

As always, iirc

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 64
RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/17/2009 6:16:17 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 4746
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Why Italy though?

If the Germans align it they can send in the dreaded 'peacekeepers' (in this case I like them) and passively fight Russians. Also they CAN break the pact, but they don't HAVE to.

As always, iirc

Nice to have a good minor to serve as a new home country when Italy goes down - without the trouble you must go to in order to align Yugoslavia with Italy. Of course if there are a ton of Russians poised to come in, then Germany may be a better choice. The pact can be broken by Germany if Russians enter Hungary regardless of who Hungary is aligned with.

Anyway like Shannon said - a very bad idea for the USSR to do. Maybe Steve B. is preparing some wild new strategy like "No U.S. in Europe" for the upcoming Con.

It could be called the "No USSR in Europe" strategy.

< Message edited by paulderynck -- 7/17/2009 6:19:20 AM >


_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 65
RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/23/2009 11:12:33 AM   
Joseignacio


Posts: 1054
Joined: 5/8/2009
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline
Another one. I read in the RAW:

quote:

  
To trace a basic supply path overseas, the unit must be in a coastal hex or trace the path via a port. To trace a railway path overseas, the secondary source must be in a coastal hex or trace the path via a port.


We have lately been restricting the meaning of this rule to an HQ; but re-reading it, I can not see why not any other unit could not trace supply path all the same, as I think we used to play this in the past. Am I right?

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 66
RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/23/2009 11:22:01 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7951
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

Another one. I read in the RAW:

quote:

  
To trace a basic supply path overseas, the unit must be in a coastal hex or trace the path via a port. To trace a railway path overseas, the secondary source must be in a coastal hex or trace the path via a port.


We have lately been restricting the meaning of this rule to an HQ; but re-reading it, I can not see why not any other unit could not trace supply path all the same, as I think we used to play this in the past. Am I right?

Yes, why not, but keep in mind that :
- Normal unit only trace basic supply paths. They are maximum 4 hexes. But these 4 hexes can go through a port like this rule says.
- Only HQ can trace railway supply paths.

(in reply to Joseignacio)
Post #: 67
RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/23/2009 11:39:54 AM   
Joseignacio


Posts: 1054
Joined: 5/8/2009
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline
A-ha. that's why.  Thx.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 68
RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/23/2009 9:29:01 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 4746
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
Another tricky one:

Q: Can you trace a basic path across sea to an HQ on a coast and then a railway path overland to a supply source?

A: Yes but ONLY if the HQ is in a port.

The reason being "The port hex you trace the overseas supply path into does count against your 4 hex limit." In other words, the presence of an HQ on a coast does not make that hex into a port. However you can trace a basic path overland to an HQ on a coast and then trace a basic path from the HQ overseas to a port.

I have one opponent who continually forgets this fine distinction.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Joseignacio)
Post #: 69
RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/23/2009 10:41:42 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 19318
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Another tricky one:

Q: Can you trace a basic path across sea to an HQ on a coast and then a railway path overland to a supply source?

A: Yes but ONLY if the HQ is in a port.

The reason being "The port hex you trace the overseas supply path into does count against your 4 hex limit." In other words, the presence of an HQ on a coast does not make that hex into a port. However you can trace a basic path overland to an HQ on a coast and then trace a basic path from the HQ overseas to a port.

I have one opponent who continually forgets this fine distinction.

Couldn't the HQ act as a secondary supply source? If it could, then it could trace to a primary using a railway supply path.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 70
RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/23/2009 11:44:43 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 4746
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Another tricky one:

Q: Can you trace a basic path across sea to an HQ on a coast and then a railway path overland to a supply source?

A: Yes but ONLY if the HQ is in a port.

The reason being "The port hex you trace the overseas supply path into does count against your 4 hex limit." In other words, the presence of an HQ on a coast does not make that hex into a port. However you can trace a basic path overland to an HQ on a coast and then trace a basic path from the HQ overseas to a port.

I have one opponent who continually forgets this fine distinction.

Couldn't the HQ act as a secondary supply source? If it could, then it could trace to a primary using a railway supply path.

Only if it is in a port or within basic supply range less one from the port. You must trace overseas supply paths to a port. Of course you could trace to a port and then to an HQ as a secondary supply source, but the point of the example was that it is a mistake to think you can trace overseas directly to an HQ in a coastal hex if that hex does not contain a port. I guess the mistake is caused by being able to trace either a basic or RR path overseas from an HQ in a coastal hex that is not a port.

I have seen this come up in the Black Sea where other units on coastal hexes attempted to trace a basic path overseas to an HQ that was not in a port but on the coast. The weather was rain and the HQ was two hexes away from a port which indeed was connected by rail to a primary source. But the basic supply distance for the tracing units to get to the secondary supply source (the HQ) was greater than 2 and thus they were OOS even though the HQ could trace a valid RR path.

< Message edited by paulderynck -- 7/23/2009 11:51:18 PM >


_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 71
RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/23/2009 11:57:19 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 19318
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Another tricky one:

Q: Can you trace a basic path across sea to an HQ on a coast and then a railway path overland to a supply source?

A: Yes but ONLY if the HQ is in a port.

The reason being "The port hex you trace the overseas supply path into does count against your 4 hex limit." In other words, the presence of an HQ on a coast does not make that hex into a port. However you can trace a basic path overland to an HQ on a coast and then trace a basic path from the HQ overseas to a port.

I have one opponent who continually forgets this fine distinction.

Couldn't the HQ act as a secondary supply source? If it could, then it could trace to a primary using a railway supply path.

Only if it is in a port or within basic supply range less one from the port. You must trace overseas supply paths to a port. Of course you could trace to a port and then to an HQ as a secondary supply source, but the point of the example was that it is a mistake to think you can trace overseas directly to an HQ in a coastal hex if that hex does not contain a port. I guess the mistake is caused by being able to trace either a basic or RR path overseas from an HQ in a coastal hex that is not a port.

I have seen this come up in the Black Sea where other units on coastal hexes attempted to trace a basic path overseas to an HQ that was not in a port but on the coast. The weather was rain and the HQ was two hexes away from a port which indeed was connected by rail to a primary source. But the basic supply distance for the tracing units to get to the secondary supply source (the HQ) was greater than 2 and thus they were OOS even though the HQ could trace a valid RR path.

It seems to me that the presence of the HQ is irrelevant. The overseas supply path must end in a port. What happens after that is just the normal/other rules related to supply.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 72
RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/24/2009 5:48:18 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 4746
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

It seems to me that the presence of the HQ is irrelevant. The overseas supply path must end in a port. What happens after that is just the normal/other rules related to supply.

The overseas portion ends in a port. You may still have hexes left you can trace depending on the weather and how many hexes you traced before going overseas. We all know this.

I was merely attempting to illustrate an incorrect assumption I have witnessed concerning the asymmetry of having an HQ on a coastal hex for supply tracing purposes.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 73
RE: A few questions about the rules - 7/25/2009 3:13:02 AM   
Neilster


Posts: 2298
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline
This is why MWiF is going to be so much fun to play. We will no longer have that nagging feeling that we're not doing something right and we will no longer have to keep all those administrative balls in the air. Instead, we can concentrate on the interesting strategic, operational and grand-tactical stuff.

Cheers, Neilster

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 74
RE: A few questions about the rules - 8/1/2009 1:32:30 PM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1684
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline
 
This is an attempt, for me, to get a clarification of the rules and not an attempt to bash them.
 
 
Lets say I’m wrong on Aligning Minor Powers and use the RAW.
 
 
I have stated you can only "align" the following:
 
Axis minor countries that can be aligned: Argentina, Bulgaria, Finland, Hungary, Rumania, Persia and Iraq, Siam, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, and Yugoslavia.

Allied minor countries that can be aligned: Brazil, Bulgaria, Central America, Mexico, Mongolia, and Yugoslavia.

 
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: WiFFE-RAW-7.o.pdf

 
In every other case, when one or more major powers declare war on a minor country, choose an active major power on the other side to align with it.
 
If there is more than one eligible major power, offer the minor to the major power whose capital city is closest to the minor’s capital (any home country in the case of the Commonwealth). If it declines, offer it to the next closest, and so on.
 
If every eligible major power declines, the minor (and all its controlled minors and territories) is immediately conquered by the attacking major power (see 13.7.1).
 

 
But…
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: WiFFE-RAW-7.o.pdf

 
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.
 
Your major power controls a minor that aligns with it exactly as if another major power had declared war on it.
 

 
When the U.S. and U.S.S.R are neutral major powers and the CW and France are the only active major powers.
 
 
This would mean that the CW could align one (1) minor power and France could align one (1) minor power.
 
 
Does this mean when Germany DOWs more than two (2) neutral minor powers.
 
Any DOWed minor power not aligned by the CW or France would be immediately compleatly conquered by Germany?
 


_____________________________

University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)

(in reply to Neilster)
Post #: 75
RE: A few questions about the rules - 8/1/2009 2:35:59 PM   
sajbalk


Posts: 264
Joined: 7/11/2005
From: Davenport, Iowa
Status: offline
The restriction on alignments per impulse is for countries that may be aligned in the absence of an enemy DOW, i.e. Finland, Bulgaria, Rumania, etc. for Germany.

If a minor is DOWed, a Major Power may take control of unlimited minors in an impulse.

That is, during your impulse, 1 per MP; during your opponent's impulse: umlimited per MP (but only possible by enemy DOW).

I make the distinction under 19.2 that a minor may enter the war by alignment or by a major power DOW. I think an interpretation that simultaneous Allied DOWs on Spain, Portugal, Norway, Sweden, Argentina, etc. would mean that all but 3 are conquered because they cannot be aligned is silly.

Honestly, I have never had this question come up, and I agree the designer could have used clearer language (i.e. "except in response to an Allied DOW" in the last sentence of 19.7 and "except in response to an Axis DOW" in the last sentence of 19.8.

I am hopeful the designer hasl followed my interpretation of this language.



_____________________________

Steve Balk
Iowa, USA

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 76
RE: A few questions about the rules - 8/1/2009 2:41:18 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7951
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

 
This is an attempt, for me, to get a clarification of the rules and not an attempt to bash them.
 
 
Lets say I’m wrong on Aligning Minor Powers and use the RAW.
 
 
I have stated you can only "align" the following:
 
Axis minor countries that can be aligned: Argentina, Bulgaria, Finland, Hungary, Rumania, Persia and Iraq, Siam, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, and Yugoslavia.

Allied minor countries that can be aligned: Brazil, Bulgaria, Central America, Mexico, Mongolia, and Yugoslavia.

 
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: WiFFE-RAW-7.o.pdf

 
In every other case, when one or more major powers declare war on a minor country, choose an active major power on the other side to align with it.
 
If there is more than one eligible major power, offer the minor to the major power whose capital city is closest to the minor’s capital (any home country in the case of the Commonwealth). If it declines, offer it to the next closest, and so on.
 
If every eligible major power declines, the minor (and all its controlled minors and territories) is immediately conquered by the attacking major power (see 13.7.1).
 

 
But…
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: WiFFE-RAW-7.o.pdf

 
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.
 
Your major power controls a minor that aligns with it exactly as if another major power had declared war on it.
 

 
When the U.S. and U.S.S.R are neutral major powers and the CW and France are the only active major powers.
 
 
This would mean that the CW could align one (1) minor power and France could align one (1) minor power.
 
 
Does this mean when Germany DOWs more than two (2) neutral minor powers.
 
Any DOWed minor power not aligned by the CW or France would be immediately compleatly conquered by Germany?
 


The limit of 1 alignement of minor country per impulse is for the align minor step only.

The D2.1 Declare war (RAW 9.) stage is composed multiple minor steps that are :
- DoW Major (RAW 9.2)
- DoW Minor (RAW 9.2)
- US Entry (RAW 9.4)
- Neutrality Pacts (RAW 9.5)
- Call out reserves (RAW 9.6)
- Setup attacked minor's unit (RAW 9.7)
- Align Minor (RAW 9.8)

This is this last step (RAW 9.8) that is concerned by the limitation to 1 alignement per major power per impulsen, as specified in (RAW 9.8). The only Minor Countries that can be aligned during this step are detailed in RAW 19.6, 19.7, 19.8 that you listed in your post.

There are no limits to the number of countries that can be declared war in the first 2 steps (DoW Major & DoW Minor described in RAW 9.2), and so no limits on the number of countries that can align to a major due to these DoWs. Except during the first 2 impulses of the game (see RAW 9.3).

If Germany declares war to Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium in impulse 4 of the Global War scenarion, then the CW may align them all if they want. If they had the necessary conditions to align one of the RAW 19.6, 19.7, 19.8 minor countries, they could align 1 extra one during the last step of the DoW stage (RAW 9.8).

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 77
RE: A few questions about the rules - 8/1/2009 2:44:53 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7951
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sajbalk
Honestly, I have never had this question come up, and I agree the designer could have used clearer language (i.e. "except in response to an Allied DOW" in the last sentence of 19.7 and "except in response to an Axis DOW" in the last sentence of 19.8.

I am hopeful the designer hasl followed my interpretation of this language.



Steve, IMO RAW 9.8 is clear that the limitation is not on alignements that are consequences of DoWs. I don't think that the designer have made anything wrong, I think that people mix & confuse things because the same words (aligning) are used. But looking from where they come, everything is clear IMO.

IMO the designer is just in a logic where he tries to avoid redundencies and hopes to keep the rulebook less than 1,000 pages.

(in reply to sajbalk)
Post #: 78
RE: A few questions about the rules - 8/1/2009 6:37:46 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 19318
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: sajbalk
Honestly, I have never had this question come up, and I agree the designer could have used clearer language (i.e. "except in response to an Allied DOW" in the last sentence of 19.7 and "except in response to an Axis DOW" in the last sentence of 19.8.

I am hopeful the designer hasl followed my interpretation of this language.



Steve, IMO RAW 9.8 is clear that the limitation is not on alignements that are consequences of DoWs. I don't think that the designer have made anything wrong, I think that people mix & confuse things because the same words (aligning) are used. But looking from where they come, everything is clear IMO.

IMO the designer is just in a logic where he tries to avoid redundencies and hopes to keep the rulebook less than 1,000 pages.

I had a lot of trouble figuring out the precise rules for the DOW phase, but this was not a point of confusion for me.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 79
RE: A few questions about the rules - 8/2/2009 2:05:20 AM   
doctormm


Posts: 124
Joined: 5/28/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: sajbalk
Honestly, I have never had this question come up, and I agree the designer could have used clearer language (i.e. "except in response to an Allied DOW" in the last sentence of 19.7 and "except in response to an Axis DOW" in the last sentence of 19.8.

I am hopeful the designer hasl followed my interpretation of this language.



Steve, IMO RAW 9.8 is clear that the limitation is not on alignements that are consequences of DoWs. I don't think that the designer have made anything wrong, I think that people mix & confuse things because the same words (aligning) are used. But looking from where they come, everything is clear IMO.

IMO the designer is just in a logic where he tries to avoid redundencies and hopes to keep the rulebook less than 1,000 pages.

I had a lot of trouble figuring out the precise rules for the DOW phase, but this was not a point of confusion for me.


It should not be much of an issue, seeing as 9.8 says "You can only declare one minor aligned with your major power in each friendly impulse" and the provisions of 19.7 and 19.8 are applicable only in friendly impulses as well.


(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 80
RE: A few questions about the rules - 9/4/2009 3:07:18 PM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1684
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline
This has got me a little confused so please no Yes/No answers without an explanation.


quote:

ORIGINAL: 9.9 Multiple states of war

A unit may not enter or attack a hex (or units therein) controlled by a major power on the other side that it isn’t at war with. However it can attack a hex controlled by an enemy major power or minor country even if the hex contains units it is not at war with.

In attacking such a hex, you must fight all units there, but both sides ignore the fact that you may not be at war with all of them. This means that each side could fly air missions to the hex and use shore bombardment etc. as if they were all at war.

Example 1: There are 2 Commonwealth land units and a face-down LND in Nice. Italy declares war on France and wants to attack Nice. Italian aircraft ground strike the hex. They can be intercepted by Commonwealth (but not French ~ see 18) fighters. Both the Commonwealth and Italy can fl y aircraft in ground support to the hex.

If the Italians win the combat and advance into the hex, the face-down Commonwealth LND will be destroyed. Commonwealth units will no be able to counter attack to recapture the hex (unless they declare war on Italy) because they can’t attack a hex controlled by a major power they aren’t at war with.



In “Example 1” does this mean France controls Nice…

The CW units have permission to be in Nice, or
The CW units are in Nice and are subject to the “Foreign troop commitments” rule, or
Its an exmple and doesn't matter.



In “Example 1” if the CW controls Nice are the Italians able to attack Nice?



Major power A and major power B are not at war.

Major power A DoW’s a minor power.

Major power B aligns/controls the minor power.

Would major power A still be able to attack the minor power without DoW’ing major power B?


_____________________________

University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)

(in reply to doctormm)
Post #: 81
RE: A few questions about the rules - 9/4/2009 4:01:39 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 1847
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
In Example 1, yes the French control the hex. Yes the CW is subject to Foreign Troop Commitment; recall though that a CW HQ can be anywhere in France to make that work. The CW could only control Nice after recapturing it from Axis control in any of a variety of possible situations. If it was a CW controlled hex the Italians could attack it if they were at war with the CW.

Yes, Major Power A can always attack a minor country it declared war on, regardless of which Major Power on the other side chose to align it. Only active Major Powers may align a minor country, with the exception of Poland on the first impulse which automatically aligns with the CW.

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 82
RE: A few questions about the rules - 9/4/2009 4:02:17 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2375
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline
In Example 1 as cited:

(1) From context, France is assumed to control Nice (this ought to be spelled out explicitly; however it isn't and there's not much we can do about that).
(2) The CW units are in Nice and are subject to foreign troop commitment.

If, on the other hand, the CW controlled Nice, in example 1 as cited since Italy only declared war on France it would be unable to attack Nice.


As for your more general question I hope this answer helps: Yes, major power A can attack the minor power it declared war on even if it is not at war with major power B.

Concrete example: USSR declares war on Finland in July/August 1940 after its borderlands claims are rejected.

Finland is aligned/controlled by Germany.

USSR is not at war with Germany.

USSR may still attack Finnish hexes without declaring war on Germany.

I hope that clears things up - clear as mud anyway!

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 83
RE: A few questions about the rules - 9/4/2009 6:56:43 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 19318
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

In Example 1 as cited:

(1) From context, France is assumed to control Nice (this ought to be spelled out explicitly; however it isn't and there's not much we can do about that).
(2) The CW units are in Nice and are subject to foreign troop commitment.

If, on the other hand, the CW controlled Nice, in example 1 as cited since Italy only declared war on France it would be unable to attack Nice.


As for your more general question I hope this answer helps: Yes, major power A can attack the minor power it declared war on even if it is not at war with major power B.

Concrete example: USSR declares war on Finland in July/August 1940 after its borderlands claims are rejected.

Finland is aligned/controlled by Germany.

USSR is not at war with Germany.

USSR may still attack Finnish hexes without declaring war on Germany.

I hope that clears things up - clear as mud anyway!

I think this is partially relevant.
---
Here's something that I had to fix recently (provided by the beta testers): a german sub is stacked in an Italian port with many Italian ships. The CW declares war on Italy and launches a port attack using carrier air units (actual carrier air units and not temporary ones, since the optional rule for carrier air units is being used). The Italians can not intercept even though they are at already war with the French, because they are surprised by the CW. If the French had joined with the CW in the attack, then the Italians could send up their fighters to intercept. A nearby German fighter can intercept because they are at war with the CW already. However, that is only because there is a German sub in the port. Without the presence of the German sub, they would not be allowed to help the surprised Italian fleet. Depending on the die rolls for naval combat surprise (since this is a port attack) the Axis may be able to avoid the combat entirely. But if they do not have enough surprise points to do that, then there may be an air-to-air combat in which they can use surprise points to assist the German fighter. Or they could save their surprise points and use them for column shifts in either the anti-aircraft subphase or when the port attack "goes in". Now the Italians can use their anti-aircraft division that is adjacent to the attacked port, even though they are surprised, and in combination with the atacked ships AA there will always be an anti-aircraft subphase, though the strength of the defending AA will be halved because they are surprised. Note that if a German AA unit were available, or if any German ships in the port had AA, then the German units would not have their AA halved. This is all preliminary to the actual port attack combat results and returning the various air units back to base. Writing the code to deal with this kind of stuff is where I spend most of my time.


_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 84
RE: A few questions about the rules - 9/4/2009 8:55:04 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 1847
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
no one who has played a lot of WiF has any illusions about coding all of the possibilities created in the rules I wouldn't think.

The Italians could intercept the mission Steve mentions if any land-based CW planes were participating and flew from or over French hexes though.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 85
RE: A few questions about the rules - 9/7/2009 8:24:51 AM   
Joseignacio


Posts: 1054
Joined: 5/8/2009
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

In Example 1 as cited:

(1) From context, France is assumed to control Nice (this ought to be spelled out explicitly; however it isn't and there's not much we can do about that).
(2) The CW units are in Nice and are subject to foreign troop commitment.

If, on the other hand, the CW controlled Nice, in example 1 as cited since Italy only declared war on France it would be unable to attack Nice.


As for your more general question I hope this answer helps: Yes, major power A can attack the minor power it declared war on even if it is not at war with major power B.

Concrete example: USSR declares war on Finland in July/August 1940 after its borderlands claims are rejected.

Finland is aligned/controlled by Germany.

USSR is not at war with Germany.

USSR may still attack Finnish hexes without declaring war on Germany.

I hope that clears things up - clear as mud anyway!

I think this is partially relevant.
---
Here's something that I had to fix recently (provided by the beta testers): a german sub is stacked in an Italian port with many Italian ships. The CW declares war on Italy and launches a port attack using carrier air units (actual carrier air units and not temporary ones, since the optional rule for carrier air units is being used). The Italians can not intercept even though they are at already war with the French, because they are surprised by the CW. If the French had joined with the CW in the attack, then the Italians could send up their fighters to intercept. A nearby German fighter can intercept because they are at war with the CW already. However, that is only because there is a German sub in the port. Without the presence of the German sub, they would not be allowed to help the surprised Italian fleet. Depending on the die rolls for naval combat surprise (since this is a port attack) the Axis may be able to avoid the combat entirely. But if they do not have enough surprise points to do that, then there may be an air-to-air combat in which they can use surprise points to assist the German fighter. Or they could save their surprise points and use them for column shifts in either the anti-aircraft subphase or when the port attack "goes in". Now the Italians can use their anti-aircraft division that is adjacent to the attacked port, even though they are surprised, and in combination with the atacked ships AA there will always be an anti-aircraft subphase, though the strength of the defending AA will be halved because they are surprised. Note that if a German AA unit were available, or if any German ships in the port had AA, then the German units would not have their AA halved. This is all preliminary to the actual port attack combat results and returning the various air units back to base. Writing the code to deal with this kind of stuff is where I spend most of my time.



Phew! What a brainsmasher. I hope u don't have too many of these...

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 86
RE: A few questions about the rules - 9/17/2009 2:19:29 AM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1684
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline
The Pions-WiF-AiF-PatiF Excell spreadsheet lists CVP

Yr1 Sz1
Yr2 Sz2
Yr3 Sz3

Are these the years and adjusted sizes for CVP?

For a French F3F would:
Yr1 ~ 1933 be the initial year for the CVP size and Sz1 ~ Orange 2 be the initial size.
Yr2 ~ 1935 be the year the CVP size changed and Sz2 ~ Lt Blue 1 be the adjusted size.


_____________________________

University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)

(in reply to Joseignacio)
Post #: 87
RE: A few questions about the rules - 9/17/2009 4:45:39 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 19318
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

The Pions-WiF-AiF-PatiF Excell spreadsheet lists CVP

Yr1 Sz1
Yr2 Sz2
Yr3 Sz3

Are these the years and adjusted sizes for CVP?

For a French F3F would:
Yr1 ~ 1933 be the initial year for the CVP size and Sz1 ~ Orange 2 be the initial size.
Yr2 ~ 1935 be the year the CVP size changed and Sz2 ~ Lt Blue 1 be the adjusted size.


I think this should answer your question, taken from the Players Manual Section 8, Player Interface, Forms.
===




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 88
RE: A few questions about the rules - 9/17/2009 8:29:40 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7951
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

The Pions-WiF-AiF-PatiF Excell spreadsheet lists CVP

Yr1 Sz1
Yr2 Sz2
Yr3 Sz3

Are these the years and adjusted sizes for CVP?

For a French F3F would:
Yr1 ~ 1933 be the initial year for the CVP size and Sz1 ~ Orange 2 be the initial size.
Yr2 ~ 1935 be the year the CVP size changed and Sz2 ~ Lt Blue 1 be the adjusted size.


Yes, this is right.
1933 is also what appears in the "year" column, as this is the year when it enters the force pool.

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 89
RE: A few questions about the rules - 10/22/2009 2:35:08 AM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1684
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline

quote:

Effect of neutrality pacts
After you enter into a neutrality pact with a major power, units controlled by other major powers on your side cannot enter hexes that are part of your common border with that major power if they are at war with that other major power. If they are in the common border already, move them immediately to the nearest friendly hex not in the common border in which they can legally stack.
Your common border with another major power consists of every hex you (or your aligned minor countries) control within 3 hexes and/or hexdots of a hex controlled by the other major power (or its aligned minor countries).


Do I understand this right?

A common border is established between the major powers entering into the neutrality pact.

This
common border consists of every hex the involved major powers (or their aligned minor countries) control within 3 hexes and/or hexdots of each other.

Any units controlled by other major powers that are at war with major powers that have entered into a neutrality pact cannot enter this common border in any way.

If they are in the common border already, move them immediately to the nearest friendly hex not in the common border in which they can legally stack.


_____________________________

University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: A few questions about the rules Page: <<   < prev  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

0.137