Matrix Games Forums

New Screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTYCommand: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTY is now available!Frontline : The Longest Day Announced and in Beta!Command gets Wargame of the Year EditionDeal of the Week: Pandora SeriesPandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy
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  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: A few questions about the rules - 1/20/2010 9:03:46 AM   
Joseignacio


Posts: 975
Joined: 5/8/2009
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

I thought that for just some more blood there was already the "enhanced combat".

Well, Jose, the bounce rule predates the "enhanced combat" by a lot of years.
The bounce rule is an official optional rule that is in the rulebook since 2000 (RAW6), and the "enhanced combat" is just an Annual 2008's "house of rules" optional rule that came out last year.

The bounce rule was already "more fight / more blood" in its time, and the "enhanced combat" is for people that want again more "more fight / more blood".

There are a lot of people that complain that there are not enough looses in air to air combats, and that as a result of this there are too much air units on the map in the latter years of the game. The "enhanced combat" is for them.

My personal opinion is that Bounce combat is just fine, just enough "more fight / more blood" for my taste, and just enough unfairness added to air to air combat.


Ok, that clears my question that I just edited in my last post about enhanced. Thank you.

Anyway, it still remains the "fairness" matter. Of course, you can reject the optional, and of course sometimes you are Player 1 and sometimes Player 2, but I still think that the rules should be made as perfect as possible, and I think the combat is not balanced because of this:

quote:

Player 1 has advantage because whereas if Player 2 asks for a bouncing he gives inmediately another shot to Player 1, and he may get two or only one rounds in exchange, if it is Player 1 who asks for a bouncing after a player 2 "11" result, he does not suffer that penalty, both had their regular combat phase, and both have now the bouncing combat chance .



< Message edited by Joseignacio -- 1/20/2010 9:05:58 AM >

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 121
RE: A few questions about the rules - 1/20/2010 9:12:25 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7899
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

I thought that for just some more blood there was already the "enhanced combat".

Well, Jose, the bounce rule predates the "enhanced combat" by a lot of years.
The bounce rule is an official optional rule that is in the rulebook since 2000 (RAW6), and the "enhanced combat" is just an Annual 2008's "house of rules" optional rule that came out last year.

The bounce rule was already "more fight / more blood" in its time, and the "enhanced combat" is for people that want again more "more fight / more blood".

There are a lot of people that complain that there are not enough looses in air to air combats, and that as a result of this there are too much air units on the map in the latter years of the game. The "enhanced combat" is for them.

My personal opinion is that Bounce combat is just fine, just enough "more fight / more blood" for my taste, and just enough unfairness added to air to air combat.


Ok, that clears my question that I just edited in my last post about enhanced. Thank you.

Anyway, it still remains the "fairness" matter. Of course, you can reject the optional, and of course sometimes you are Player 1 and sometimes Player 2, but I still think that the rules should be made as perfect as possible, and I think the combat is not balanced because of this:

quote:

Player 1 has advantage because whereas if Player 2 asks for a bouncing he gives inmediately another shot to Player 1, and he may get two or only one rounds in exchange, if it is Player 1 who asks for a bouncing after a player 2 "11" result, he does not suffer that penalty, both had their regular combat phase, and both have now the bouncing combat chance .



The "fairness" argument IMO is moot, because a bounce combat is the result of you rolling a DC.
Rolling a DC means that you were so poor in air to air superiority, that the enemy bomber wing passed unharmed to its target.
So if you were so poor in air to air superiority, you might also suffer the consequences in air to air combat rather than with an enemy combat wing making it to your troops.

Also, air to air combat was everything but fair in reality, Bounce combat only add in some feel of what it was in reality : Every plane in the air is at risk of being shot down, and no plane is immune to that.

(in reply to Joseignacio)
Post #: 122
RE: A few questions about the rules - 1/20/2010 9:19:22 AM   
Joseignacio


Posts: 975
Joined: 5/8/2009
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: online
Yes, but my point is that both of the players (1 and 2) can get a 11 (poor superiority) but if it's Player 2 who gets an 11, then Player 1 gets more benefits (a regular shot + always a bounce shot against Player 2 regular shot + bounce shot), ...

... whereas if it's Player 1 who gets an 11 and Player 2 calls for a bouncing combat, then Player 1 still has two rounds but Player 2 may only have one if his (only) plane is shot down or aborted in the bouncing combat. That's what I think is unbalanced.



< Message edited by Joseignacio -- 1/20/2010 10:25:53 AM >

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 123
RE: A few questions about the rules - 1/20/2010 4:20:29 PM   
Blorsh


Posts: 19
Joined: 12/24/2009
Status: offline

I like bouncing combat, is not mandatory, so you have to judge to take the risk or not.

1 player gets an 11 so DC and the 2nd player has to choose, so if is not a good option continue with normal combat, but if you see a good chance you can gor for rear support fighters or bombers, but imagine that your planes are flying throught other planes to have the chance to destroy so is risky and they can be destroyed or aborted, so 2nd player can loose his regular roll if the involving plane was the front fighter, so if is toos risk no call bounce combat, but I see a good chance to destroy rear fighter and bombers.  A paratrooper or invasion mision are risky too, if you no win they are destroyed.

I see the bouncing combat as an inmediate opportunity, so I see correct to stop the regular air combat and insert the bouncing combat, is now or never, take your risk pilot. If the bouncing combats were after two player regular roll and the twoo player call a bounce combat, who is first?

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 124
RE: A few questions about the rules - 1/20/2010 9:39:49 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 4302
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

Yes, but my point is that both of the players (1 and 2) can get a 11 (poor superiority) but if it's Player 2 who gets an 11, then Player 1 gets more benefits (a regular shot + always a bounce shot against Player 2 regular shot + bounce shot), ...

... whereas if it's Player 1 who gets an 11 and Player 2 calls for a bouncing combat, then Player 1 still has two rounds but Player 2 may only have one if his (only) plane is shot down or aborted in the bouncing combat. That's what I think is unbalanced.



I think your example is "rigged" by having Player 2 with only one plane. Since Player 2 should know this risk, he should consider whether the Bounce is a good idea. But in certain situations (usually one plane on one), the Bounce is always a better choice because of the odds increase.

Besides, think of the perceived advantage for Player 1 as the defending player getting a little better result when the attacking player shoots poorly.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Joseignacio)
Post #: 125
RE: A few questions about the rules - 1/20/2010 9:45:24 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 4302
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ullern
I would give Player 2 that last dice roll, and that is what has happened every time my group has run into that situation.

But I might be playing it wrong because the rules are not perfectly clear. The general A2A combat rule says you get the second dice roll despite results Player 1 inflicts. But the FAQ says you recalculate the A2A combat values immediately after a bounce, and what exactly is your combat value with all your aircraft already shot down?

From my perspective it would just seem more logical that the regular dice roll is something that already happened, you just don't know the results yet, therefore the dice roll should not be modified. But we should hear the comments from the rules clarification group I think.


This was discussed in the Rules group and the viewpoint is that any time a plane is destroyed, aborted or cleared through, it is out of the combat, so in this case the air-to-air combat would end after the bouncing fighter was shot down or aborted. There would be no recalculation and no last shot.

This was not a ruling from Harry (who has not commented yet) - just the outcome of discussion there.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to ullern)
Post #: 126
RE: A few questions about the rules - 1/21/2010 9:33:35 AM   
Joseignacio


Posts: 975
Joined: 5/8/2009
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: online
Thanks for the info about the group interpretation and the explanation about the odds of the combat.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 127
RE: A few questions about the rules - 1/26/2010 11:50:23 AM   
christo

 

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

I am somewhat embarised about this rules query but will ask anyway. We are engaged in an aerial naval combat (be this a port attack or a regular naval air). There are some surprise points left to spend. After all air to air, some bombers are cleared through to attack. Implementation of these attack results are alternating. Attacker (a) then Defender (d) ie a/d/a/d/a/d etc etc. My question lies at the implemented order.
If the attacker had enough surprise points left to change the target of the second attack from the defender choice to the attacker ( thus making the order a/a) what happens then ? Does the attack continue in the predesignated order( thus making it a a/a/a/d/a/d/ etc etc) or is the order recalculated at he time thus making it a a/a/d/a/d/a ?
Also (along a similar line) what happens when different result types are implemeted. Does the entire cycle start anew or when results are changes from say a X to a D?
Thus an example would be
"X" a/d/a then "D" a/d/a
or
"x" a/d/a then "D" d/a/d

(in reply to Joseignacio)
Post #: 128
RE: A few questions about the rules - 1/26/2010 3:07:46 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2263
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline
I hope this addresses your questions:

(1) When an attacker (or defender) spends surprise points to pick a target, this does not change the sequence of target picking. So your order is a/a/a/d/a/d/ etc.

(2) The order does not reset for different types of damage. If you are scoring 3X 3D then the order is X(Att) X(Def) X(Att) D(Def) D(Att) D(Def) and so on for aborts.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to christo)
Post #: 129
RE: A few questions about the rules - 1/26/2010 6:10:54 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18355
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

I hope this addresses your questions:

(1) When an attacker (or defender) spends surprise points to pick a target, this does not change the sequence of target picking. So your order is a/a/a/d/a/d/ etc.

(2) The order does not reset for different types of damage. If you are scoring 3X 3D then the order is X(Att) X(Def) X(Att) D(Def) D(Att) D(Def) and so on for aborts.

Yes, I agree.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 130
RE: A few questions about the rules - 2/2/2010 11:51:06 AM   
Joseignacio


Posts: 975
Joined: 5/8/2009
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: online
Another one: when you add shore bombardment to an attack, you can only add a maximum of as many factors as the attacking land units have. From RaW:

quote:

  
Ignore any shore bombardment factors (after any reduction and halving) that exceed the total (modified) combat factors of the attacking land units. For instance, if you bombard with 5 shore bombardment factors but units totaling 7 factors are attacking across a river, you would only count 3.5 of the bombarding factors.



It means that the terrain effects are applied before the shore bombardment.

In the latest combat chart (FiF) 3d10, there is some "rule" where the effects of the terrain dissapear in some cases (I will write the exact text when I am back home this evening and can check the chart), ...

... my question comes after the attacks I suffered in Gibraltar (the german had aligned Franco), because I had built a fort to protect it, but then I was told that the fort is part of the "terrain", just like a river or swamp and was cancelled by that rule. To support the consideration od "terrain" they showed me the printed fortresses at Maginot line.

So, is it a fort counter that you deploy in Gibraltar terrain or it is a building that modifies attacks but not terrain? I am for the second interpretation.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 131
RE: A few questions about the rules - 2/2/2010 5:24:40 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2263
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline
MWiF doesn't come with the 3d10 chart.

Is the issue on the terrain effects chart of the map or somewhere else in RAW?

Not to say that someone who knows what you're asking about can't or shouldn't help you. Just that it probably won't matter for MWiF 1.

There is, to my knowledge, no effect in RAW or on the terrain effects chart that eliminates the combat factor reduction of forts.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Joseignacio)
Post #: 132
RE: A few questions about the rules - 2/2/2010 7:13:17 PM   
Joseignacio


Posts: 975
Joined: 5/8/2009
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: online
Composer, I tried to explain myself the best that I could without the chart in my hands. And i posted it this morning because some mornings I have small breaks at work, which are not so usual after it, so I had to take advantage although I didn't have the chart at that moment.

Of course, it is not into MWIF, since MWIF is using a certain version of RAW but after it there is the FiF that came with the Annual. However, I understand this is a thread on the rules of WIF, not only MWIF.

Anyway, the 3d10 charts that come with the Annual, plus all the rest of the explanation were only there to explain the context (that under the FiF 3d10 table -option 2- the naval bombarment could be made up to the total of attacking factors unmodified by terrain- but modified by supply, offensive chits, ...)  but the question itself is the same under RAW, FiF or whatever: Is a fort "terrain" or is it something else that modifies the factors? Like supply does, amphibious assault, city, factories ...

Because I was told a fort is "terrain" and I don't think so.

< Message edited by Joseignacio -- 2/2/2010 7:16:33 PM >

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 133
RE: A few questions about the rules - 2/2/2010 11:21:30 PM   
Orm


Posts: 6197
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

Composer, I tried to explain myself the best that I could without the chart in my hands. And i posted it this morning because some mornings I have small breaks at work, which are not so usual after it, so I had to take advantage although I didn't have the chart at that moment.

Of course, it is not into MWIF, since MWIF is using a certain version of RAW but after it there is the FiF that came with the Annual. However, I understand this is a thread on the rules of WIF, not only MWIF.

Anyway, the 3d10 charts that come with the Annual, plus all the rest of the explanation were only there to explain the context (that under the FiF 3d10 table -option 2- the naval bombarment could be made up to the total of attacking factors unmodified by terrain- but modified by supply, offensive chits, ...)  but the question itself is the same under RAW, FiF or whatever: Is a fort "terrain" or is it something else that modifies the factors? Like supply does, amphibious assault, city, factories ...

Because I was told a fort is "terrain" and I don't think so.

In the 3d10 charts notes it says (my bolding):
"Attacking modifiers provided by individual units are affected by terrain (rivers, forts, invasion, etc.) in the same manner as their combat factors (ex. halved across rivers)."

To me that shows that forts are considered terrain.

If you play with the 3d10 option 2 (Advanced shore bombardment and ground support) the maximum support you can use are the total combat factors unmodified by terrain. But on the other hand the maximum support in a non city hex is half and in a city it is quarter of the attacking/defending strength. (Invading units are calculated differently)

So if I read the rules correctly the attacking support is not modified (halved) by the fort (terrain) but since the rule says the maximum support should be halved in Gibraltar (since it is a non city hex) the result is the same. The only difference is the defenders support and for invading units but then again an invading unit would not have attacked across the fort hexside anyway.

< Message edited by Orm -- 2/2/2010 11:22:49 PM >


_____________________________

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is your Captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress. - Captain Eric Moody

(in reply to Joseignacio)
Post #: 134
RE: A few questions about the rules - 2/3/2010 8:39:57 AM   
Joseignacio


Posts: 975
Joined: 5/8/2009
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

Composer, I tried to explain myself the best that I could without the chart in my hands. And i posted it this morning because some mornings I have small breaks at work, which are not so usual after it, so I had to take advantage although I didn't have the chart at that moment.

Of course, it is not into MWIF, since MWIF is using a certain version of RAW but after it there is the FiF that came with the Annual. However, I understand this is a thread on the rules of WIF, not only MWIF.

Anyway, the 3d10 charts that come with the Annual, plus all the rest of the explanation were only there to explain the context (that under the FiF 3d10 table -option 2- the naval bombarment could be made up to the total of attacking factors unmodified by terrain- but modified by supply, offensive chits, ...)  but the question itself is the same under RAW, FiF or whatever: Is a fort "terrain" or is it something else that modifies the factors? Like supply does, amphibious assault, city, factories ...

Because I was told a fort is "terrain" and I don't think so.

In the 3d10 charts notes it says (my bolding):
"Attacking modifiers provided by individual units are affected by terrain (rivers, forts, invasion, etc.) in the same manner as their combat factors (ex. halved across rivers)."

To me that shows that forts are considered terrain.


For sure it does. I hadn-t read that part, if I had, the question would never had been posted. Thanks! This was in the other sheet and I hadn't noticed.

quote:


If you play with the 3d10 option 2 (Advanced shore bombardment and ground support) the maximum support you can use are the total combat factors unmodified by terrain. But on the other hand the maximum support in a non city hex is half and in a city it is quarter of the attacking/defending strength. (Invading units are calculated differently)

So if I read the rules correctly the attacking support is not modified (halved) by the fort (terrain) but since the rule says the maximum support should be halved in Gibraltar (since it is a non city hex) the result is the same. The only difference is the defenders support and for invading units but then again an invading unit would not have attacked across the fort hexside anyway.


Well, to explain this I should tell how this game options were selected. Every time we had a game the most experienced player in our group used to surprise us using some obscure optional rule that had not been selected or unselected especifically.

Because of this, now we try to select all the options carefully before the games. It took me 2 weeks (that weeks I was unusually busy, that's why) to find a list of the possible options, check anyway all the RaW references to options, ..., and decide.

Finally, there was a list of accepted options. In this list like 90% of the options where we disagreed I had finally got what I wanted; in exchange, he just wanted that we played with FiF.

I had previously played with FiF, but I always have a mess about which rules come with which expansion of the game, so I assumed FiF was about the factories' builds mainly. I prefer the old system but new one is not so bad, so I said "yes".

I had previously played with the 3d10 table and the rules that 50% of those that you lose in your own territory (in supply) while defending come back as production points, and although I like the fact that 3dices' results are more central than 2 dices, I don't like the results of the table, they are enforcing attacks too much (the Outcome). Of course, this is compensating a rule that I hate, the 50% "undead soldiers" rule which i mentioned before.

When I was told, at the beginning of the game, that FiF included all of these, which I thought were part of the Annual (didn't know Annual -that year- was FiF), we had to renegotiate again, because FiF is not an optional itself but a module which has several optionals included.

I did not accept the limits of 1/2 and 1/4 to bombardment in non-city and city, and we played like this, but then the attack to Gibraltar came, and I has previously fortified it as much as possible, because we play with the option that allows to align Spain and it's becaming pretty fashionable to invade Gibraltar inmediately from Africa (strait)m from Spain, with shore bombardment and with some stukas and some heavy artillery attacking from hexes that have no land connection.

I fortifed with good units, which were white, so that in case that they were flipped kept a value of 3 instead of 1 if they were unsupplied, built a fort and tried to have always ships supplying.

All was for nothing because the german player used half his luftwaffe, many elite troops, ..., his navy (mine was at port because it was the beginning of the turn), ..., and they took Gibraltar easily which made war in the mediterranean a nightmare for me, specially because he obviously had collapsed Vichy and he was moving his soldiers all along Northern Africa taking minors, unnoposed, while I had to fight back for each mile, with the disadvantage of having to bring every soldier and plane by ship from England or (later) the USA.

This may not have happened if he couldn't have added do much support from planes and ships because of my fort, because the "1/2 - 1/4 naval bombardment" optional rule was not accepted, so wether it was terrain or not had a decisive influence.

BTW, the German embarked in a ships and planes war in the Cape San Vincent, and some dilatory tactics in Northern Africa, which meant he had to make a lot of combined impulses even in good climate, which meant that he did not advance in the USSR front. Barely Kiev and Minsk (we are in summer 43), which has allowed the Russian to have a huge army in front. Now the advances are tiny in either side, I am afraid even if I (British) surrender the Italian and disembark in France, it´s almost impossible to win the german through automatic victory in time. The russian front has became a Sigfried/Maginot and he can easily make another Siegfried in France or Germany.

< Message edited by Joseignacio -- 2/3/2010 8:47:12 AM >

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 135
RE: A few questions about the rules - 1/24/2011 9:28:37 PM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1643
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline
24.4.7 The Global war: Sep/Oct 1939 ~ Jul/Aug 1945

Entry Markers: The US has 3 entry markers. Place them in either, or both, entry pools.


quote:

9.3 Compulsory declarations
Germany must declare war on Poland in the first impulse of any game that starts in Sep/Oct 1939. No major power may make any other declaration of war in that impulse.

France and the Commonwealth must declare war on Germany on their first impulse after Germany has declared war on Poland. No major power may make any other declarations of war in that impulse.



20. Germany declares war on Poland (12 Ge/It) (1 US entry chit added to the US entry pool (Ge/It) and an 20% chance a second US entry chit will be sdded to the US entry pool (Ge/It).

25. CW or France or both declare war on Germany (-9 Ge/It)

quote:

If both major powers declare war on the same major power in the same impulse, only roll once. In all other cases, roll once for each declaration of war. If it is an Axis declaration of war, any chits are placed in that Axis major power’s entry pool.


I would like to verify that the chits for 9.3 Compulsory declarations are added/removed to/from the inital entry markers.


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Joseignacio)
Post #: 136
RE: A few questions about the rules - 1/24/2011 10:55:01 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7899
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

24.4.7 The Global war: Sep/Oct 1939 ~ Jul/Aug 1945

Entry Markers: The US has 3 entry markers. Place them in either, or both, entry pools.


quote:

9.3 Compulsory declarations
Germany must declare war on Poland in the first impulse of any game that starts in Sep/Oct 1939. No major power may make any other declaration of war in that impulse.

France and the Commonwealth must declare war on Germany on their first impulse after Germany has declared war on Poland. No major power may make any other declarations of war in that impulse.



20. Germany declares war on Poland (12 Ge/It) (1 US entry chit added to the US entry pool (Ge/It) and an 20% chance a second US entry chit will be sdded to the US entry pool (Ge/It).

25. CW or France or both declare war on Germany (-9 Ge/It)

quote:

If both major powers declare war on the same major power in the same impulse, only roll once. In all other cases, roll once for each declaration of war. If it is an Axis declaration of war, any chits are placed in that Axis major power’s entry pool.


I would like to verify that the chits for 9.3 Compulsory declarations are added/removed to/from the inital entry markers.


The DoWs that Germany makes on Poland, and the Dows that CW & France make on Germany are all rolled for US Entry.

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 137
RE: A few questions about the rules - 1/25/2011 10:51:02 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 4302
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
Which means if the US does not place at least one chit in the GE-IT pool to start the game, it is possible for the US to lose the ability to DoW Germany and Italy.

Most US players I've seen will place all 3 chits in the GE-IT pool.


_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 138
RE: A few questions about the rules - 3/22/2011 10:36:50 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18355
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
This is why debugging naval movement has taken me 6 months.
===
Naval Movement Overview
(as of March 22, 2011)

There are 5 places in the sequence of play where naval units can move:
A. Naval movement phase.
A.1 From a port to a sea area.
A.2 From a sea area to a port.
A.3 Within a sea area, to a lower section box.
B. Return to base phases, from a sea area to a port.
C. Forced rebase due to the control of a port changing sides (e.g., overrun , conquest), from a port to a port.
D. Forced or voluntary return to base from a naval combat, from a sea area to a port.
E. Return to base by French naval units at sea during the formation of Vichy France, from a sea area to a port.

• Only A uses naval activities, and even then only when the major power owning the naval units took a Combined action.
• Only A.1 and A.3 permit a naval unit to end its move in a sea area. All the others must end in a port.
• Only A.1 permits loading a unit in port at the start of a naval move.
• Only A.1 permits loading a unit at sea at the end of a naval move.
• Only A.1, A.2, and B permit loading a unit in a port while “passing through”.
• Only A.1 permits dropping off naval units in a sea area (using Ctrl-Left-Click). However, this can only be done if there are sufficient naval activities available.
• A.1, A.2, B, C, and D all permit dropping off naval units in a port (using Ctrl-Left-Click). However, during A.1 this can only be done if there are sufficient naval activities available.
• For all moves except A.3 and E the player can specify which sea areas and ports the units traverse (using Ctrl-Left-Click).
• All except A.3 and E can be intercepted by enemy units.
• All naval moves in progress can be cancelled, unless units in the moving stack were previously dropped off, or the moving stack entered a sea area where it could be intercepted (regardless of whether it was or not).
• All completed naval moves can be undone, unless units in the moving stack were previously dropped off, or since the move was completed, any moving stack entered a sea area where it could be intercepted (regardless of whether it was or not).

Resolving interceptions of naval movement has the following logic branches:
1. Interception not attempted
1.1 All units continue moving (future movement by the units cannot be cancelled).
1.2 All units stop in the sea area (during A.1, loading units is possible).
1.3. Some units stop and others continue moving. During A.1 this is only possible if sufficient naval activities are available.
2. Interception attempted
2.1 Interception failed
2.1.1 All units continue moving (future movement by the units cannot be cancelled).
2.1.2 All units stop in the sea area (during A.1, loading units is possible).
2.1.3. Some units stop and others continue moving. During A.1 this is only possible if sufficient naval activities are available.
2.2 Interception succeeded
2.2.1 All units stop in the sea area.
2.2.2 All units “fight through”.
2.2.2.1 All units destroyed in naval combat
2.2.2.2 Combat resolved to quiescence and some moving naval units survive.
2.2.2.2.1 All surviving units continue moving (future movement by the units cannot be cancelled).
2.2.2.1.2 All surviving units stop in the sea area (during A.1, loading units is possible).
2.2.2.1.3. Some units stop and others continue moving. During A.1 this is only possible if sufficient naval activities are available.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 139
RE: A few questions about the rules - 3/23/2011 3:37:04 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7899
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

This is why debugging naval movement has taken me 6 months.
===
Naval Movement Overview
(as of March 22, 2011)

There are 5 places in the sequence of play where naval units can move:
A. Naval movement phase.
A.1 From a port to a sea area.
A.2 From a sea area to a port.
A.3 Within a sea area, to a lower section box.
B. Return to base phases, from a sea area to a port.
C. Forced rebase due to the control of a port changing sides (e.g., overrun , conquest), from a port to a port.
D. Forced or voluntary return to base from a naval combat, from a sea area to a port.
E. Return to base by French naval units at sea during the formation of Vichy France, from a sea area to a port.

• Only A uses naval activities, and even then only when the major power owning the naval units took a Combined action.
• Only A.1 and A.3 permit a naval unit to end its move in a sea area. All the others must end in a port.
• Only A.1 permits loading a unit in port at the start of a naval move.
• Only A.1 permits loading a unit at sea at the end of a naval move.


Wrong.
Loading a unit at sea at the end of a naval move is allowed for a naval move within a sea area, to a lower section box.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 140
RE: A few questions about the rules - 3/23/2011 8:04:11 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18355
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

This is why debugging naval movement has taken me 6 months.
===
Naval Movement Overview
(as of March 22, 2011)

There are 5 places in the sequence of play where naval units can move:
A. Naval movement phase.
A.1 From a port to a sea area.
A.2 From a sea area to a port.
A.3 Within a sea area, to a lower section box.
B. Return to base phases, from a sea area to a port.
C. Forced rebase due to the control of a port changing sides (e.g., overrun , conquest), from a port to a port.
D. Forced or voluntary return to base from a naval combat, from a sea area to a port.
E. Return to base by French naval units at sea during the formation of Vichy France, from a sea area to a port.

• Only A uses naval activities, and even then only when the major power owning the naval units took a Combined action.
• Only A.1 and A.3 permit a naval unit to end its move in a sea area. All the others must end in a port.
• Only A.1 permits loading a unit in port at the start of a naval move.
• Only A.1 and A.3 permit loading a unit at sea at the end of a naval move.


Wrong.
Loading a unit at sea at the end of a naval move is allowed for a naval move within a sea area, to a lower section box.


Thanks.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 141
RE: A few questions about the rules - 3/23/2011 6:46:41 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2263
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

This is why debugging naval movement has taken me 6 months.
===
Naval Movement Overview
(as of March 22, 2011)

There are 5 places in the sequence of play where naval units can move:
A. Naval movement phase.
A.1 From a port to a sea area.
A.2 From a sea area to a port.
A.3 Within a sea area, to a lower section box.
B. Return to base phases, from a sea area to a port.
C. Forced rebase due to the control of a port changing sides (e.g., overrun , conquest), from a port to a port.
D. Forced or voluntary return to base from a naval combat, from a sea area to a port.
E. Return to base by French naval units at sea during the formation of Vichy France, from a sea area to a port.

• Only A uses naval activities, and even then only when the major power owning the naval units took a Combined action.
• Only A.1 and A.3 permit a naval unit to end its move in a sea area. All the others must end in a port.
• Only A.1 permits loading a unit in port at the start of a naval move.
• Only A.1 permits loading a unit at sea at the end of a naval move.
• Only A.1, A.2, and B permit loading a unit in a port while “passing through”.
• Only A.1 permits dropping off naval units in a sea area (using Ctrl-Left-Click). However, this can only be done if there are sufficient naval activities available.
A.1, A.2, B, C, and D all permit dropping off naval units in a port (using Ctrl-Left-Click). However, during A.1 this can only be done if there are sufficient naval activities available.


Correct me if I am wrong, but in the caveat I have bolded, would not the restriction on sufficient naval activities also apply to component A.2 (e.g. during a naval move, a task force returning to Port A drops some ships off in Port B along the way)?

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 142
RE: A few questions about the rules - 3/23/2011 7:38:57 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18355
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

This is why debugging naval movement has taken me 6 months.
===
Naval Movement Overview
(as of March 22, 2011)

There are 5 places in the sequence of play where naval units can move:
A. Naval movement phase.
A.1 From a port to a sea area.
A.2 From a sea area to a port.
A.3 Within a sea area, to a lower section box.
B. Return to base phases, from a sea area to a port.
C. Forced rebase due to the control of a port changing sides (e.g., overrun , conquest), from a port to a port.
D. Forced or voluntary return to base from a naval combat, from a sea area to a port.
E. Return to base by French naval units at sea during the formation of Vichy France, from a sea area to a port.

• Only A uses naval activities, and even then only when the major power owning the naval units took a Combined action.
• Only A.1 and A.3 permit a naval unit to end its move in a sea area. All the others must end in a port.
• Only A.1 permits loading a unit in port at the start of a naval move.
• Only A.1 permits loading a unit at sea at the end of a naval move.
• Only A.1, A.2, and B permit loading a unit in a port while “passing through”.
• Only A.1 permits dropping off naval units in a sea area (using Ctrl-Left-Click). However, this can only be done if there are sufficient naval activities available.
A.1, A.2, B, C, and D all permit dropping off naval units in a port (using Ctrl-Left-Click). However, during A.1 this can only be done if there are sufficient naval activities available.


Correct me if I am wrong, but in the caveat I have bolded, would not the restriction on sufficient naval activities also apply to component A.2 (e.g. during a naval move, a task force returning to Port A drops some ships off in Port B along the way)?

Yes. Thank you for the close reading.

By the way, I wrote that list off the top of my head - without looking at any of the rules or code. Hence the 2 mistakes (so far).

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 143
RE: A few questions about the rules - 3/23/2011 8:49:14 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 4302
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
I suggest:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
If an interception becomes possible future movement by the units cannot be cancelled.
Resolving interceptions of naval movement has the following logic branches:
1. Interception not attempted
1.1 All units continue moving
1.2 All units stop in the sea area (during A.1, loading units is possible).
1.3. Some units stop and others continue moving. During A.1 this is only possible if sufficient naval activities are available.
2. Interception attempted
2.1 Interception failed
2.1.1 All units continue moving.
2.1.2 All units stop in the sea area (during A.1, loading units is possible).
2.1.3. Some units stop and others continue moving. During A.1 this is only possible if sufficient naval activities are available.
2.2 Interception succeeded
2.2.1 All units stop in the sea area.
2.2.2 All units “fight through”.
2.2.2.1 All units destroyed in naval combat
2.2.2.2 Combat resolved to quiescence and some moving naval units survive.
2.2.2.2.1 All surviving units continue moving.
2.2.2.1.2 All surviving units stop in the sea area (during A.1, loading units is possible).
2.2.2.1.3. Some units stop and others continue moving. During A.1 this is only possible if sufficient naval activities are available.



_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 144
RE: A few questions about the rules - 3/23/2011 8:56:23 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 4302
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

This is why debugging naval movement has taken me 6 months.
===
Naval Movement Overview
(as of March 22, 2011)
• Only A.1 permits loading a unit in port at the start of a naval move.
• Only A.1, A.2, and B permit loading a unit in a port while “passing through”.

Not sure if this is clear from the way it's written but in A.1 the cargo unit must be present at the start of the naval movement phase, it can't be transported to a port where naval units there are awaiting their A.1. Even if these naval units are starting in the same port that the cargo is now in, if the cargo arrives after the start of the naval movement phase they can only pick it up via A.2.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 145
RE: A few questions about the rules - 3/23/2011 9:09:51 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18355
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

This is why debugging naval movement has taken me 6 months.
===
Naval Movement Overview
(as of March 22, 2011)
• Only A.1 permits loading a unit in port at the start of a naval move.
• Only A.1, A.2, and B permit loading a unit in a port while “passing through”.

Not sure if this is clear from the way it's written but in A.1 the cargo unit must be present at the start of the naval movement phase, it can't be transported to a port where naval units there are awaiting their A.1. Even if these naval units are starting in the same port that the cargo is now in, if the cargo arrives after the start of the naval movement phase they can only pick it up via A.2.

Well, isn't the rule that the transport spends an extra movement point to pick up a cargo that didn't start the impulse in the port?

For me, that is simpler to understand than the 'rationale' about moving through the port to pick up the cargo.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 146
RE: A few questions about the rules - 3/23/2011 9:10:51 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 4302
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
Important point:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
2.2.2.2 Combat resolved to quiescence and some moving naval units survive.
2.2.2.2.1 All surviving units continue moving.
2.2.2.1.2 All surviving units stop in the sea area (during A.1, loading units is possible).
2.2.2.1.3. Some units stop and others continue moving. During A.1 this is only possible if sufficient naval activities are available

When units continue moving had they "counted up" to a higher sea box than the zero box, they are not required to count back down (like in returning to base) before they can go to an adjacent sea zone.

EXAMPLE: Some range 6, move 6 CAs leave Gibraltar and are intercepted in the West Med. They decide to fight through but choose the 3-box to do so. They have moved 1 range and 4 movement points. After the interception combat is resolved to quiescence, some continue moving. Whether they go to the East Med or the Italian Coast, they enter the zero box of those zones with 2 range and 5 movement points expended.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 147
RE: A few questions about the rules - 3/23/2011 9:14:40 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 4302
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

This is why debugging naval movement has taken me 6 months.
===
Naval Movement Overview
(as of March 22, 2011)
• Only A.1 permits loading a unit in port at the start of a naval move.
• Only A.1, A.2, and B permit loading a unit in a port while “passing through”.

Not sure if this is clear from the way it's written but in A.1 the cargo unit must be present at the start of the naval movement phase, it can't be transported to a port where naval units there are awaiting their A.1. Even if these naval units are starting in the same port that the cargo is now in, if the cargo arrives after the start of the naval movement phase they can only pick it up via A.2.

Well, isn't the rule that the transport spends an extra movement point to pick up a cargo that didn't start the impulse in the port?

For me, that is simpler to understand than the 'rationale' about moving through the port to pick up the cargo.

Not exactly because it must spend two range and two movement points. One of each to go out to any adjacent sea zone and one of each to re-enter the port. In some cases this attempt can be intercepted before getting back into the port! So you can't just reduce the range and movement by 2 and merrily proceed outbound with the cargo onboard.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 148
RE: A few questions about the rules - 3/25/2011 9:45:20 AM   
Joseignacio


Posts: 975
Joined: 5/8/2009
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: online
Very interesting the last comments, about chits, loading units at sea and "not been required to count back down" after battle, when intercepted. 

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 149
RE: A few questions about the rules - 3/25/2011 7:38:00 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18355
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Important point:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
2.2.2.2 Combat resolved to quiescence and some moving naval units survive.
2.2.2.2.1 All surviving units continue moving.
2.2.2.1.2 All surviving units stop in the sea area (during A.1, loading units is possible).
2.2.2.1.3. Some units stop and others continue moving. During A.1 this is only possible if sufficient naval activities are available

When units continue moving had they "counted up" to a higher sea box than the zero box, they are not required to count back down (like in returning to base) before they can go to an adjacent sea zone.

EXAMPLE: Some range 6, move 6 CAs leave Gibraltar and are intercepted in the West Med. They decide to fight through but choose the 3-box to do so. They have moved 1 range and 4 movement points. After the interception combat is resolved to quiescence, some continue moving. Whether they go to the East Med or the Italian Coast, they enter the zero box of those zones with 2 range and 5 movement points expended.

Along these same lines,

If a unit stops in a sea area - section box 1- to fight through, and then survives the combat, it can stop in the sea area either in section box 1, or can move to a different section box if it has sufficient movement points. E.g., for a unit with 6 MPS that is intercepted as soon as it leaves port: 1 MP to enter the sea area + 1 MP for stopping to fight through, leaves 4 MPs. It could then be placed as high as the 4 box. But it would have only used 1 range.

Correct? [This is how it is coded presently.]

< Message edited by Shannon V. OKeets -- 3/25/2011 7:42:19 PM >


_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: A few questions about the rules Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   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

0.160