Matrix Games Forums

New screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold Ask Buzz Aldrin!Pike & Shot gets Release Date and Twitch Session!Deal of the Week Espana 1936War in the West coming in December!Space Program Manager will be launching on Steam
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement

 
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 >> Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/21/2012 4:26:44 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 3351
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
This is something I've noticed and I wonder...

Here is RAW:

The USA and Japan start the game with an agreement in place to
exchange a Japanese build point for US resources. The USA must
supply Japan with 4 resources each turn. Two of them must be oil
resources. These amounts can be reduced, or avoided entirely, by
certain US entry options (see 13.3.2). Japan must lend lease the USA
with 1 build point a turn until the USA embargoes strategic materials
(see 13.3.2, entry option 13).
To avoid US entry penalties (see below), the USA must have enough
convoy points in the West Coast, Mendocino, Hawaiian Islands and
Central Pacific ocean sea areas to transport the resources to Japan.
Similarly, Japan must have enough convoy points in the Japanese
Coast sea area to transport the build point to the USA.

If, for whatever reason, either side has not met its obligation to
provide its resources or build point in the production step and US
entry option 31 has not been chosen then:
• that side does not get its promised resources or build point that
turn, and the other side can use those points themselves;
• if Japan was in default, the USA may add 2 entry markers to the
Japanese entry pool; and
• if the USA was in default, Japan must randomly remove 2 entry
markers from the Japanese entry pool (returning them to the
common entry pool). If there aren’t enough markers to remove,
the USA can never declare war on Japan and must now start
taking markers from the Ge/It pool. If there aren't enough
markers there, the USA can never declare war on Germany or
Italy.
The USA and Japan stop supplying these resources and build points
once they are at war and keep them for themselves on the turn they go
to war.

The way I read this, it is a little confusing. On one end RAW states specifically the convoy points in the sea areas, on the other end it stated that penalties occur if the needed resources aren't being delivered. Question: can the USA voluntarily say: I make a pipeline of convoys from the Phillipines for the one from there or not. I can't find anything in the FAQ about this...

_____________________________

Peter
Post #: 1
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/21/2012 4:41:34 PM   
SewerStarFish


Posts: 304
Joined: 5/7/2007
From: Reading, Pa. USA
Status: offline
I've always wondered about the wording of that rule too. But rules are rules: it says the pipeline must be in specific sea zones. So it seems the Filipino ore is an unsatisfactory substitute in the treaty.

_____________________________

Why choose the lesser evil: Vote Cthulhu.

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 2
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/21/2012 5:28:55 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2307
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline
If memory serves, when that issue came up on the mailing list recently, it was agreed that as long as the main convoy chain remained intact, the US could still send the Philippines resource to Japan.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to SewerStarFish)
Post #: 3
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/21/2012 8:26:42 PM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1659
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline
quote:

WiF FE Rule Clarification Summary
Q5.1-2 For at-start Trade Agreements, must the RP and BPs provided by JA, US, GE, and RU come from their respective home countries?

Harry Rowland's Answer
No, but they must satisfy rule 5. Lending Stage that is they must be delivered if possible.



But the Philippine convoy line would be additional to the Japan/USA convoy lines.

quote:

WiFFE-RAW-7.0.pdf
To avoid US entry penalties (see below), the USA must have enough convoy points in the West Coast, Mendocino, Hawaiian Islands and Central Pacific ocean sea areas to transport the resources to Japan. Similarly, Japan must have enough convoy points in the Japanese Coast sea area to transport the build point to the USA.




< Message edited by Extraneous -- 11/21/2012 8:41:09 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 4
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/22/2012 4:40:00 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 4397
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

If memory serves, when that issue came up on the mailing list recently, it was agreed that as long as the main convoy chain remained intact, the US could still send the Philippines resource to Japan.

Right.

At start, put the CPs out as per the rule. Put your 3 CPs in the Caribbean to get the Venezuelan oil. You still have 4 left over. Put 1 in the Bismarck Sea and 1 in the Marianas. Voila!

Another thing people may not realize. The US can put 4 in each of the mandatory sea zones, their obligation is to deliver 2 resources and 2 oil. If they don't pick up their BP, that's their affair but it is not a violation of the Trade Agreement. Likewise, Japan only needs 1 CP in the Japanese Coast to avoid the penalty.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 5
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/22/2012 4:41:51 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 4397
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish

I've always wondered about the wording of that rule too. But rules are rules: it says the pipeline must be in specific sea zones. So it seems the Filipino ore is an unsatisfactory substitute in the treaty.


Ask Patrice nicely and you can get a much, much nicer looking MWiF P-61 for your logo.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to SewerStarFish)
Post #: 6
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/22/2012 8:25:41 AM   
michaelbaldur


Posts: 3783
Joined: 4/6/2007
From: denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck


quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

If memory serves, when that issue came up on the mailing list recently, it was agreed that as long as the main convoy chain remained intact, the US could still send the Philippines resource to Japan.

Right.

At start, put the CPs out as per the rule. Put your 3 CPs in the Caribbean to get the Venezuelan oil. You still have 4 left over. Put 1 in the Bismarck Sea and 1 in the Marianas. Voila!

Another thing people may not realize. The US can put 4 in each of the mandatory sea zones, their obligation is to deliver 2 resources and 2 oil. If they don't pick up their BP, that's their affair but it is not a violation of the Trade Agreement. Likewise, Japan only needs 1 CP in the Japanese Coast to avoid the penalty.


no you cant do that ...your spare 4 Cp have to setup within range of the setup area... USA

< Message edited by michaelbaldur -- 11/22/2012 8:26:58 AM >


_____________________________

Peyton manning is a God and the wif rulebook is my bible

I work hard, not smart.

beta tester and Mwif expert

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 7
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/22/2012 12:19:00 PM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1659
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

no you cant do that ...your spare 4 Cp have to setup within range of the setup area... USA


World in Flames: Global War (see 24.4.7)

12 CP USA
15 CP Honolulu
27 CP Total

USA
3 CP for Venezuela
1 CP for Alaska
5 CP for West Coast
3 CP for Mendocino
12 CP Total

Honolulu
2 CP for Mendocino
5 CP for Hawaiian Islands
5 CP for Central Pacific Ocean
3 CP Honolulu (Reserve)
15 CP Total



_____________________________

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

(in reply to michaelbaldur)
Post #: 8
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/22/2012 12:33:28 PM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1659
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Right.

At start, put the CPs out as per the rule. Put your 3 CPs in the Caribbean to get the Venezuelan oil. You still have 4 left over. Put 1 in the Bismarck Sea and 1 in the Marianas. Voila!

1) Another thing people may not realize. The US can put 4 in each of the mandatory sea zones, their obligation is to deliver 2 resources and 2 oil. If they don't pick up their BP, that's their affair but it is not a violation of the Trade Agreement. Likewise, Japan only needs 1 CP in the Japanese Coast to avoid the penalty.



1) Why would you want to do this?



_____________________________

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

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 9
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/22/2012 4:48:14 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 4397
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck


quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

If memory serves, when that issue came up on the mailing list recently, it was agreed that as long as the main convoy chain remained intact, the US could still send the Philippines resource to Japan.

Right.

At start, put the CPs out as per the rule. Put your 3 CPs in the Caribbean to get the Venezuelan oil. You still have 4 left over. Put 1 in the Bismarck Sea and 1 in the Marianas. Voila!

Another thing people may not realize. The US can put 4 in each of the mandatory sea zones, their obligation is to deliver 2 resources and 2 oil. If they don't pick up their BP, that's their affair but it is not a violation of the Trade Agreement. Likewise, Japan only needs 1 CP in the Japanese Coast to avoid the penalty.


no you cant do that ...your spare 4 Cp have to setup within range of the setup area... USA

If you have the latest scenario set-up files, 15 CPs start in Honolulu. It is definitely an advantage to play with the latest rules.

< Message edited by paulderynck -- 11/22/2012 4:49:23 PM >


_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to michaelbaldur)
Post #: 10
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/22/2012 5:03:59 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 4397
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Right.

At start, put the CPs out as per the rule. Put your 3 CPs in the Caribbean to get the Venezuelan oil. You still have 4 left over. Put 1 in the Bismarck Sea and 1 in the Marianas. Voila!

1) Another thing people may not realize. The US can put 4 in each of the mandatory sea zones, their obligation is to deliver 2 resources and 2 oil. If they don't pick up their BP, that's their affair but it is not a violation of the Trade Agreement. Likewise, Japan only needs 1 CP in the Japanese Coast to avoid the penalty.

1) Why would you want to do this?


Especially for Japan it means the Russkis have a much harder time with a late turn surprise DoW to cause Japan US entry troubles by using their subs from Vlad to attack the Japanese CPs in the Japanese Coast Sea Zone. They have to get them all and if the turn continues, JP only needs to get back in with one; which may be all they have in reserve.

For the US "To avoid US entry penalties (see below), the USA must have enough convoy points in the West Coast, Mendocino, Hawaiian Islands and Central Pacific ocean sea areas to transport the resources to Japan." This is 4 CPs for the first 3 sea zones of the route, since the Philippine resource joins up in the Central Pacific. So in fact you don't need 20 CPs, only 17. Yes one of the CPs is really carrying a BP back to the US, but no you have not violated the Trade Agreement because you meet the quoted rules condition.


_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 11
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/22/2012 6:56:38 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 3351
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
After carefull rereading of the whole section today, I've come to the conclusion that the USA can't send the Phillipines resource to Japan, without Japanese assistance... RAW on trade agreements:

Shipment
Where possible, these resources (or build points) are transported by
rail (see 13.6.1). If this isn't possible, the recipient must provide the
convoys required to receive them (exception: the joint Japan-USA
convoy, see above). If the recipient cannot provide the convoys, they
do not receive the resources (or build points).

The joint Japan-USA convoy is especially mentioned as being the convoy line form mainland USA to Japan. Therefore, the Phillipine resource can't be transported by US convoy points. And if the Japanese elects not to use his convoy points for transportation, the US has to remove entry chits if the convoy line can't transport the specified number of resources to Japan from mainland USA

Agreed?

< Message edited by Centuur -- 11/22/2012 6:58:26 PM >


_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 12
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/22/2012 9:04:52 PM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1659
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline
michaelbaldur has the right count on Convoy Points. He just wasn't allocating a Convoy Point for Alaska.

quote:

RAW7scaenario.pdf
24.1.6 Setting up

After you have finished setting-up, you can make naval moves out to sea with your naval units. Treat this as a naval action you conducted last turn, so the units must finish their move, then drop to a lower sea-box section as if they had stayed at sea last turn (see 13.4). Neutral major powers can only make these moves with convoy (CoiF option 76: and tanker) points.


Would the Philippines convoy line have to be from the Philippines to Central Pacific Ocean?

The Philippines > Bismarck Sea > The Marianas > Central Pacific Ocean


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Especially for Japan it means the Russkis have a much harder time with a late turn surprise DoW to cause Japan US entry troubles by using their subs from Vlad to attack the Japanese CPs in the Japanese Coast Sea Zone. They have to get them all and if the turn continues, JP only needs to get back in with one; which may be all they have in reserve.

For the US "To avoid US entry penalties (see below), the USA must have enough convoy points in the West Coast, Mendocino, Hawaiian Islands and Central Pacific ocean sea areas to transport the resources to Japan." This is 4 CPs for the first 3 sea zones of the route, since the Philippine resource joins up in the Central Pacific. So in fact you don't need 20 CPs, only 17. Yes one of the CPs is really carrying a BP back to the US, but no you have not violated the Trade Agreement because you meet the quoted rules condition.



quote:

WiFFE-RAW-7.0.pdf
If, for whatever reason, either side has not met its obligation to provide its resources or build point in the production step and US entry option 31. Oil embargo has not been chosen then:

That side does not get its promised resources or build point that turn, and the other side can use those points themselves;

If Japan was in default, the USA may add 2 entry markers to the Japanese entry pool; and

If the USA was in default, Japan must randomly remove 2 entry markers from the Japanese entry pool (returning them to the common entry pool). If there aren’t enough markers to remove, the USA can never declare war on Japan and must now start taking markers from the Ge/It pool. If there aren’t enough markers there, the USA can never declare war on Germany or Italy.


You would be in violation of the Trade Agreement if you do not provide enough Convoy Points to receive the BP or Resources.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

After carefull rereading of the whole section today, I've come to the conclusion that the USA can't send the Phillipines resource to Japan, without Japanese assistance... RAW on trade agreements:

Shipment
Where possible, these resources (or build points) are transported by
rail (see 13.6.1). If this isn't possible, the recipient must provide the
convoys required to receive them (exception: the joint Japan-USA
convoy, see above). If the recipient cannot provide the convoys, they
do not receive the resources (or build points).

The joint Japan-USA convoy is especially mentioned as being the convoy line form mainland USA to Japan. Therefore, the Phillipine resource can't be transported by US convoy points. And if the Japanese elects not to use his convoy points for transportation, the US has to remove entry chits if the convoy line can't transport the specified number of resources to Japan from mainland USA

Agreed?


See: Route 2: Philippines


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 13
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/22/2012 9:22:31 PM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1659
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline
Route 2: Philippines would be amended to require 1 less Convoy Point in West Coast, Mendocino, and Hawaiian Islands.

If the Resource is used in the Philippines you have a 4 Convoy Point (Reserve) and you have one more Resource available in the USA.



< Message edited by Extraneous -- 11/22/2012 9:25:31 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 14
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/23/2012 6:36:42 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 4397
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

After carefull rereading of the whole section today, I've come to the conclusion that the USA can't send the Phillipines resource to Japan, without Japanese assistance... RAW on trade agreements:

Shipment
Where possible, these resources (or build points) are transported by
rail (see 13.6.1). If this isn't possible, the recipient must provide the
convoys required to receive them (exception: the joint Japan-USA
convoy, see above). If the recipient cannot provide the convoys, they
do not receive the resources (or build points).

The joint Japan-USA convoy is especially mentioned as being the convoy line form mainland USA to Japan. Therefore, the Phillipine resource can't be transported by US convoy points. And if the Japanese elects not to use his convoy points for transportation, the US has to remove entry chits if the convoy line can't transport the specified number of resources to Japan from mainland USA

Agreed?

Certainly not.

There is nothing there that says where the resources come from. FREX the wording for Entry Option 9 for Lending Resources to China seems to imply much moreso that the resources must come the USA, ("The US can use its convoy points to transport resources to China from the USA.") and yet the FAQ says it does not matter where they come from. By the same token the same is true for sending the resources to Japan.

You have two separate concepts. The first is to come up with 2 oil and 2 resources to provide to Japan. The second is to maintain 4 or more CPs in each of the four sea areas to avoid a US Entry penalty.

There is no way any actions by Japan can cause the US to be penalized for not upholding its end of the bargain - which is to provide 2 oil and 2 resources. If Japan wants them, she must have 4 CPs in the Japanese Coast sea zone. There is no way for Japan to be penalized because of something the US does or doesn't do. Japan's minimum responsibility under the Trade Agreement is to put 1 CP in the Japanese Coast Sea Zone so the BP going to the US can get that far.

The reason it says the Japan USA Trade Agreement is an exception is that instead of the passage cited, the rules specifically say how many CPs are provided by each party and where they must be placed.


_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 15
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/23/2012 2:48:14 PM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1659
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck


Certainly not.

(Agreed) There is nothing there that says where the resources come from. FREX the wording for Entry Option 9 for Lending Resources to China seems to imply much moreso that the resources must come the USA, ("The US can use its convoy points to transport resources to China from the USA.") and yet the FAQ says it does not matter where they come from. By the same token the same is true for sending the resources to Japan.

(Agreed) You have two separate concepts. The first is to come up with 2 oil and 2 resources to provide to Japan. The second is to maintain 4 or more CPs in each of the four sea areas to avoid a US Entry penalty.

(Disagree) There is no way any actions by Japan can cause the US to be penalized for not upholding its end of the bargain - which is to provide 2 oil and 2 resources. If Japan wants them, she must have 4 CPs in the Japanese Coast sea zone. There is no way for Japan to be penalized because of something the US does or doesn't do. Japan's minimum responsibility under the Trade Agreement is to put 1 CP in the Japanese Coast Sea Zone so the BP going to the US can get that far.

The reason it says the Japan USA Trade Agreement is an exception is that instead of the passage cited, the rules specifically say how many CPs are provided by each party and where they must be placed.



quote:

WiF FE Rule Clarification Summary

Q5.0-1 When is the control of resources and build points changed for Trade Agreements?

They may be transported as either the giver's or recipient's resources and/or build points at the giver's discretion, until they arrive in any city or major port controlled by the recipient that they can be transported to, at which point they become the recipient's (if not already). Date 09/03/2009



If I am the giver (Japan) and you are the recipient (the USA)...

I would declare you in violation of the Trade Agreement if you do not provide enough Convoy Points to receive the BP and send the Resources.



< Message edited by Extraneous -- 11/23/2012 2:56:47 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 16
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/23/2012 6:21:37 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 3351
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck


quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

After carefull rereading of the whole section today, I've come to the conclusion that the USA can't send the Phillipines resource to Japan, without Japanese assistance... RAW on trade agreements:

Shipment
Where possible, these resources (or build points) are transported by
rail (see 13.6.1). If this isn't possible, the recipient must provide the
convoys required to receive them (exception: the joint Japan-USA
convoy, see above). If the recipient cannot provide the convoys, they
do not receive the resources (or build points).

The joint Japan-USA convoy is especially mentioned as being the convoy line form mainland USA to Japan. Therefore, the Phillipine resource can't be transported by US convoy points. And if the Japanese elects not to use his convoy points for transportation, the US has to remove entry chits if the convoy line can't transport the specified number of resources to Japan from mainland USA

Agreed?

Certainly not.

There is nothing there that says where the resources come from. FREX the wording for Entry Option 9 for Lending Resources to China seems to imply much moreso that the resources must come the USA, ("The US can use its convoy points to transport resources to China from the USA.") and yet the FAQ says it does not matter where they come from. By the same token the same is true for sending the resources to Japan.

You have two separate concepts. The first is to come up with 2 oil and 2 resources to provide to Japan. The second is to maintain 4 or more CPs in each of the four sea areas to avoid a US Entry penalty.

There is no way any actions by Japan can cause the US to be penalized for not upholding its end of the bargain - which is to provide 2 oil and 2 resources. If Japan wants them, she must have 4 CPs in the Japanese Coast sea zone. There is no way for Japan to be penalized because of something the US does or doesn't do. Japan's minimum responsibility under the Trade Agreement is to put 1 CP in the Japanese Coast Sea Zone so the BP going to the US can get that far.

The reason it says the Japan USA Trade Agreement is an exception is that instead of the passage cited, the rules specifically say how many CPs are provided by each party and where they must be placed.


Point is not the origine of the resources, but the transportation of the Phillipine resource.

I'll rephrase this...

RAW: 13.6
Transporting resources
Apart from the Japan-US agreement, a Major Power may only transport resources that it controls and, if active, resources for other active major powers on its side.
The transportation of US resources to China by US convoys is specifically stated as an exception to this rule.

For trade agreements in place at start of the game, it is always the recipient who has to provide the convoys, according to RAW, except for the joint USA-Japan convoy...

How is the US going to transport the Phillipine Resource into the Sea of Japan? He isn't allowed to do so, because even if he puts a CP into the sea area's to transport the resource to the Sea of Japan, the US convoys there are not part of the joint US-Japan convoy (which is described in the rules as being in the stated sea areas). Only convoys part of the joint convoy in the stated sea areas can be used to transport resources to Japan by the US.

This means that US convoy points cannot be used to transport the Phillipine resource because convoys from the recepient (Japan) have to be used for this. If the Japanese elects not to use his convoys for this (and he decides which resource is moved through which convoy) the US has to send all resources from the USA. If the US player has 4 CP in each sea area of the joint convoy line, he will lose the build point, if the Japanese doesn't want to transport the Phillipine resource. That build point can than be used by Japan...

Is this the right interpretation of the rules? I think it is...

Than there is the question of being in default, when this happens:

RAW:
If, for whatever reason, either side has not met its obligation to
provide its resources or build point in the production step and US
entry option 31 has not been chosen then...

What are the obligations? For the USA to provide the resources and for Japan to provide the build point. It doesn't say that the USA has to receive the build point and Japan has to receive the resources. So I'll side with Paulderynk on this one (how strange this appears to be...).



_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 17
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/23/2012 7:55:35 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 4397
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

How is the US going to transport the Phillipine Resource into the Sea of Japan? He isn't allowed to do so, because even if he puts a CP into the sea area's to transport the resource to the Sea of Japan, the US convoys there are not part of the joint US-Japan convoy (which is described in the rules as being in the stated sea areas). Only convoys part of the joint convoy in the stated sea areas can be used to transport resources to Japan by the US.

This means that US convoy points cannot be used to transport the Phillipine resource because convoys from the recepient (Japan) have to be used for this. If the Japanese elects not to use his convoys for this (and he decides which resource is moved through which convoy) the US has to send all resources from the USA. If the US player has 4 CP in each sea area of the joint convoy line, he will lose the build point, if the Japanese doesn't want to transport the Phillipine resource. That build point can than be used by Japan...

Is this the right interpretation of the rules? I think it is...

The US doesn't have to. Japan has to pick it up if it is available in the Central Pacific. As stated earlier, a US CP in the Bismarck Sea and another in the Marianas and 5 in the Central Pacific allows the Philippine resource to be one of the two that Japan gets by the Trade Agreement.

I have never claimed that the US could configure it so the resource went through the Sea of Japan on either a US or a JP CP.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

than there is the question of being in default, when this happens:
RAW:
If, for whatever reason, either side has not met its obligation to
provide its resources or build point in the production step and US
entry option 31 has not been chosen then...

What are the obligations? For the USA to provide the resources and for Japan to provide the build point. It doesn't say that the USA has to receive the build point and Japan has to receive the resources. So I'll side with Paulderynk on this one (how strange this appears to be...).



True on the obligations and penalties. Japan can declare anything it wants to declare but the result of the US not picking up its BP is one less BP for US production, period, the end.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 18
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/23/2012 8:34:41 PM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1659
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur


Point is not the origin of the resources, but the transportation of the Philippine resource.

I'll rephrase this...

RAW: 13.6
Transporting resources
Apart from the Japan-US agreement, a Major Power may only transport resources that it controls and, if active, resources for other active major powers on its side.
The transportation of US resources to China by US convoys is specifically stated as an exception to this rule.

For trade agreements in place at start of the game, it is always the recipient who has to provide the convoys, according to RAW, except for the joint USA-Japan convoy...

1) How is the US going to transport the Philippine Resource into the Sea of Japan? He isn't allowed to do so, because even if he puts a CP into the sea area's to transport the resource to the Sea of Japan, the US convoys there are not part of the joint US-Japan convoy (which is described in the rules as being in the stated sea areas). Only convoy's part of the joint convoy in the stated sea areas can be used to transport resources to Japan by the US.

This means that US convoy points cannot be used to transport the Philippines resource because convoys from the recipient (Japan) have to be used for this. If the Japanese elects not to use his convoys for this (and he decides which resource is moved through which convoy) the US has to send all resources from the USA. If the US player has 4 CP in each sea area of the joint convoy line, he will lose the build point, if the Japanese doesn't want to transport the Philippine resource. That build point can than be used by Japan...

Is this the right interpretation of the rules? I think it is...

2) Then there is the question of being in default, when this happens:

RAW:
If, for whatever reason, either side has not met its obligation to
provide its resources or build point in the production step and US
entry option 31 has not been chosen then...

What are the obligations? For the USA to provide the resources and for Japan to provide the build point. It doesn't say that the USA has to receive the build point and Japan has to receive the resources. So I'll side with Paulderynk on this one (how strange this appears to be...).



quote:

5.1 Trade agreements
Japan-USA

The USA and Japan start the game with an agreement in place to exchange a Japanese build point for US resources. The USA must supply Japan with 4 resources each turn. Two of them must be oil resources. These amounts can be reduced, or avoided entirely, by certain US entry options (see 13.3.2). Japan must lend lease the USA with 1 build point a turn until the USA embargoes strategic materials (see 13.3.2, entry option 13).

To avoid US entry penalties (see below), the USA must have enough convoy points in the West Coast, Mendocino, Hawaiian Islands and Central Pacific ocean sea areas to transport the resources to Japan. Similarly, Japan must have enough convoy points in the Japanese Coast sea area to transport the build point to the USA.



quote:

WiF FE Rule Clarification Summary
Q5.1-2
For at-start Trade Agreements, must the RP and BPs provided by JA, US, GE, and RU come from their respective home countries?

Harry Rowland's Answer
No, but they must satisfy rule 5. Lending Stage that is they must be delivered if possible.




1) Q5.1-2 is a rule clarification to the RAW so we use Harry Rowland's Answer. Since it specifically states "at-start Trade Agreements, must the RP and BPs provided by JA, US" we can use the Philippines Resource.

The convoy points only have to reach the Central Pacific Ocean where the Japanese Convoy Point's receive (but may not as yet control) the Resources.

Convoy Line: The Philippines > Bismarck Sea > The Marianas > Central Pacific Ocean



quote:

WiF FE Rule Clarification Summary
Q5.0-1
When is the control of resources and build points changed for Trade Agreements?

They may be transported as either the giver's or recipient's resources and/or build points at the giver's discretion, until they arrive in any city or major port controlled by the recipient that they can be transported to, at which point they become the recipient's (if not already). Date 09/03/2009



quote:

WiFFE-RAW-7.0.pdf

If, for whatever reason, either side has not met its obligation to provide its resources or build point in the production step and US entry option 31. Oil embargo has not been chosen then

That side does not get its promised resources or build point that turn, and the other side can use those points themselves;

If Japan was in default, the USA may add 2 entry markers to the Japanese entry pool; and

If the USA was in default, Japan must randomly remove 2 entry markers from the Japanese entry pool (returning them to the common entry pool). If there aren’t enough markers to remove, the USA can never declare war on Japan and must now start taking markers from the Ge/It pool. If there aren’t enough markers there, the USA can never declare war on Germany or Italy.



quote:

WiFFE-RAW-7.0.pdf
5. Lending Stage


If, during production (see 13.6 Production), it is possible for the promised resources (or build points) to be delivered then they must be delivered. If you cannot meet the promise you made (for example because the convoy points were not set up, were destroyed, or a railway line cut), you still cannot use them yourself this turn.



2) Actually you need to establish who is in default you have to know who controls the BP and Resources and when.

Japan provides 5 Convoy Points in the Japanese Coast sea area.

Japan chooses to control the BP until it reaches a major USA port instead of just to the Central Pacific Ocean sea area.

Why do the Japanese want to control the BP until it reaches a major USA port instead of just to the Central Pacific Ocean sea area? To force the issue since Japanese production comes before USA production.


The USA provides only 4 Convoy Points to only give the Oil and Resources to Japan and none to receive the BP from Japan.

Whether the USA chooses to control the Resources until it reaches a major Japanese port or only to the Japanese Coast sea area is not relevant at this time.


Since during the 13.6 Production step the USA has not allocated enough Convoy Points (see: 13.6.1 Resources) to have the Japanese BP received at a major USA port.

The USA is in violation of the Trade Agreement.

For the Japanese the difference between:
11 BP or 10 BP and 2 Saved Oil (with the Trade Agreement)
8 BP (without the Trade Agreement)

Is fairly obvious.


< Message edited by Extraneous -- 11/24/2012 12:26:53 AM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 19
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/24/2012 5:51:57 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 4397
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
How does Japan claim the agreement is broken when everything gets through, regardless of who owns it in which sea zone?

In the 3 sea zones where the US can place 4 CPs, they carry the following:
2 oil, 1 resource, 1 BP

In the Central Pacific the 5 CPs there carry the following:
2 oil, 2 resources, 1 BP

(Concerning the FAQ Q5.0-1 citation, the only discretion Japan has is the ownership of the BP; the rest are at the discretion of the US.)

< Message edited by paulderynck -- 11/24/2012 5:56:56 AM >


_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 20
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/24/2012 11:34:24 AM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1659
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

How does Japan claim the agreement is broken when everything gets through, regardless of who owns it in which sea zone?

In the 3 sea zones where the US can place 4 CPs, they carry the following:
2 oil, 1 resource, 1 BP

In the Central Pacific the 5 CPs there carry the following:
2 oil, 2 resources, 1 BP

(Concerning the FAQ Q5.0-1 citation, the only discretion Japan has is the ownership of the BP; the rest are at the discretion of the US.)



Yes you are correct, I wanted it to read BP and not "BP and Resources". But the USA can turn over control of the resources at the Central Pacific Ocean sea area and the statement would be correct.



Is this what you mean? If not please post your Convoy Lines.

Japanese
Convoy Line: 1BP starts Japan ~ exits Central Pacific Ocean
1 CP the Japanese Coast

Convoy Line: 2 oil and 2 Resources starts Central Pacific Ocean ~ exits Japan
4 CP the Japanese Coast


USA
Convoy Line: 1BP starts the Japanese Coast ~ exits USA
1 CP West Coast > 1 CP Mendocino > 1 CP Hawaiian Islands > 1 CP Central Pacific Ocean

Convoy Line: 2 oil and 1 Resource starts USA ~ exits the Japanese Coast
3 CP West Coast > 3 CP Mendocino > 3 CP Hawaiian Islands > 3 CP Central Pacific Ocean

Convoy Line: 1 Resource starts the Philippines ~ exits the Japanese Coast
1 CP Bismarck Sea > 1 CP The Marianas > 1 CP Central Pacific Ocean




_____________________________

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

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 21
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/24/2012 12:03:08 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 3351
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

How does Japan claim the agreement is broken when everything gets through, regardless of who owns it in which sea zone?

In the 3 sea zones where the US can place 4 CPs, they carry the following:
2 oil, 1 resource, 1 BP

In the Central Pacific the 5 CPs there carry the following:
2 oil, 2 resources, 1 BP

(Concerning the FAQ Q5.0-1 citation, the only discretion Japan has is the ownership of the BP; the rest are at the discretion of the US.)



Yes you are correct, I wanted it to read BP and not "BP and Resources". But the USA can turn over control of the resources at the Central Pacific Ocean sea area and the statement would be correct.



Is this what you mean? If not please post your Convoy Lines.

Japanese
Convoy Line: 1BP starts Japan ~ exits Central Pacific Ocean
1 CP the Japanese Coast

Convoy Line: 2 oil and 2 Resources starts Central Pacific Ocean ~ exits Japan
4 CP the Japanese Coast


USA
Convoy Line: 1BP starts the Japanese Coast ~ exits USA
1 CP West Coast > 1 CP Mendocino > 1 CP Hawaiian Islands > 1 CP Central Pacific Ocean

Convoy Line: 2 oil and 1 Resource starts USA ~ exits the Japanese Coast
3 CP West Coast > 3 CP Mendocino > 3 CP Hawaiian Islands > 3 CP Central Pacific Ocean

Convoy Line: 1 Resource starts the Philippines ~ exits the Japanese Coast
1 CP Bismarck Sea > 1 CP The Marianas > 1 CP Central Pacific Ocean





I'm still not convinced, because the last convoy line isn't mentioned as being part of the joint convoy in the rules.

WiF FE Rule Clarification Summary
Q5.1-2 For at-start Trade Agreements, must the RP and BPs provided by JA, US, GE, and RU come from their respective home countries?

Harry Rowland's Answer
No, but they must satisfy rule 5. Lending Stage that is they must be delivered if possible.


Note the wording in the answer "if possible".

In conjuncture with the rule book, this means that the US can give the Phillipine resource to Japan, however, it can't be transported through the joint convoy line in my opinion (due to the restrictions on the sea areas of the joint convoy). Japanese convoys have to transport this. Than I'm back at my point that the USA has to provide the resources (using 4 convoys in the joint convoy) and can't pick up the build point that Japan provides if there are no more than 4 CP in the joint convoy on the US side, if the Japanese elects not to transport the Phillipine resource.


< Message edited by Centuur -- 11/24/2012 12:04:20 PM >


_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 22
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/24/2012 1:05:30 PM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1659
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline
quote:

WiFFE-RAW-7.0.pdf

Japan-USA
The USA and Japan start the game with an agreement in place to exchange a Japanese build point for US resources. The USA must supply Japan with 4 resources each turn. Two of them must be oil resources. These amounts can be reduced, or avoided entirely, by certain US entry options (see 13.3.2). Japan must lend lease the USA with 1 build point a turn until the USA embargoes strategic materials (see 13.3.2, entry option 13).

(My Note: The following states that the USA must have Convoy Points in certain sea areas to transport the Resources to Japan but it doesn't say the Resources have to come from the USA. Therefore the Resources can come from the Philippines but must go to the Central Pacific Ocean to reach Japan.)

To avoid US entry penalties (see below), the USA must have enough convoy points in the West Coast, Mendocino, Hawaiian Islands and Central Pacific ocean sea areas to transport the resources to Japan. Similarly, Japan must have enough convoy points in the Japanese Coast sea area to transport the build point to the USA. If, for whatever reason, either side has not met its obligation to provide its resources or build point in the production step and US entry option 31. Oil embargo has not been chosen then:

(My Note: The following is after the semicolon above so they are the steps taken when there is a default. Notice it states that you must get the BP or Resources.)

That side does not get its promised resources or build point that turn, and the other side can use those points themselves;

If Japan was in default, the USA may add 2 entry markers to the Japanese entry pool; and

If the USA was in default, Japan must randomly remove 2 entry markers from the Japanese entry pool (returning them to the common entry pool). If there aren’t enough markers to remove, the USA can never declare war on Japan and must now start taking markers from the Ge/It pool. If there aren’t enough markers there, the USA can never declare war on Germany or Italy.





< Message edited by Extraneous -- 11/24/2012 1:48:23 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 23
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/24/2012 2:20:54 PM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1659
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline
When at war with Japan:

The USSR DOESN'T want to do a Search and Seizure on the USA resource convoys to Japan in the Central Pacific Ocean sea area.

The Search and Seizure would generate a 20% chance to remove a chit from the USA entry pool (would this be USA choice?).
And since Japan didn't receive the Trade Agreement resources 2 entry markers would be removed from the Japanese entry pool.


Now if the USSR were to sink Convoy Points (count as one ship: 5 convoy points or SiF option 9: 2 convoy points ) in the Japanese Coast sea area:

If the USA has released control of the Resources in the Japanese Coast sea area they are not in default of the Trade Agreement because they don't control the resources.

If the USA has NOT released control of the Resources in the Japanese Coast sea area they are in default of the Trade Agreement because they still control the resources.

Note to self: Always have the USA release control of Convoy Points as soon as possible.

If the Japanese BP Convoy Point in the Japanese Coast sea area is sunk Japan is in default of the Trade Agreement.


My preference is ignore who controls Convoy Points.


< Message edited by Extraneous -- 11/24/2012 3:12:32 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 24
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/24/2012 4:06:13 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 4397
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

Yes you are correct, I wanted it to read BP and not "BP and Resources". But the USA can turn over control of the resources at the Central Pacific Ocean sea area and the statement would be correct.

Is this what you mean? If not please post your Convoy Lines.

Japanese
Convoy Line: 1BP starts Japan ~ exits Central Pacific Ocean
1 CP the Japanese Coast

Convoy Line: 2 oil and 2 Resources starts Central Pacific Ocean ~ exits Japan
4 CP the Japanese Coast


USA
Convoy Line: 1BP starts the Japanese Coast ~ exits USA
1 CP West Coast > 1 CP Mendocino > 1 CP Hawaiian Islands > 1 CP Central Pacific Ocean

Convoy Line: 2 oil and 1 Resource starts USA ~ exits the Japanese Coast
3 CP West Coast > 3 CP Mendocino > 3 CP Hawaiian Islands > 3 CP Central Pacific Ocean

Convoy Line: 1 Resource starts the Philippines ~ exits the Japanese Coast
1 CP Bismarck Sea > 1 CP The Marianas > 1 CP Central Pacific Ocean


JP has from 1 to 5 CP in Japanese Coast - ideally 5 if they want their resources and oil.

US has 4 each in West Coast, Mendocino, Hawaiian Islands and 5 in the Central Pacific as well as the 1 CP in each of the Bismarck Sea and Marianas.

No US Entry penalties to either side this way.



_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 25
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/24/2012 4:21:23 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 4397
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

When at war with Japan:

The USSR DOESN'T want to do a Search and Seizure on the USA resource convoys to Japan in the Central Pacific Ocean sea area.

The Search and Seizure would generate a 20% chance to remove a chit from the USA entry pool (would this be USA choice?).
And since Japan didn't receive the Trade Agreement resources 2 entry markers would be removed from the Japanese entry pool.


Now if the USSR were to sink Convoy Points (count as one ship: 5 convoy points or SiF option 9: 2 convoy points ) in the Japanese Coast sea area:

If the USA has released control of the Resources in the Japanese Coast sea area they are not in default of the Trade Agreement because they don't control the resources.

If the USA has NOT released control of the Resources in the Japanese Coast sea area they are in default of the Trade Agreement because they still control the resources.

Note to self: Always have the USA release control of Convoy Points as soon as possible.

If the Japanese BP Convoy Point in the Japanese Coast sea area is sunk Japan is in default of the Trade Agreement.


My preference is ignore who controls Convoy Points.


No, as long as the US and Japan have the CPs set up in the Production phase as per Post #25 they'll never be assessed a US entry penalty due to the Trade Agreement.

The USA has no ability to prevent major powers on its side taking US entry actions that might cost them an entry chit, other than to verbalize a request to their fellow player to please not do it. Such request can be ignored, and the US can do nothing about it other than to threaten to not lend them anything as the game continues.

Japan always controls her own CPs. The USA always controls her own CPs.

< Message edited by paulderynck -- 11/24/2012 4:22:46 PM >


_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 26
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/24/2012 7:18:09 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 3351
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
It is not the placement of convoy points which are the problem. You can build your US convoy line the way you want. However: if a US resource has to go to Japan, the US can only transport it through the sea areas mentioned in the joint convoy rule.

Otherwise, the recipient (i.e. Japan) has to convoy the Phillipine resource, because only resources transported through the joint convoy route are excepted from the rule which states that the recipient has to transport resources from trade agreements overseas. Even if the US transport that resource from the Phillipines into the Central Pacific, it can't go to Japan IMHO, since the convoy route used isn't part of the joint convoy mentioned in the rules.

That is the point I'm trying to make here...

< Message edited by Centuur -- 11/24/2012 7:19:51 PM >


_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 27
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/24/2012 7:27:04 PM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1659
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline
Sounds like we almost completely agree then

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

JP has from 1 to 5 CP in Japanese Coast - ideally 5 if they want their resources and oil.

US has 4 each in West Coast, Mendocino, Hawaiian Islands and 5 in the Central Pacific as well as the 1 CP in each of the Bismarck Sea and Marianas.

No US Entry penalties to either side this way.




Why has Japan not defaulted in the Trade Agreement if they don't have 5 Convoy Points in the Japanese Coast sea area?




_____________________________

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

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 28
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/25/2012 1:05:31 AM   
RickInVA

 

Posts: 36
Joined: 4/27/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

quote:

WiFFE-RAW-7.0.pdf

Japan-USA
The USA and Japan start the game with an agreement in place to exchange a Japanese build point for US resources. The USA must supply Japan with 4 resources each turn. Two of them must be oil resources. These amounts can be reduced, or avoided entirely, by certain US entry options (see 13.3.2). Japan must lend lease the USA with 1 build point a turn until the USA embargoes strategic materials (see 13.3.2, entry option 13).

(My Note: The following states that the USA must have Convoy Points in certain sea areas to transport the Resources to Japan but it doesn't say the Resources have to come from the USA. Therefore the Resources can come from the Philippines but must go to the Central Pacific Ocean to reach Japan.)

To avoid US entry penalties (see below), the USA must have enough convoy points in the West Coast, Mendocino, Hawaiian Islands and Central Pacific ocean sea areas to transport the resources to Japan. Similarly, Japan must have enough convoy points in the Japanese Coast sea area to transport the build point to the USA. If, for whatever reason, either side has not met its obligation to provide its resources or build point in the production step and US entry option 31. Oil embargo has not been chosen then:

(My Note: The following is after the semicolon above so they are the steps taken when there is a default. Notice it states that you must get the BP or Resources.)

That side does not get its promised resources or build point that turn, and the other side can use those points themselves;

If Japan was in default, the USA may add 2 entry markers to the Japanese entry pool; and

If the USA was in default, Japan must randomly remove 2 entry markers from the Japanese entry pool (returning them to the common entry pool). If there aren’t enough markers to remove, the USA can never declare war on Japan and must now start taking markers from the Ge/It pool. If there aren’t enough markers there, the USA can never declare war on Germany or Italy.






Where does it say that you must get the BP or resource? Provide is the word used. Provide does not require acceptance.

Now I do see a really convoluted logic being proposed in post #19. What seems to be proposed here is that:

1) The Japanese production phase occurs first, so;
2) The Japanese send the BP to the US, maintaing control of it untill it reaches the US, whch means that;
3) WiFFE-RAW-7.0.pdf (5. Lending Stage), indicates that the promised BP (in this case) must be delivered, so;
4) The US is required to transport the BP across their Convoys to the US, thus using up one CP and;
5) As the Phillipine resource cannot be transported to Japan by US CP (in a strict reading of the Joint Convoy rule), then;
6) The US would only have enough CP to transport 3 resources, so:
7) The US is in violation.

What this hinges on, IMHO, is does the must in step 3 allow no compromise or acceptance by the US? That, in effect, the Lending Stage rule gives Japan de facto control of the US CP chain. IMHO this is not reasonable. I can concieve of a situation where the US (for example) has an agreement to recieve a resource from one country and an oil resource from another. Due to circumstances there is a convoy capacity that can carry one of these but not both. If the resource country has its production phase before the oil resource country the reading of the rules proposed here would require the US to accept the regular resource and pass on the oil resource, which seems to me to be unsuportable that a country would not have control over its own convoys.

Just my opinion.

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 29
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/25/2012 10:12:09 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 4397
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous
Why has Japan not defaulted in the Trade Agreement if they don't have 5 Convoy Points in the Japanese Coast sea area?



Because Japan's only obligation is to provide 1 BP and make it available in the Japanese Coast Sea Area.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement Page: [1] 2   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

0.135