Matrix Games Forums

New information and screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Pride of NationsTo End All Wars Releasing on Steam! Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers requiredPandora: Eclipse of Nashira gets release dateCommunity impressions of To End All WarsAgeod's To End All Wars is now availableTo End All Wars is now available!Deal of the Week: Field of GloryTo End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 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 >> RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/25/2012 10:13:35 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 4172
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

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...

That's a very imaginative reading of the rule.




_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 31
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/25/2012 12:06:51 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 3096
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck


quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

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...

That's a very imaginative reading of the rule.




First, I'm not an native English speaker, so I'm not totally convinced I've got it right here. Imaginative it might be, however, if I take all the written rules and the FAQ as they are stated here, this is what I conclude.
Question is: am I right or am I wrong?

< Message edited by Centuur -- 11/25/2012 12:07:26 PM >


_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 32
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/25/2012 3:16:44 PM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1624
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline
quote:


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 US entry options).

Japan must lend lease the USA with 1 build point a turn until the USA embargoes strategic materials (see 13.3.2 US entry options, entry option 13 Embargo on strategic materials).

quote:

paulderynck says there is a default when:

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:

While I say there is a default when:

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 arenít 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 arenít 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.




quote:

13.6.4 Lend lease
Lend lease was a device FDR invented to circumvent US neutrality laws concerning non-involvement in the war. US military goods were ďleasedĒ to the other Allies on a deferred payment or return basis (preferably without too many holes in them).

To lend lease, you must announce how many build points you are giving during the lending stage (see 5. Lending Stage). You can lend lease any number of build points to or from each major power each turn (exceptions: China and USA ~ see 13.3.2 US entry options and the USSR ~ see 5. Lending Stage). You can lend lease build points and receive them in the same turn (but not to the same major power).

Transport

quote:


During the production step, you transport the promised build points to any city or major port in the recipientís home country (Britainís in the case of the Commonwealth).


You do this in exactly the same way as you transport resources (see 13.6.1), except that you can also transport an additional 2 build points to the capital and 1 to each other city and major port cumulative, each turn (e.g. you could transport 6 build points to London each turn; 2 for being the capital, 3 for the factories and 1 for the major port in the hex). Promised build points that canít be transported are lost.

Convoy points that you use to transport resources canít be used again to transport build points. So, for example, if you have 5 convoy points in a sea area and you transport 3 resources through it, you could only transport up to 2 build points through that sea area. Similarly, resources you ship into or out of a minor port will limit how many build points you can ship into and out of that port (see 13.6.1).



paulderynck advocates a very strict reading of the rule


He is saying that the USA is under no obligation to allow the Japanese the ability to fulfill their portion of the Trade Agreement of lend leasing 1 BP to the USA.

Because the rule states the USA is only obligated to supply its resources to fulfill its part of the Trade Agreement.


He is also saying that the Japanese are under no obligation to allow the USA to fulfill their portion of the Trade Agreement to supply its resources to Japan.

Because the rule states the Japanese are only obligated to lend lease 1 BP to the USA to fulfill its part of the Trade Agreement.



I'm advocating

For the resources to be supplied to Japan they must reach Japan.

For Japan to lend lease 1 BP to the USA it must reach any city or major port in the USA.




_____________________________

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

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 33
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/25/2012 3:31:46 PM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1624
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

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...


Centuur you read it exactly as I do (and English is my only language).

The USA can use the Philippine resource only if it goes through the Central Pacific Ocean sea area.



_____________________________

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

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 34
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/25/2012 4:53:16 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 3096
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous


quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

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...


Centuur you read it exactly as I do (and English is my only language).

The USA can use the Philippine resource only if it goes through the Central Pacific Ocean sea area.



No. The USA can't do so, because of the fact that that resource can't be transported in the joint convoy line, because only US convoys in the Central Pacific, Hawaiian Islands, Mecodine and US West coast can be used for transportation of resources from the US to Japan. Convoy points in the Bismarck Sea and the Marianas are NOT part of the joint convoy line. Therefore those can't be used to transport the Phillipine resource to Japan but can only be used to transport the resource to the USA...

The way I see it, is that there are only three exceptions to the rule, which says that the recipient has to transport resources from trade agreements:
1. If the providing Major Power is active on the same side, it can transport those resources;
2. If an inactive US provides resources to China;
3. Using the joint convoy line in the Sea area's Sea of Japan, Central Pacific, Hawaiian Islands, Mecodino and
West Coast for the USA-Japan trade agreement.

< Message edited by Centuur -- 11/25/2012 4:59:02 PM >


_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 35
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/25/2012 6:25:36 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 4172
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous
I'm advocating

For the resources to be supplied to Japan they must reach Japan.

For Japan to lend lease 1 BP to the USA it must reach any city or major port in the USA.


So what you are saying is that each and every time they feel in the mood, The US can return 1 of the 5 CPs they have in the Central Pacific to port and not receive a Japanese BP and thereby cause Japan to take a US Entry penalty even though Japan ships the BP as far as the Central Pacific...

Since in the sequence of play, resources must be transported before BPs because they are used to produce BPs, only the US could do this trick.

That is clearly ridiculous. You get penalized for actions by your own side, not for the actions of the other side. That is the whole priinciple of the US Entry system.

< Message edited by paulderynck -- 11/25/2012 6:45:35 PM >


_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 36
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/25/2012 6:36:51 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 4172
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur
No. The USA can't do so, because of the fact that that resource can't be transported in the joint convoy line, because only US convoys in the Central Pacific, Hawaiian Islands, Mecodine and US West coast can be used for transportation of resources from the US to Japan.



Except that is not what the rules say. The rules say "To avoid US entry penalties 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.

Having them there is mandatory (and BTW the number of mandatory ones is 4 because that satisfies the need to avoid the entry penalty.) Using them to transport any particular resource is not mandatory as long as somehow the resources are made available to Japan in the Central Pacific sea zone. Indeed if the US took Cuba for example (setting aside how unlikely this might be before having passed Entry Options 13 and 23), it could set up convoy line from there to the West Coast and lend the Cuban resource as the second one of two.

The text in RAW8 has already been changed to make this more clear.


_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 37
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/25/2012 8:57:43 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 3096
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck


quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur
No. The USA can't do so, because of the fact that that resource can't be transported in the joint convoy line, because only US convoys in the Central Pacific, Hawaiian Islands, Mecodine and US West coast can be used for transportation of resources from the US to Japan.



Except that is not what the rules say. The rules say "To avoid US entry penalties 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.

Having them there is mandatory (and BTW the number of mandatory ones is 4 because that satisfies the need to avoid the entry penalty.) Using them to transport any particular resource is not mandatory as long as somehow the resources are made available to Japan in the Central Pacific sea zone. Indeed if the US took Cuba for example (setting aside how unlikely this might be before having passed Entry Options 13 and 23), it could set up convoy line from there to the West Coast and lend the Cuban resource as the second one of two.

The text in RAW8 has already been changed to make this more clear.


This than means that the following part of RAW 7 does not apply to the Phillipine resource?

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).

I don't think so...

I repeat: it is not the joint convoy we are talking about. We are talking about using US convoys to get the Phillipine resource to that joint convoy line and than sent it to Japan. I think that is NOT allowed...

< Message edited by Centuur -- 11/25/2012 8:59:39 PM >


_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 38
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/25/2012 10:07:36 PM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1624
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline
What I'm saying is:

The Japanese must allocate enough Convoy Points in the Japanese Coast sea area to receive the USA resources from the Central Pacific Ocean sea area.


AND

The USA must allocate enough Convoy Points in the West Coast, Mendocino, Hawaiian Islands and Central Pacific Ocean sea areas to transport the Japanese lend lease BP to any city or major port in the USA.



As paulderynck said "Japan always controls her own CPs. The USA always controls her own CPs". The one who doesn't allocate enough Convoy Points is in default of the Trade Agreement.

Since Japan is Lend Leasing 1 BP to the USA are you saying unless the Japanese build a Convoy Line from the Japanese Coast sea area to any city or major port in the USA home country they are in default?




Using either of the two USA Trade Agreements: The Japan-USA Trade Agreement or the Venezuela-USA Trade Agreement. It would be appreciated if anyone can tell me how (other than the way I have posted it) (No you can't use Alaska) the USA can implement this:

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.




< Message edited by Extraneous -- 11/25/2012 10:32:53 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 39
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/26/2012 2:09:38 AM   
Neilster


Posts: 2247
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline
Did somebody mention convoys? I didn't have a 2D image showing Pacific convoys to work with. Sorry.

Cheers, Neilster





Attachment (1)

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 40
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/26/2012 6:30:56 PM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1624
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

Did somebody mention convoys? I didn't have a 2D image showing Pacific convoys to work with. Sorry.

Cheers, Neilster



Is that an actual in gane screenshot or just


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Neilster)
Post #: 41
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/26/2012 7:12:46 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 3096
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: online
Again: RAW:

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).


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 "if possible" in the clarification. In conjuncture with the rule on shipment on trade agreements, I'm still at my conclusion that the Phillipine resource may not be transported to Japan, using any US convoy line. Same is with the build point of Japan to the USA. That has to come out of Japan...

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 42
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/26/2012 10:43:27 PM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1624
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline
Using either:
The Japan-USA Trade Agreement (go ahead and use Alaska)
The Venezuela-USA Trade Agreement
Netherlands-Japan Trade Agreement The Netherlands must supply Japan with 2 oil resources a turn.

I would be appreciate if anyone can tell me how (other than the way I have posted it) the USA can use equal or less convoy points to implement this:

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.

Example: After Russia has conquered Persia, Russia couldn't give the coastal Persian oil to Germany as part satisfaction of their trade agreement unless there were convoys in position to send them to Germany AND the owner of those transports is allowed, and agrees, to ship them. In all other cases the Russians would instead have to transport the resources by rail from the USSR to Germany directly. Date 07/03/2008

5. 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.




quote:

5. Lending Stage
In this stage, you can announce that you are giving resources and/or lend leasing build points (see 13.6.4 Lend lease) to another major power on the same side this turn.

13.5.1Oil (AfA option 48): You must also announce how many of the resources given are oil.

You can only give resources (or build points) if you are an active major power and you can only give them to another active major power (exceptions: 5.1 Trade agreements, 13.3.2 US entry options, and 17.4 Running Vichy France ~ Vichy production ~ lending to Vichy France). Vichy France must also be hostile to lend to other major powers (see 17.4 Running Vichy France).

Some major powers need 13.3.2 US entry options to be chosen before resources can be given to them. The USSR is further restricted in that (apart from Germany ~ see 5.1 Trade agreements) she may only give or receive up to 1 resource (or build point) per turn unless US entry option 19. Resources to USSR (and option 30. Lend lease to USSR for build points) has been chosen.

You cannot give resources to a major power in the same turn as it is giving resources to you. However, you can give resources to a major power in the same turn as another major power gives resources to you. The same restrictions apply to lend leasing build points. You may however give build points to a major power in the same turn you receive resources from that major power or vice versa.

How you transport resources is described later (see 13.6.1Resources and 13.5.1Oil (AfA option 48)).

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.

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).

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 arenít 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 arenít 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.



Example:
The USA allocates just enough Convoy Points to reach the Japanese Coast sea area with the Oil/Resources.
The USA allocates no Convoy Points to transport the BP from the Japanese Coast sea area to reach the USA.

According to 5. Lending Stage you made a promise (the Trade Agreement) but you didn't honor the Trade Agreement.

The USA must allocate Convoy Points to transport the BP from the Japanese Coast sea area to the USA.






_____________________________

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

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 43
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/27/2012 6:27:15 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 4172
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

I would be appreciate if anyone can tell me how (other than the way I have posted it) the USA can use equal or less convoy points to implement this:
The USA allocates just enough Convoy Points to reach the Japanese Coast sea area with the Oil/Resources.
The USA allocates no Convoy Points to transport the BP from the Japanese Coast sea area to reach the USA.

According to 5. Lending Stage you made a promise (the Trade Agreement) but you didn't honor the Trade Agreement.

The USA must allocate Convoy Points to transport the BP from the Japanese Coast sea area to the USA.


You quoted earlier from the FAQ (Q5.1-2). Your answer is in Q5.1-3.

quote:


Q: Japan-USA Trade Agreement. What is meant by "obligation"? The entire convoyed amount, or just the amount to send.

A: The obligation only relates to the resources and build points. Thus the US only gets the 2 entry chits if she doesnít get her build point. Date 25/09/1997
You must set up and canít voluntarily remove your Japan-US convoys, but if they are broken for whatever reason, you donít have to re-establish them (if you are willing to take the US entry hits). Date 01/12/1997



If somehow the US has its CP chain to the USA reduced by 1, it loses the BP but it does not get 2 entry chits. Only an act affecting the Japanese convoys and resulting in the BP not being delivered can make that happen because the BP is Japan's obligation. The reverse is true of the oil/resources.

Please see Post #25 for a CP chain set-up that meets all conditions for both sides. Japan would start with 5 in the Japaneses Coast (and would need to maintain them there - after all why wouldn't they?) but as I said originally if those 5 were reduced (FREX by an attack upon Japan by USSR subs), there are no entry penalties until they are reduced below 1. Nor would there be a penalty to the US because it is still meeting its obligation to deliver the oil/resources as far as the Central Pacific.

< Message edited by paulderynck -- 11/27/2012 6:28:33 AM >


_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 44
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/27/2012 7:05:35 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 4172
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Again: RAW:

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).


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 "if possible" in the clarification. In conjuncture with the rule on shipment on trade agreements, I'm still at my conclusion that the Phillipine resource may not be transported to Japan, using any US convoy line. Same is with the build point of Japan to the USA. That has to come out of Japan...

As to your "Shipment" point the rule you are quoting says specifically that the US-Japan Trade agreement is an exception to it. If I as the US am allocating a resource to go to Japan due to my obligation under the Trade Agreement, how can you cite a rule that specifcally exempts the Trade Agreement from it as the rationale for me to do something different?

And you too quote from the FAQ and yet also miss your answer from within the same document:

quote:

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

A: 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

The Philippine resource belongs to the US at its discretion and it transports it any way it likes until it reaches the Central Pacific at which point it becomes the Japanese players problem to complete the transportation. When the resource arrives in Japan, it has reached a "city or major port controlled by the recipient" and its ownership changes.

This and the prior one replying to Extraneous are my last posts to this thread as I have elucidated my position repetitively (as you gentlemen have also) and I judge further dialog to be a further waste of my time. If you are unsure of the validity of my posts and are convinced it will do irreparable harm to your gaming experience if still unsure of the answer, than I urge you to relay your question directly to ADG.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 45
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/27/2012 7:41:52 AM   
Neilster


Posts: 2247
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous


quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

Did somebody mention convoys? I didn't have a 2D image showing Pacific convoys to work with. Sorry.

Cheers, Neilster



Is that an actual in gane screenshot or just


I argued ages ago for a spherical global map but it isn't going to happen (at least on release 1). I just like to put up these "MWiF world" images I create every now and again, mainly because IMHO they look cool. As it is a 3D depiction of a WiF map I don't really think it's spam.

Cheers, Neilster

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 46
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/27/2012 7:50:29 AM   
Neilster


Posts: 2247
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline
Righto. Here's the Pacific.

Cheers, Neilster





Attachment (1)

(in reply to Neilster)
Post #: 47
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/27/2012 8:26:11 AM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1624
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline
paulderynck we are in complete agreement the US entry option hits will only occur when it effects the owners convoys carrying the owners cargo (BP or Resources) as you have described.

KUDO's on finding Q5.1-2 I missed that one.

I enjoyed reading your views and the forums are the only way we can hash out rules that can be read by different people in different ways.

At first I didn't agree with using the Philippine Resource until composer99 post #3 sent me to the WiF FE Rule Clarification Summary to check it out.

You make things interesting keep posting your views maybe next time we will be together against the others.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

I argued ages ago for a spherical global map but it isn't going to happen (at least on release 1). I just like to put up these "MWiF world" images I create every now and again, mainly because IMHO they look cool. As it is a 3D depiction of a WiF map I don't really think it's spam.

Cheers, Neilster




Yes I remember the thread and it would be nice graphically. But we don't want people thinking that it's offered with MWiF unnecessarily.



< Message edited by Extraneous -- 11/27/2012 8:53:58 AM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Neilster)
Post #: 48
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/27/2012 11:33:06 AM   
Centuur


Posts: 3096
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck


quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Again: RAW:

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).


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 "if possible" in the clarification. In conjuncture with the rule on shipment on trade agreements, I'm still at my conclusion that the Phillipine resource may not be transported to Japan, using any US convoy line. Same is with the build point of Japan to the USA. That has to come out of Japan...

As to your "Shipment" point the rule you are quoting says specifically that the US-Japan Trade agreement is an exception to it. If I as the US am allocating a resource to go to Japan due to my obligation under the Trade Agreement, how can you cite a rule that specifcally exempts the Trade Agreement from it as the rationale for me to do something different?

And you too quote from the FAQ and yet also miss your answer from within the same document:

quote:

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

A: 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

The Philippine resource belongs to the US at its discretion and it transports it any way it likes until it reaches the Central Pacific at which point it becomes the Japanese players problem to complete the transportation. When the resource arrives in Japan, it has reached a "city or major port controlled by the recipient" and its ownership changes.

This and the prior one replying to Extraneous are my last posts to this thread as I have elucidated my position repetitively (as you gentlemen have also) and I judge further dialog to be a further waste of my time. If you are unsure of the validity of my posts and are convinced it will do irreparable harm to your gaming experience if still unsure of the answer, than I urge you to relay your question directly to ADG.


I've got the full picture now. I did indeed missed the part of the changing of control of resources/build points. We can say that in the joint convoy, they change from US to Japan (or vice versa) when the resources arrive at the Sea of Japan and the build point arrives in the Central Pacific.
Thanks for you patience, it wasn't wasted time (I just wanted to be sure about some actions occuring while testing the program).


_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 49
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/30/2012 3:44:43 AM   
composer99


Posts: 2195
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: online
I believe the RAW has it clearly spelled out in ß5.1 with regards to who is obliged to provide what:
quote:

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.


No mention is made of Japan being obliged deploy to enough convoy points to receive the US resources or vice-versa. Obviously, both parties have every reason to both meet their obligation and receive their compensation, but they are not obliged to do the latter.

It seems clear to me that, up until the US passes options cutting off resources, as long as Japan has at least 1 convoy point in the Japanese Coast sea area, they are in the clear, and as long as the US has at least 4 convoy points in each sea area of the required chain, they are in the clear (and indeed, once Japan is no longer sending a build point to the US it is under no obligation to leave convoys in the Japanese Coast area at all). If Japan doesn't have enough convoys to meet its obligations & get all the promised resources at the same time, it misses out on some resources, and vice-versa for the US.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 50
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 11/30/2012 4:39:48 PM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1624
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline
So you want to ignore the WiF FE Rule Clarification Summary


_____________________________

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

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 51
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 12/1/2012 2:07:45 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2195
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: online
I just read through the FAQ on RAW ß5.1 and do not see anything there that contradicts what I said (save that they must at least begin the game with the appropriate number of convoys in place). To whit:

quote:

Q5.1-3
Q: Japan-USA Trade Agreement. What is meant by "obligation"? The entire convoyed amount, or just the amount to send.
A: The obligation only relates to the resources and build points. Thus the US only gets the 2 entry chits if she doesnít get her build point. You must set up and canít voluntarily remove your Japan-US convoys, but if they are broken for whatever reason, you donít have to re-establish them (if you are willing to take the US entry hits).
[Emphasis mine.]


_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 52
RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement - 12/1/2012 4:52:23 PM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1624
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline
quote:

Q5.1-3
Q: Japan-USA Trade Agreement. What is meant by "obligation"? The entire convoyed amount, or just the amount to send.
A: The obligation only relates to the resources and build points. Thus the US only gets the 2 entry chits if she doesnít get her build point. You must set up and canít voluntarily remove your Japan-US convoys, but if they are broken for whatever reason, you donít have to re-establish them (if you are willing to take the US entry hits).

[Emphasis mine.]



Japan and the USA must set up and canít voluntarily remove CP's from the Japan-US convoys.


Japan
Initially the Japanese needs 5 CP in the Japanese Coast sea area. One CP to ship the one Japanese BP and four CP to receive the USA's two oil and two resources.


USA
Initially the USA needs 5 CP in the Central Pacific Ocean sea area to receive the one Japanese BP and ship its two oil and two resources. And enough CP's to get two oil and two resources to the Central Pacific Ocean sea area.

The USA receives the Japanese BP
To get the BP to the USA home country the most efficient route is to have one USA CP in the West Coast, Mendocino, and Hawaiian Islands sea areas to reach the Central Pacific Ocean sea area.

USA ships the Oil and Resources
If the USA chooses to use the Philippine resource it takes two CP to reach the Central Pacific Ocean sea area. Then the USA would need three CP in the West Coast, Mendocino, and Hawaiian Islands sea areas for the other two oil and one resource.


The Japan-US convoys
But if the Japan-US convoys are broken for whatever reason, you donít have to re-establish them.

If you are willing to take the US entry hits:
Two US entry chits are removed if the Japan-US convoys are broken the USA side.
Two US entry chits are added if the Japan-US convoys are broken on the Japanese side.



Once the Japan-US convoys are set up and it is broken for any reason:

Broken on the USA side:
If the BP is not delivered to the USA home country there is no effect in regards to US entry chits.

If all the resources are not delivered the Japanese Coast sea area two US entry chits are removed.



Broken on the Japanese side:
If all the resources are not delivered to the Japanese home country there is no effect in regards to US entry chits.

If the BP is not delivered to the Central Pacific Ocean two US entry chits are added.



Note: the only way a single convoy point can be affected and other cargo carrying convoy points not to be affected is by a Search and Seizure.

Search and Seizure: You can stop major powers on the other side that you are not at war with from transporting resources (and build points ~ see 13.6.4) overseas to major powers you are at war with.

And the BP is going to the USA (a neutral major power) not from the USA to Japan so it cannot be affected by a Search and Seizure.

But the 2 oil and 2 Resources are going to Japan so they could be affected by a Search and Seizure.


While Losses and Aborts on the 11.5 NAVAL COMBAT chart are given in naval units. 5 convoy points counts as a naval unit (SiF option 9: every 2 convoy points (or any spare point) is a naval unit).


< Message edited by Extraneous -- 12/2/2012 1:11:09 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 53
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Phillipines resource and the USA-Japan trade agreement Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

0.109