Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: rebasing and naval transport

 
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: rebasing and naval transport Page: <<   < prev  17 18 19 [20] 21   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/24/2008 8:58:39 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

Per the CWiF code Danish convoys placed in Thorshavn and remaining there after Denmark has been conquered by Germany make the Faroes CW controlled as are the convoys.  CWiF also makes them CW controlled after the Danish conquest if there were no units of any kind there.

Is this intended to simulate that the CW has some undefined small presence in the Islands ?

CWiF did not have the rule for conquest completely finished.

(in reply to lomyrin)
Post #: 571
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/24/2008 9:00:33 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian
Is there enough flat ground in the Fareoes to make an airstrip there without some effort (landing an Engineer)? I'm sure there is an airport there today, but was there in WWII? What I'm getting at is maybe they could be mountain hexes to simulate that. Pictures I've seen show mostly rather forbidding Fjords combined with hilly terrain.

There was an aifield setup in the Port hex. The rest could be mountains, yes.

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 572
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/24/2008 10:15:16 PM   
Orm


Posts: 21770
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Hilly terrain is not enough to be mountains. So lets make sure that there really is mountains on The Faraoes Islands first.

-Orm

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 573
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/24/2008 10:21:10 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm
Hilly terrain is not enough to be mountains. So lets make sure that there really is mountains on The Faraoes Islands first.

-Orm

It looks quite broken in the center of each island.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 574
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/24/2008 10:22:09 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
Another map.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 575
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/24/2008 10:25:02 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
A view from Google Earth.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 576
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/24/2008 10:31:38 PM   
Orm


Posts: 21770
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Nice picture you got.

Most of it looks hilly-clear to me rather than hilly-mountain.

Indeed it looks broken but remember that you compare to real mountains like the alps and this is old volcanoes.

-Orm

< Message edited by Orm -- 8/24/2008 10:33:38 PM >

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 577
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/24/2008 10:43:12 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
Here are the Alps. Seen from the south. A little bit of flat Italy can be seen on the upper right hand part of the picture.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 578
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/24/2008 10:48:09 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
Wikipedia has the following data :

**************************************
Terrain
Rugged, rocky, some low peaks; cliffs along most of coast. The coasts are deeply indented with fjords, and the narrow passages between islands are agitated by strong tidal currents.

Elevation extremes
Lowest point: Atlantic Ocean 0 m
Highest point: Slættaratindur 882 m
**************************************

Not very high, but not Tank country either.
I vote for the whole Islands to be mountain hexes, and for the Minor Port hex to stay Clear hex.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 579
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/24/2008 11:01:14 PM   
Orm


Posts: 21770
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline
According to Wikipedia the Farao Islasds are - "The islands are rugged and rocky with some low peaks; the coasts are mostly bordered by cliffs. The highest point is Slættaratindur, 882 metres (2,894 ft) above sea level"

I can agree that there are some terrain that could count as mountain. But there is also alot of clear. So you have to decide if it is enough mountainous terrain to affect the combat enough to make it mountains.

It looks like you could make some WWII airstrips there anyway.

I looked at some pictures and ot looks like a nice place if you want a relaxing vacation.
http://replevin.smugmug.com/gallery/1698539#P-1-12


-Orm

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 580
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/24/2008 11:04:03 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

According to Wikipedia the Farao Islasds are - "The islands are rugged and rocky with some low peaks; the coasts are mostly bordered by cliffs. The highest point is Slættaratindur, 882 metres (2,894 ft) above sea level"

I can agree that there are some terrain that could count as mountain. But there is also alot of clear. So you have to decide if it is enough mountainous terrain to affect the combat enough to make it mountains.

The hex I propose to stay clear is the one with the most lands.

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 581
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/24/2008 11:24:51 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
For comparison, the Shetland Islands look like they can stay clear terrain.
Highest elevation: Ronas Hill 450 m.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 582
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/24/2008 11:43:17 PM   
Norman42


Posts: 244
Joined: 2/9/2008
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I vote for the whole Islands to be mountain hexes, and for the Minor Port hex to stay Clear hex.




Agreed.

_____________________________

-------------

C.L.Norman

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 583
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/25/2008 12:33:53 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22035
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Norman42


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I vote for the whole Islands to be mountain hexes, and for the Minor Port hex to stay Clear hex.




Agreed.

In the meantime, I have added code so the Faeroes start controlled by the Commonwealth for all scenarios that start in 1940 or later.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Norman42)
Post #: 584
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/25/2008 3:34:50 AM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3190
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
Torshavn looks good and the rest mountains. I really doubt anyone would fight over the rest of the hexes, and especially not if a notional unit was actually in supply. Without the islands being on a zone boundary, they aren't real useful to the Germans anyway. Maybe though, in that rare game where an Admiral is in charge in Germany....these hexes will be interesting to have. Some day in MWiF I'll try a heavy naval game, when I don't have to spend six hours just getting the pieces together to start up a game of World in Flames.

That's what I thought too Orm, would make an interesting vacation, but then I love the outdoors and the north but I've never been anywhere that is treeless. I'd like to someday. I think maybe I was reading a piece in the Smithsonian magazine about the area.


Here is a different question I've never thought about before...I frequently forget this possibility on the defense. Can the defender declare Emergency HQ Supply after the attacker has announced an attack and thus significantly change the odds? I would assume so but just never thought about it until I saw the possibility in a solitaire CyberBoard game I've started up. How would it fit into the attack-decision sequence? At the Defensive HQ support phase?

If this has been worked out earlier in the thread (I think so? I can rarely get the search feature working right.) just point me to the post #s... ???


(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 585
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/25/2008 4:25:10 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22035
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Torshavn looks good and the rest mountains. I really doubt anyone would fight over the rest of the hexes, and especially not if a notional unit was actually in supply. Without the islands being on a zone boundary, they aren't real useful to the Germans anyway. Maybe though, in that rare game where an Admiral is in charge in Germany....these hexes will be interesting to have. Some day in MWiF I'll try a heavy naval game, when I don't have to spend six hours just getting the pieces together to start up a game of World in Flames.

That's what I thought too Orm, would make an interesting vacation, but then I love the outdoors and the north but I've never been anywhere that is treeless. I'd like to someday. I think maybe I was reading a piece in the Smithsonian magazine about the area.


Here is a different question I've never thought about before...I frequently forget this possibility on the defense. Can the defender declare Emergency HQ Supply after the attacker has announced an attack and thus significantly change the odds? I would assume so but just never thought about it until I saw the possibility in a solitaire CyberBoard game I've started up. How would it fit into the attack-decision sequence? At the Defensive HQ support phase?

If this has been worked out earlier in the thread (I think so? I can rarely get the search feature working right.) just point me to the post #s... ???



In CWIF (and MWIF) a player right clicks on a unit to bring up a "unit menu". If the unit is an HQ and it can provide emrgency supply, then the owner can invoke that at any time. This follows RAW; or at least I believe it does so. For PBEM it is more problemmatic.

I have some slight concern about timing here (milliseconds between the program executing the code for a land attack and the defneder making a last minute decision) and I'll examine it more closely when I redo the entire land combat sequence to support NetPlay.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 586
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/25/2008 7:26:51 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8122
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian


Here is a different question I've never thought about before...I frequently forget this possibility on the defense. Can the defender declare Emergency HQ Supply after the attacker has announced an attack and thus significantly change the odds? I would assume so but just never thought about it until I saw the possibility in a solitaire CyberBoard game I've started up. How would it fit into the attack-decision sequence? At the Defensive HQ support phase?

If this has been worked out earlier in the thread (I think so? I can rarely get the search feature working right.) just point me to the post #s... ???



In CWIF (and MWIF) a player right clicks on a unit to bring up a "unit menu". If the unit is an HQ and it can provide emrgency supply, then the owner can invoke that at any time. This follows RAW; or at least I believe it does so. For PBEM it is more problemmatic.

I have some slight concern about timing here (milliseconds between the program executing the code for a land attack and the defneder making a last minute decision) and I'll examine it more closely when I redo the entire land combat sequence to support NetPlay.

I think it has to be handled in PBEM like CAP and Intercepts. A player has to anticipate the possibility and pre-designate it. If not - you snooze - you lose.

< Message edited by paulderynck -- 8/25/2008 7:27:44 AM >


_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 587
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/25/2008 9:54:58 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
In CWIF (and MWIF) a player right clicks on a unit to bring up a "unit menu". If the unit is an HQ and it can provide emrgency supply, then the owner can invoke that at any time. This follows RAW; or at least I believe it does so. For PBEM it is more problemmatic.

Yes, it is RAW.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 588
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/25/2008 2:13:26 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline
I agree with Patrice's suggestion: change the terrain in most of the Faeroes to mountains and keep the port hex clear terrain.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 589
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/26/2008 1:54:43 PM   
oscar72se

 

Posts: 100
Joined: 8/28/2006
From: Gothenburg Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian
Here is a different question I've never thought about before...I frequently forget this possibility on the defense. Can the defender declare Emergency HQ Supply after the attacker has announced an attack and thus significantly change the odds? I would assume so but just never thought about it until I saw the possibility in a solitaire CyberBoard game I've started up. How would it fit into the attack-decision sequence? At the Defensive HQ support phase?

Actually, I am not sure. But our group has always treated this in the same way as defensive HQ support. The difference being that the HQ is turned face down immediately (as opposed to ordinary HQ support where the HQ gets turned face down after Advancing After Combat). Maybe we are wrong?

Starting to get curious...

/Oscar

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 590
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/26/2008 2:08:56 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: oscar72se


quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian
Here is a different question I've never thought about before...I frequently forget this possibility on the defense. Can the defender declare Emergency HQ Supply after the attacker has announced an attack and thus significantly change the odds? I would assume so but just never thought about it until I saw the possibility in a solitaire CyberBoard game I've started up. How would it fit into the attack-decision sequence? At the Defensive HQ support phase?

Actually, I am not sure. But our group has always treated this in the same way as defensive HQ support. The difference being that the HQ is turned face down immediately (as opposed to ordinary HQ support where the HQ gets turned face down after Advancing After Combat). Maybe we are wrong?

Starting to get curious...

/Oscar

This is Option 13, and it is written this way :
**************************************
Option 13: (emergency HQ supply) Non-HQ units that are out of supply can operate as if they were in supply this impulse if they can trace a basic supply path to a face-up HQ they may co-operate with. You can only do this with as many units as the HQ’s reorganisation value.
You must announce the HQ providing emergency supply before any unit can gain this benefit. Turn the HQ face-down after the land combat step.
An HQ may not provide emergency HQ supply during the impulse(s) it is surprised.
**************************************

So you annouce it when you want, and you provide supply with that HQ as long as the HQ is face-up.
The HQ does not become face-down immediately it goes face-down after the land combat step

(in reply to oscar72se)
Post #: 591
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/26/2008 2:12:21 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
Also, the new FAQ has questions & answers about Option 13 (emergency HQ supply) :

Q2.4-9> First, when do you declare that you use the emergency HQ supply?
Answer> Anytime you like. Date 11/03/1998

Q2.4-10> When using Emergency HQ supply, must the face up HQ the unit needs to trace to be the same as HQ providing the emergency supply?
Answer> Yes. Date 05/07/2007

Q2.4-11> When using Emergency HQ supply, must the basic supply path of four hexes be directly to the HQ providing emergency HQ supply i.e. it cannot be prolonged through a capital or another HQ?
Answer> Must trace directly. Date 05/07/2007

Q2.4-12> When using Emergency HQ supply for supplying a notional, can the notional trace a basic supply path of *any length* as stipulated for notionals upon invasion / paradrop to the HQ giving emergency supply?
Or does it have to be within four hexes?
Answer> No, yes. Date 05/07/2007

Q2.4-13> Is the HQ providing Emergency HQ Supply itself in supply? (thus the number of units would be IN ADDITION to the supplying HQ).
Answer> No. Date 29/11/2007

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 592
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/27/2008 11:48:47 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22035
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
Here is today's logic puzzle in WIF rules.

1 - The Axis move naval units (A) into sea area X, where they are intercepted by Allied units. The Axis decides to fight through, so a naval combat takes place. After the first round of the naval combat, some Allied units (B) are forced to abort.

If the aborted units move immediately, problems can arise. For instance, ...
2 - The Allied units B pass through sea area Y while aborting/returning to base, where they are intercepted by Axis units already in the sea area Y. The Allied units have to fight through, so a naval combat takes place. As a result of the first round of this naval combat, some Axis units (C) are forced to abort.

3 - What happens if the Axis units execute their abort/return to base through sea area X?

Just to give you the current status at this point:
- we are still in the Axis naval movement phase,
- the Axis units A are trying to fight through sea area X,
- we are between naval combat rounds 1 and 2 sea area X,
- the Allied units B are trying to perform their abort/return to base and are fighting their way through sea area Y,
- we are between naval combat rounds 1 and 2 in sea area Y
- the Axis units C are trying to perform their abort/return to base from sea area Y, and want to pass through sea area X.

I - As a slight simplification of this mess, I propose delaying all aborts/return to base due to combat until the end of the naval combat in the sea area (quiescence). Then at least we will know that the naval combat in sea area X isn't between rounds.

II - I further propose that all aborts are concluded before 'normal' naval movement recommences. Which in the above example means that the Axis units A would still be in sea area X when Axis units C enter the sea area as part of their abort/return to base. Since A in in the sea area, then they might get involved in further combat when C enters. Once C completes its return to base, then B will complete its return to base, and then A can continue moving.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 593
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/28/2008 12:34:58 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is today's logic puzzle in WIF rules.

1 - The Axis move naval units (A) into sea area X, where they are intercepted by Allied units. The Axis decides to fight through, so a naval combat takes place. After the first round of the naval combat, some Allied units (B) are forced to abort.

You need also to mention that the interception roll was successful, otherwise the reader might think that all interceptions are automatic.

quote:

If the aborted units move immediately, problems can arise. For instance, ...
2 - The Allied units B pass through sea area Y while aborting/returning to base, where they are intercepted by Axis units already in the sea area Y. The Allied units have to fight through, so a naval combat takes place. As a result of the first round of this naval combat, some Axis units (C) are forced to abort.

3 - What happens if the Axis units execute their abort/return to base through sea area X?

Just to give you the current status at this point:
- we are still in the Axis naval movement phase,
- the Axis units A are trying to fight through sea area X,
- we are between naval combat rounds 1 and 2 sea area X,
- the Allied units B are trying to perform their abort/return to base and are fighting their way through sea area Y,
- we are between naval combat rounds 1 and 2 in sea area Y
- the Axis units C are trying to perform their abort/return to base from sea area Y, and want to pass through sea area X.

I - As a slight simplification of this mess, I propose delaying all aborts/return to base due to combat until the end of the naval combat in the sea area (quiescence). Then at least we will know that the naval combat in sea area X isn't between rounds.

I'd say that this is the way it is played indeed by some group playing the game. But you need to create groups of Aborting ships : Those aborted in round 1, those aborted in round 2, etc... Each group aborting separately one after the other, and not as a big group.

quote:

II - I further propose that all aborts are concluded before 'normal' naval movement recommences. Which in the above example means that the Axis units A would still be in sea area X when Axis units C enter the sea area as part of their abort/return to base. Since A in in the sea area, then they might get involved in further combat when C enters. Once C completes its return to base, then B will complete its return to base, and then A can continue moving.

Why not.

This is a rare occurence that you have to take care of in programming the computer game, but that I never have encountered in 12 years of gaming WiF FE intensively, so I guess that around the table we would have had simplified it this way too.

As a note, remember that units initialy aborted, and then aborted again in a new interception, don't have their movement allowance and rate renewed, they still have to abort within range of their initial sea area where they aborted in the first place (this is in the FAQ, as question Q11.4-9 -- that is a question about overruning ships, but whose answer can be converted to this case).

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 594
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/28/2008 1:49:17 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22035
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is today's logic puzzle in WIF rules.

1 - The Axis move naval units (A) into sea area X, where they are intercepted by Allied units. The Axis decides to fight through, so a naval combat takes place. After the first round of the naval combat, some Allied units (B) are forced to abort.

You need also to mention that the interception roll was successful, otherwise the reader might think that all interceptions are automatic.

quote:

If the aborted units move immediately, problems can arise. For instance, ...
2 - The Allied units B pass through sea area Y while aborting/returning to base, where they are intercepted by Axis units already in the sea area Y. The Allied units have to fight through, so a naval combat takes place. As a result of the first round of this naval combat, some Axis units (C) are forced to abort.

3 - What happens if the Axis units execute their abort/return to base through sea area X?

Just to give you the current status at this point:
- we are still in the Axis naval movement phase,
- the Axis units A are trying to fight through sea area X,
- we are between naval combat rounds 1 and 2 sea area X,
- the Allied units B are trying to perform their abort/return to base and are fighting their way through sea area Y,
- we are between naval combat rounds 1 and 2 in sea area Y
- the Axis units C are trying to perform their abort/return to base from sea area Y, and want to pass through sea area X.

I - As a slight simplification of this mess, I propose delaying all aborts/return to base due to combat until the end of the naval combat in the sea area (quiescence). Then at least we will know that the naval combat in sea area X isn't between rounds.

I'd say that this is the way it is played indeed by some group playing the game. But you need to create groups of Aborting ships : Those aborted in round 1, those aborted in round 2, etc... Each group aborting separately one after the other, and not as a big group.

quote:

II - I further propose that all aborts are concluded before 'normal' naval movement recommences. Which in the above example means that the Axis units A would still be in sea area X when Axis units C enter the sea area as part of their abort/return to base. Since A in in the sea area, then they might get involved in further combat when C enters. Once C completes its return to base, then B will complete its return to base, and then A can continue moving.

Why not.

This is a rare occurence that you have to take care of in programming the computer game, but that I never have encountered in 12 years of gaming WiF FE intensively, so I guess that around the table we would have had simplified it this way too.

As a note, remember that units initialy aborted, and then aborted again in a new interception, don't have their movement allowance and rate renewed, they still have to abort within range of their initial sea area where they aborted in the first place (this is in the FAQ, as question Q11.4-9 -- that is a question about overruning ships, but whose answer can be converted to this case).

Is it really necessary to have each group abort separately for each round? Typically naval combats were over within 24 hours, which in the WIF time scale is instantaneous. Subdividing it further by combat round seems excessive.

The other problem here is that ships from multiple major powers and both sides might be aborting. That's especially true if one side decides to call it quits. To prioritize who aborts first I am planning on having the side that moved ships in the area abort first. For normal naval combat it is the side which chose to initiate the combat. But here I am going with the side that 'provoked' the combat by having its ships enter the area.

When multiple major powers are aborting from the same side, they can choose to do that in whichever order they like.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 595
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/28/2008 5:49:18 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8122
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Is it really necessary to have each group abort separately for each round? Typically naval combats were over within 24 hours, which in the WIF time scale is instantaneous. Subdividing it further by combat round seems excessive.

The other problem here is that ships from multiple major powers and both sides might be aborting. That's especially true if one side decides to call it quits. To prioritize who aborts first I am planning on having the side that moved ships in the area abort first. For normal naval combat it is the side which chose to initiate the combat. But here I am going with the side that 'provoked' the combat by having its ships enter the area.

When multiple major powers are aborting from the same side, they can choose to do that in whichever order they like.

Like Patrice, in umpteen years of playing, the most convoluted sequence I've ever seen is one aborting group getting intercepted in two successive sea zones, and that was after naval combat at the end of naval movement, not during. Unfortunately that is no solace for you the programmer, as I agree the situation you describe "could" occur, and I don't know if RAW covers it. The questions are:
1. Do you suspend the combat in Area X until you resolve the interception? Or
2. Do you set aside the aborting units (C) until the initial combat in X is concluded? And 3. Furthermore, do you also finish the combat in Area Y prior to completing the abort from there? Or
4. Resolve that first abort through Area X first. And
5. What happens if any of these combats generate further aborts that get intercepted in each other's initial sea areas?

If all aborts are held to the end of naval combat you can avoid this nightmare and resolve all the naval combats in sequence as they occur, making sure in the Naval Combat step to complete all resulting aborts before moving to the next sea area where a search is desired (but allowing that search even if a naval interception combat happens prior to it). The one thing that is most important is that the aborts should not be all combined together. Aborts from the first round should not be considered to be travelling with aborts from a second round. They should abort as separate groups in the order of occurrence.

Your Paragraph II proposal sounds to me exactly like the way WiFFE is played.

Most times players will try to route aborting units through sea areas where there is no enemy presence (or only the smallest chance of being found again) or to a port in the sea area they are aborting from. Also players will think twice about intercepting a superior force. This is why we don't see a lot of this kind of thing, but again that doesn't help the programming of it.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 596
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/28/2008 5:54:55 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8122
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
The other problem here is that ships from multiple major powers and both sides might be aborting. That's especially true if one side decides to call it quits. To prioritize who aborts first I am planning on having the side that moved ships in the area abort first. For normal naval combat it is the side which chose to initiate the combat. But here I am going with the side that 'provoked' the combat by having its ships enter the area.

When multiple major powers are aborting from the same side, they can choose to do that in whichever order they like.

RAW does state that the active side decides to abort first. So even if initiated by the opponent in the Opponent's Naval Combat step, it is the active side that must decide first whether to abort.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 597
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/28/2008 6:07:09 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8122
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Is it really necessary to have each group abort separately for each round? Typically naval combats were over within 24 hours, which in the WIF time scale is instantaneous. Subdividing it further by combat round seems excessive.

I think it is - in terms of keeping the flavor of WiFFE. Doing otherwise will change a player's decision process concerning sticking around for multiple rounds of naval combat. If I risk getting frittered away in small groups, I'm more likely to abort after one round. If I know all my aborts will be recombined into something formidable for the RTB voyage, I'm more likely to keep fighting.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 598
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/28/2008 6:11:47 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22035
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
The other problem here is that ships from multiple major powers and both sides might be aborting. That's especially true if one side decides to call it quits. To prioritize who aborts first I am planning on having the side that moved ships in the area abort first. For normal naval combat it is the side which chose to initiate the combat. But here I am going with the side that 'provoked' the combat by having its ships enter the area.

When multiple major powers are aborting from the same side, they can choose to do that in whichever order they like.

RAW does state that the active side decides to abort first. So even if initiated by the opponent in the Opponent's Naval Combat step, it is the active side that must decide first whether to abort.

Defining the Active side is a little difficult to do at times.

The standard cases are easy:
For naval movement it is the phasing side.
For naval combat initiated by the phasing side, it is the phasing side.
For naval combat initiated by the non-phasing side, it is the non-phasing side.

But when an overrun occurs and naval units are forced to rebase (within twice their range) it gets messy:
A - The Axis overruns during land movement, the Allies rebase, naval combat occurs and both sides have units to abort,...
B - The placement of a partisan unit causes units to have to rebase, and the same sequence as above occurs.
C - The declaration of Vichy causes units to rebase, ...
D - Complete conquest of a country causes units to rebase,...
E - There are several more of these ...

This is why for the non-standard cases I prefer to simply go with: whichever naval units 'just' moved into the sea area have to abort first.

Aborting groups of units from the same combat separately still doesn't appeal to me. If the first combat round aborts a single unit and then that side decides to go home, you want the player to move the two groups (single unit & everybody else) separately?


EDIT: There are messy consequences if you answer the last question yes. In theory, the sea area from which units have already decided to go home could become engaged in another naval combat.


< Message edited by Shannon V. OKeets -- 8/28/2008 6:13:53 AM >


_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 599
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/28/2008 7:11:02 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8122
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
The other problem here is that ships from multiple major powers and both sides might be aborting. That's especially true if one side decides to call it quits. To prioritize who aborts first I am planning on having the side that moved ships in the area abort first. For normal naval combat it is the side which chose to initiate the combat. But here I am going with the side that 'provoked' the combat by having its ships enter the area.

When multiple major powers are aborting from the same side, they can choose to do that in whichever order they like.


RAW does state that the active side decides to abort first. So even if initiated by the opponent in the Opponent's Naval Combat step, it is the active side that must decide first whether to abort.


Defining the Active side is a little difficult to do at times.

The standard cases are easy:
For naval movement it is the phasing side.
For naval combat initiated by the phasing side, it is the phasing side.
For naval combat initiated by the non-phasing side, it is the non-phasing side.

Per the RAW glossary the "Active side" is the side whose impulse it is so this last one should still be the phasing side.

quote:


But when an overrun occurs and naval units are forced to rebase (within twice their range) it gets messy:
A - The Axis overruns during land movement, the Allies rebase, naval combat occurs and both sides have units to abort,...
B - The placement of a partisan unit causes units to have to rebase, and the same sequence as above occurs.
C - The declaration of Vichy causes units to rebase, ...
D - Complete conquest of a country causes units to rebase,...
E - There are several more of these ...

For 'A'. it is the Axis impulse, they are the Active side. For B,C and D, to me the side causing the action is the Active side, but I agree it is not specified in the rules.

quote:


This is why for the non-standard cases I prefer to simply go with: whichever naval units 'just' moved into the sea area have to abort first.

That's reasonable but in B,C and D we all know the rebasing units must RTB so opposing players are unlikely to abort after a combat round.

quote:


Aborting groups of units from the same combat separately still doesn't appeal to me. If the first combat round aborts a single unit and then that side decides to go home, you want the player to move the two groups (single unit & everybody else) separately?

EDIT: There are messy consequences if you answer the last question yes. In theory, the sea area from which units have already decided to go home could become engaged in another naval combat.

No, by RAW they abort together in this event. Per round any voluntary aborts go with the combat aborts, its just that usually (subs may cause an exception) the voluntary aborts end the combat.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 600
Page:   <<   < prev  17 18 19 [20] 21   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: rebasing and naval transport Page: <<   < prev  17 18 19 [20] 21   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

0.282