Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln


Yup, Sequential. MWiF is probably safer for the players because it shows which minors you can align before you accidentally DOW them.


9. Declaring war
All major powers on this side announce which major powers on the other side they are declaring war on this impulse. They then all announce which neutral minor countries they are declaring war on this impulse.

9.8 Aligning minors
If a neutral minor can align with your major power (see 19.6, 19.7 and 19.8), you can declare that it is aligning with you. You can only declare one minor aligned with your major power in each friendly impulse.



13.3.1 Entry markers
The US entry level is changed by the entry markers you draw. You will have an entry level against Japan and another against Germany and Italy. This is explained in 9.4.

Only you will know your entry levels, although your opponents will make guesses based on the entry options you choose and may learn some information from intelligence operations (option 63: see 22.1).

You can look at your own markers after you have committed them to a particular entry pool but you can’t show them to anyone else (even on your own side).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I follow your logic but propose changing the label for your 4th step to: US rolls for attempted DOWs against Germany/Italy/Japan. That the US is going to make an attempt to DOW on one of the Axis major powers is done in step 1.

quote:

What I envision here are two different, but similar forms for Aligning countries and DOW. The form consists of a matrix with the phasing side's major powers as the columns and the target DOW/Align countries as the rows. Some of the cells will be blank (possible) some will be black (impossible). For example, the US might be able to DOW on Germany, but the CW can't because they are already at war.

quote:

On the side are check boxes for each major power on the phasing side: Proposed and Final. By clicking Proposed the MP lets other MPs review and enter their selections. By clicking Final, the MP says his decisions are final. Once all MPs have Final checked, the 1st step is complete.

At that point the program can performed steps 2 -> 4 by itself and only come back to the players for decisions if step 5 (reserves) or 6 (minors) require setting up units.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

There is a matrix as to the political relationships between countries but is is not specifically for DOW or Aligning purposes - just information.

Who controls a minor country is determined by closest capital - that calculation is already in the program (from CWIF).

quote:

It is not clear to me that 9.2 doesn't also apply to the US. It starts: "All major powers on this side ...". That seems to me to include the USA.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
It is not clear to me that 9.2 doesn't also apply to the US. It starts: "All major powers on this side ...". That seems to me to include the USA.

Yes, 9.2 talks about all generalities about DoWing, but 9.4 and then 9.5 makes the specifices of the case they cover, and each chapter talks about the major powers making their DoWing at this step.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
It is not clear to me that 9.2 doesn't also apply to the US. It starts: "All major powers on this side ...". That seems to me to include the USA.

Yes, 9.2 talks about all generalities about DoWing, but 9.4 and then 9.5 makes the specifices of the case they cover, and each chapter talks about the major powers making their DoWing at this step.

To me its clear that 9.2 implies that all the MPs on the relevant side make their declarations at that point, as Steve suggests, including the US. Seems to me that the entry in 9.4 is a clarification of the specific process for the US but it doesn't directly imply that the actual decision to DOW by the US comes after all the others are resolved- although the process of working it out comes after the entry effect of the others.

Thats just how I read it!
Jimm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

So the US announce that they will DoW Japan for instance, without knowing his chances of success ???
As all other DoWs will have an effect on their level, and not a slight one, this can lead to nonsenses like dropping from 50% chances of success which is acceptable, to 20-30% with is less acceptable.
No, this is not logical to me, and I don't know any gaming group who plays with such a blind US DoW, and the rule being written in sequence of play order supports the fact that the USA announce his DoW in 9.4, as Germany and / or USSR announce that they will try to break their pacts in 9.5, and make their subsequent DoWs. How could Grmany DoW Russia in 9.2, as it has not broken the pact ? How can the USA announce any DoW in 9.2, as it can only compute his level and roll for his success or failure in 9.4 ???

quote:

ORIGINAL: trees trees

COOL, a new Harry game? Yay!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln

If DOW's are done simultaneously then Persia could be at war with Japan and the USSR on impulse 2. And Japan and the USSR would be at peace.

Who would control Persia?

Rule 9.9 Multiple States of War only involves Major powers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I am sitting in the camp that has all DOWs done simultaneously and the US Entry effects calculated in a separate, later step.

As to the US not knowing the chances of success, if the US performs their DOW first, and calculates the effects of that first, then the DOW(s) - and effects thereof - of the other Allied major powers will occur later and not impact the US's chance of success.

The hard part for the CW is deciding to DOW on Japan in the same impulse that the US is going to try. It can be awkward if the US DOW attempt fails and the CW ends up going it alone against Japan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I am sitting in the camp that has all DOWs done simultaneously and the US Entry effects calculated in a separate, later step.

As to the US not knowing the chances of success, if the US performs their DOW first, and calculates the effects of that first, then the DOW(s) - and effects thereof - of the other Allied major powers will occur later and not impact the US's chance of success.

The hard part for the CW is deciding to DOW on Japan in the same impulse that the US is going to try. It can be awkward if the US DOW attempt fails and the CW ends up going it alone against Japan.

Well, I think that his opinion should be asked to Harry Rowland about this in the end, as this is quite a touchy subject amongst players.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Well, I think that his opinion should be asked to Harry Rowland about this in the end, as this is quite a touchy subject amongst players.

Then this should be on the Rules Clarification List submitted to Harry. How is that coming, by the way?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Well, I think that his opinion should be asked to Harry Rowland about this in the end, as this is quite a touchy subject amongst players.

Then this should be on the Rules Clarification List submitted to Harry. How is that coming, by the way?

quote:

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

Where is Build points produced? and can be lendleased from. I see two options:

A) Production points are produced at the factory but then all PP are summed up and a production multiplier is applied to the total, all BP's arrive in the Capital.

B) BP's appear at the factories.
This gives a problem with rounding, assume CW has production multiplier 1.25.

2 factories in india times 1.25 leaves 2.5 BP >>3BP
2 factories in Canada times 1.25 leaves 2.5 BP >>3 BP

So four factories gives 6BP? or do they produce 5BP? is it in india or Canada that you get 3BP's?

This is important when it comes to lendlease of BP's to for example FF or Russia from Indian/Canadian/Australian factories, to reduce need of convoys.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimm

quote:

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

Where is Build points produced? and can be lendleased from. I see two options:

A) Production points are produced at the factory but then all PP are summed up and a production multiplier is applied to the total, all BP's arrive in the Capital.

B) BP's appear at the factories.
This gives a problem with rounding, assume CW has production multiplier 1.25.

2 factories in india times 1.25 leaves 2.5 BP >>3BP
2 factories in Canada times 1.25 leaves 2.5 BP >>3 BP

So four factories gives 6BP? or do they produce 5BP? is it in india or Canada that you get 3BP's?

This is important when it comes to lendlease of BP's to for example FF or Russia from Indian/Canadian/Australian factories, to reduce need of convoys.

Basically, A. Each resource you transport to a factory produces one production point. You then total up, and apply the production multiple to arrive at your BPs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimm

quote:

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

Where is Build points produced? and can be lendleased from. I see two options:

A) Production points are produced at the factory but then all PP are summed up and a production multiplier is applied to the total, all BP's arrive in the Capital.

B) BP's appear at the factories.
This gives a problem with rounding, assume CW has production multiplier 1.25.

2 factories in india times 1.25 leaves 2.5 BP >>3BP
2 factories in Canada times 1.25 leaves 2.5 BP >>3 BP

So four factories gives 6BP? or do they produce 5BP? is it in india or Canada that you get 3BP's?

This is important when it comes to lendlease of BP's to for example FF or Russia from Indian/Canadian/Australian factories, to reduce need of convoys.

Basically, A. Each resource you transport to a factory produces one production point. You then total up, and apply the production multiple to arrive at your BPs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimm

quote:

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

Where is Build points produced? and can be lendleased from. I see two options:

A) Production points are produced at the factory but then all PP are summed up and a production multiplier is applied to the total, all BP's arrive in the Capital.

B) BP's appear at the factories.
This gives a problem with rounding, assume CW has production multiplier 1.25.

2 factories in india times 1.25 leaves 2.5 BP >>3BP
2 factories in Canada times 1.25 leaves 2.5 BP >>3 BP

So four factories gives 6BP? or do they produce 5BP? is it in india or Canada that you get 3BP's?

This is important when it comes to lendlease of BP's to for example FF or Russia from Indian/Canadian/Australian factories, to reduce need of convoys.

Basically, A. Each resource you transport to a factory produces one production point. You then total up, and apply the production multiple to arrive at your BPs.

I agree with Jimm here too.

About Lend Lease, I think that in your example, the CW can choose to lend 3 BP from his 2 factories of India (with his PM of 1.25, and also to lend 3 BP from his 2 factories of Canada.
Let's say he had a total of 22 PP produced by all his factories, what does matter is that the total of his produced BP is 28 (22 x 1.25 = 27.5).
That mean that he will be left with 22 BP for his own production.

But, if the CW was reduced to India & Canada, and only had those 4 factories, his total production would be 5 BP and he could only lend 5 BP, and in this case, he would only be able to lend 3 BP from one of those countries, and 2 BP from the other, and it would be his choice to decide which one lends 3 BP.

quote:

ORIGINAL: coregames

This may sound silly, but someone in our current game is under the impression that, in a naval combat with only planes involved, an air-to-air combat can still occur. I tried to tell him that without ships to target, there can be no bombing mission to escort.

The rules are a little ambiguous here, but unless I have been playing WiF wrong for the last 16 years, air-to-air combat can only occur when the bombers have a target.

According to 11.5.7: 'Determine the type of naval combat you will fight this round. A naval air combat involves each side’s aircraft fighting each other, then attacking the opposing ships or SUBs.'. This does not say, '...attacking the opposing ships or SUBs if there are any', but my friend was very upset when I tried to explain this semantic point.

This is probably just me wasting everyone's time, but a clarification would be helpful for his sake, as well as mine.

Thanks :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: coregames
This may sound silly, but someone in our current game is under the impression that, in a naval combat with only planes involved, an air-to-air combat can still occur. I tried to tell him that without ships to target, there can be no bombing mission to escort.

The rules are a little ambiguous here, but unless I have been playing WiF wrong for the last 16 years, air-to-air combat can only occur when the bombers have a target.

According to 11.5.7: 'Determine the type of naval combat you will fight this round. A naval air combat involves each side’s aircraft fighting each other, then attacking the opposing ships or SUBs.'. This does not say, '...attacking the opposing ships or SUBs if there are any', but my friend was very upset when I tried to explain this semantic point.

This is probably just me wasting everyone's time, but a clarification would be helpful for his sake, as well as mine.

Thanks :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: coregames
This may sound silly, but someone in our current game is under the impression that, in a naval combat with only planes involved, an air-to-air combat can still occur. I tried to tell him that without ships to target, there can be no bombing mission to escort.

The rules are a little ambiguous here, but unless I have been playing WiF wrong for the last 16 years, air-to-air combat can only occur when the bombers have a target.

According to 11.5.7: 'Determine the type of naval combat you will fight this round. A naval air combat involves each side’s aircraft fighting each other, then attacking the opposing ships or SUBs.'. This does not say, '...attacking the opposing ships or SUBs if there are any', but my friend was very upset when I tried to explain this semantic point.

This is probably just me wasting everyone's time, but a clarification would be helpful for his sake, as well as mine.

Thanks :)

I agree with you that if there are no ships in the naval combat, then there is no naval combat. The key word here is 'naval', with a clear implication of there being a navy present. If there are ships in the sea area but they are not included as part of the combat (i.e., in a sea section not included), then they are not fighting and there is no reason for the air planes to be flying. More or less the same thing you said.

quote:

ORIGINAL: coregames

This may sound silly, but someone in our current game is under the impression that, in a naval combat with only planes involved, an air-to-air combat can still occur. I tried to tell him that without ships to target, there can be no bombing mission to escort.

The rules are a little ambiguous here, but unless I have been playing WiF wrong for the last 16 years, air-to-air combat can only occur when the bombers have a target.

According to 11.5.7: 'Determine the type of naval combat you will fight this round. A naval air combat involves each side’s aircraft fighting each other, then attacking the opposing ships or SUBs.'. This does not say, '...attacking the opposing ships or SUBs if there are any', but my friend was very upset when I tried to explain this semantic point.