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: Rules Clarification List

 
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: Rules Clarification List Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/17/2007 11:26:43 AM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Here is one I posted on the WiF list and it is currently running 3 to 2 as a "Yes".

Situation: Turkey is aligned with Germany. In Turkey, CW units are attacking a German mountain corps which has a flipped Italian ATR in its hex. May Turkish planes provide Ground Support?

There are 2 points in RAW section 18 which seem to apply.
Non-cooperating units cannot:
1. stack in the same hex, at any time that stacking limits apply
2. be committed to any combat or mission that the other unit is, or will be, involved in this step.

However, there are no stacking limits for either ground supporting air units and their escorts nor for these same units in combination with the units they are supporting.

So it comes down to the meaning of "involved". The Italian ATR is not involved in defending the hex but it could be destroyed if the CW units advance after combat.

I've added this one to the list of questions.
My answer is :

No they can't, as an Italian ATR is involved in the combat.
Advancing after combat is part of "11.16.5 Resolving attacks", which is part of "11.16 Land combat", so the Italian ATR is involved in the land combat.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 151
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/18/2007 2:48:56 AM   
Incy

 

Posts: 336
Joined: 10/25/2003
Status: offline
I'd say yes to this, I don't think the plane is involved in the combat. (but I agree the issue is open to interpretation)

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 152
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/18/2007 4:18:50 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline
I already said on the WiF discussion list that I thought the Turks could fly ground support. I say this because even though the Italian ATR has a stake in the combat (it stands to get destroyed if the CW takes the hex) it is not involved in the combat in the sense that it is not contributing in any way to the outcome of the combat. Italian ground troops would be another matter, of course.

This issue makes me think that RAW needs to be adjusted in this regard when it comes to mixed forces. I think that RAW's exclusive-OR approach ought to be changed to an inclusive-OR approach.

For example, if France doesn't fall or the Americans liberate it, then the French do not cooperate with the CW. So, a hex with US and French land units together could not, under RAW, receive CW ground support (or even have CW fighters intercept/CAP during any tactical air phase).

This makes no sense to me whatsoever; I think that it is the presence of cooperating units that should define whether or not aircraft can fly missions to hexes. In the above example, the presence or absence of American units ought to define when and where CW forces can fly missions, rather than the presence of French ones (in mixed groups, anyway - I have no problem with the CW being unable to fly to support the French when on their own, even if by 1944 it's kind of silly).

It may be there for game balance reasons, but it strikes me as rather ahistorical and also goes against the team-play grain of the game.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Incy)
Post #: 153
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/18/2007 8:31:39 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99
I already said on the WiF discussion list that I thought the Turks could fly ground support. I say this because even though the Italian ATR has a stake in the combat (it stands to get destroyed if the CW takes the hex) it is not involved in the combat in the sense that it is not contributing in any way to the outcome of the combat. Italian ground troops would be another matter, of course.

This issue makes me think that RAW needs to be adjusted in this regard when it comes to mixed forces. I think that RAW's exclusive-OR approach ought to be changed to an inclusive-OR approach.

For example, if France doesn't fall or the Americans liberate it, then the French do not cooperate with the CW. So, a hex with US and French land units together could not, under RAW, receive CW ground support (or even have CW fighters intercept/CAP during any tactical air phase).

This makes no sense to me whatsoever; I think that it is the presence of cooperating units that should define whether or not aircraft can fly missions to hexes. In the above example, the presence or absence of American units ought to define when and where CW forces can fly missions, rather than the presence of French ones (in mixed groups, anyway - I have no problem with the CW being unable to fly to support the French when on their own, even if by 1944 it's kind of silly).

It may be there for game balance reasons, but it strikes me as rather ahistorical and also goes against the team-play grain of the game.

I agree with your points here (although I am not going to redesign MWIF to accommodate them).

I can give you a pretty good reason why the rules on non-cooperation exist though. It is common practice in war games where such restrictions are not in place for players to intermix units without regard to nationality. A 5 factor tactical bomber, or a 7 factor fighter are sent into battle without even noticing what country they are from. Unless the rules impose a restriction or penalty of some sort, players become blind to the nationalities involved and just shove cardboard counters around.

I offer as some related examples, the irritation of forum members to: (1) the heavy use of Italian air units with Balboa in the USSR during Barbarossa, (2) the suggestion to use a Baltic country as the new home country for Italy, (3) the defense of Italy by German land units instead of Italian units, and (4) in general, the sacrifice of Italian units in order to preserve German units. These all fall under the heading of 'gamey' strategies/tactics.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 154
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/19/2007 1:10:07 AM   
composer99


Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline
I certainly wouldn't expect any re-working of the WiF:FE rules by Matrix Games for MWiF.  Indeed, if memory serves, I've defended the status quo on a couple of occasions.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 155
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/21/2007 9:59:23 AM   
JagWars


Posts: 121
Joined: 7/1/2000
From: Eureka, Missouri, USA
Status: offline
quote:


Germany does not want to liberate Portugal. Instead they wish to cede
control of the hexes to Portugal so that Lisbon will become a
secondary supply source for Italy (since Portugal is aligned to Italy).

Germany, Do you want to Liberate Portugal ?
- If you do, it will be aligned to you, and you will incorporate its force pool into yours, and its capital will be a secondary supply source for Germany.
- If you don't, it will become a red partisan country, and you will still be able to revert it to its original controlling Major Power.



I would argue that Portugal does not have an original controlling Major Power; Egypt does, Lybia does, Korea does. I beleive that original in this context means as of Sep 1939.

If the CW DOWs Portugal and Germany, Italy, and Japan all decline to align Portugal, does the CW then become the original controlling Major Power?


(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 156
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/21/2007 10:03:47 AM   
JagWars


Posts: 121
Joined: 7/1/2000
From: Eureka, Missouri, USA
Status: offline
Partisans in Eastern Poland:

If Polish Partisans can be placed into Eastern Poland, then should not the Soviet units in Eastern Poland be included in the garrison valuation for determing partisan availability?

(in reply to JagWars)
Post #: 157
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/21/2007 10:52:03 AM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Jaguar

Partisans in Eastern Poland:

If Polish Partisans can be placed into Eastern Poland, then should not the Soviet units in Eastern Poland be included in the garrison valuation for determing partisan availability?

This is sound and logical.
This whole Eastern Poland & Partisan issue is a real mess.
It is part of the clarification list we established for Harry to answer.

(in reply to JagWars)
Post #: 158
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/21/2007 8:32:42 PM   
Mziln


Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline
NOTE: The rules state that the modifiers to the die role are affected by the total garrison IN THE COUNTRY.


If the USSR has occupied Eastern Poland:

Polish Partisans are created in Poland NOT Eastern Poland.

Partisans cannot enter Eastern Poland it is part of the USSR.



(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 159
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/21/2007 9:49:35 PM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Mziln

NOTE: The rules state that the modifiers to the die role are affected by the total garrison IN THE COUNTRY.


If the USSR has occupied Eastern Poland:

Polish Partisans are created in Poland NOT Eastern Poland.

Partisans cannot enter Eastern Poland it is part of the USSR.

Eastern Poland is not part of the USSR, this is the problem, even after the USSR has occupied Eastern Poland Eastern Poland is considered conquered.

(in reply to Mziln)
Post #: 160
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/21/2007 11:31:24 PM   
Frederyck


Posts: 427
Joined: 12/7/2005
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln

NOTE: The rules state that the modifiers to the die role are affected by the total garrison IN THE COUNTRY.


If the USSR has occupied Eastern Poland:

Polish Partisans are created in Poland NOT Eastern Poland.

Partisans cannot enter Eastern Poland it is part of the USSR.


We discussed this earlier in this very thread. See my original question in post #92 and the ensuing rules-discussions it lead to, especially Patrice's answer in post #99.

(in reply to Mziln)
Post #: 161
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/22/2007 3:29:10 AM   
Mziln


Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline
quote:

patrice

Even if Eastern Poland is conquered by Russia, Poland itself is conquered by Germany. Eastern Poland is a subdivision of Poland, and is part of Poland from what 19.5.1 does not say.


This is wrong.

If the USSR is annexing Eastern Poland.

It must be conquered by the USSR before Poland is conquered by Germany. If the USSR is NOT annexing Eastern Poland then there is no Eastern Poland.

quote:

patrice

quote:



If a partisan can't appear in Eastern Poland, can it move there after it has appeared and thereby be out of reach for the German forces?


I think that nothing in the rule prevent this.


Rule 13.1 Partisans (option 36)

”You put a partisan in the country if the result is less than or equal to that countries (modified) partisan number.”

The country is Poland conquered by the Germans NOT Eastern Poland, which has been conquered by the USSR.

"Partisans may move anywhere within their home country. They can never leave their home country"

The country is Poland conquered by the Germans NOT Eastern Poland, which has been conquered by the USSR.



Please compare a map of Poland pre-WWII and post-WWII. You will find the USSR is still controlling "Eastern Poland" today.

You and Patrice discussed it there were no other coments. And now Patrice says it is "a real mess". I find it very clear and easy to understand.

< Message edited by Mziln -- 4/22/2007 4:06:53 AM >

(in reply to Frederyck)
Post #: 162
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/22/2007 12:45:46 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
Mziln, I do not dispute the reality as to Eatern Poland being part of the USSR, what I say is that the status of Eastern Poland is muddy in the game's RAW.

There is the Poland Minor Country.
We know that Eastern Poland is conquered by USSR. By conquered, I mean, in the RAW sense.
We know that Poland is conquered by Germany.

Problem is : What is Eastern Poland in RAW terms ? In Geographical terms this is obvious, as the red dotted lines show it on the map. But Eastern Poland is not defined (as Vichy France can be for example) neither as a new Minor Country separate from Poland, nor as a new Territory separate from Poland.

I mean, it has not RAW existence, beyond being a part of Poland.

So if it is neither a Territory nor a Minor Country, and if it is part of Poland, its status of being conquered by a country that is on the other side of the conquerer of the country to which is belong makes the whole partisan affair muddy and unclear.

I agree with you that PART appearing in Poland should not appear in Eastern Poland, and that PART appearing in Poland should not be able to enter Eastern Poland. This is the solution that makes more sense historicaly.

In fact, the simple thing that would be needed, would be to clarify the status of Eastern Poland, to declare in RAW that it is a Territory separate from Poland, that belongs to Poland in 1939, and that is conquered by special rule by Russia, and that is liberated from Russia by Germany when Germany takes all its cities during Barbarossa (as this "liberation-thing" is also as muddy as the partisans-thing).

(in reply to Mziln)
Post #: 163
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/22/2007 5:32:06 PM   
Mziln


Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline
You didn’t mention why Eastern Poland isn’t a territory. It meets the requirements.

“A territory is something similar to a home country but without a capital city and only reachable by an INF rather than a MAR (e.g. Gibraltar, British Somaliland, Papua)”

During the liberation step you can return control of the territory to the original owner.

So if Eastern Poland is a territory Germany could never liberate it since it conquered Poland (a minor power).

The USSR could liberate Poland (a minor power) and in so doing liberate Eastern Poland.

Eastern Poland serves 2 purposes:

(1) To be conquered by the USSR.
(2) To allow the USSR to conquer the Baltic States.

< Message edited by Mziln -- 4/22/2007 5:43:41 PM >

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 164
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/22/2007 9:01:56 PM   
Frederyck


Posts: 427
Joined: 12/7/2005
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline
Well, if Eastern Poland is considered a Territory, Polish troops will not be able to use Brest-Litovsk or Lvov as primary supply sources. Heck, they wouldn't even be secondary supply sources for the poor Poles... I don't think this would be a good idea.

(in reply to Mziln)
Post #: 165
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/22/2007 10:12:19 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
Well, I think that Mziln's way is the best way to have a sound solution.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Frederyck

Well, if Eastern Poland is considered a Territory, Polish troops will not be able to use Brest-Litovsk or Lvov as primary supply sources. Heck, they wouldn't even be secondary supply sources for the poor Poles... I don't think this would be a good idea.

Eastern Poland only exist once the Russians enter it (and so, create it). This is similar for Bessarabia, who does not exist as a WiF entity before the Russians enter it, and make it part of Russia.

(in reply to Frederyck)
Post #: 166
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/22/2007 11:35:55 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Well, I think that Mziln's way is the best way to have a sound solution.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Frederyck

Well, if Eastern Poland is considered a Territory, Polish troops will not be able to use Brest-Litovsk or Lvov as primary supply sources. Heck, they wouldn't even be secondary supply sources for the poor Poles... I don't think this would be a good idea.

Eastern Poland only exist once the Russians enter it (and so, create it). This is similar for Bessarabia, who does not exist as a WiF entity before the Russians enter it, and make it part of Russia.

Coming at this issue from a purely practical point of view, MWIF identifies each hex in Eastern Poland as belonging to the "governed area" named Eastern Poland. Governed area is a generic term that can be applied to any group of hexes that is referenced by the code. Indeed, some of them are not currently used by the program (e.g., Polish Corridor). I assume some of the extra ones in the data files are in anticipation of adding the rules from Days of Decision III eventually.

Anyway, in addition to the association of each hex to the governed area Eastern Poland, Eastern Poland itself starts as belonging to the Poland. This is identical to Austria starting the Global War scenario as belonging to Germany. Finally, the program uses the definition of Eastern Poland to change control of individual hexes within it when the USSR claims Eastern Poland.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 167
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/24/2007 1:50:12 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Well, I think that Mziln's way is the best way to have a sound solution.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Frederyck

Well, if Eastern Poland is considered a Territory, Polish troops will not be able to use Brest-Litovsk or Lvov as primary supply sources. Heck, they wouldn't even be secondary supply sources for the poor Poles... I don't think this would be a good idea.

Eastern Poland only exist once the Russians enter it (and so, create it). This is similar for Bessarabia, who does not exist as a WiF entity before the Russians enter it, and make it part of Russia.

This was discussed again recently on the WiF list and although I agree it could use clarification and may well be unintended by the designers, the present rules in RAW do provide the answers.
1. East Poland is part of Poland (nothing else having been specified in RAW) and so it can be subject to partisans.
2. Russians don't count for the anti-partisan garrison because the CW must be the controller of the partisan and per RAW: "A unit has a garrison value only if it is face-up and not in the ZOC of an enemy unit. The unit must also be on the opposite side to the major power that will control the partisan."
3. Thus the partisan can be placed in East Poland, but cannot go inside the Nazi-Soviet pact area because per RAW neutrality pacts: "After you enter into a neutrality pact with a major power, units controlled by other major powers on your side cannot enter hexes that are part of your common border with that major power if they are at war with that other major power."
4. The CW is placing the partisan and RAW says that: "The controlling major power can place a partisan unit in any enemy controlled hex in its country that is not in an enemy ZOC. If there are no such hexes, put the partisan back into the force pool." It also says: "Partisans are always at war with the conquering major power (and it's aligned minors) even if the partisan's controlling major power is not at war with the conquerer." This last quote proves that the "enemy controlled hexes" are relative to the partisan - not to the CW.

So we may not like it, but RAW allows it.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 168
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/24/2007 7:26:11 PM   
Froonp


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

This was discussed again recently on the WiF list and although I agree it could use clarification and may well be unintended by the designers, the present rules in RAW do provide the answers.
1. East Poland is part of Poland (nothing else having been specified in RAW) and so it can be subject to partisans.
2. Russians don't count for the anti-partisan garrison because the CW must be the controller of the partisan and per RAW: "A unit has a garrison value only if it is face-up and not in the ZOC of an enemy unit. The unit must also be on the opposite side to the major power that will control the partisan."
3. Thus the partisan can be placed in East Poland, but cannot go inside the Nazi-Soviet pact area because per RAW neutrality pacts: "After you enter into a neutrality pact with a major power, units controlled by other major powers on your side cannot enter hexes that are part of your common border with that major power if they are at war with that other major power."
4. The CW is placing the partisan and RAW says that: "The controlling major power can place a partisan unit in any enemy controlled hex in its country that is not in an enemy ZOC. If there are no such hexes, put the partisan back into the force pool." It also says: "Partisans are always at war with the conquering major power (and it's aligned minors) even if the partisan's controlling major power is not at war with the conquerer." This last quote proves that the "enemy controlled hexes" are relative to the partisan - not to the CW.

Well, seems to me that if "The controlling major power can place a partisan unit in any enemy controlled hex in its country that is not in an enemy ZOC. ", then no PART can be placed into Eastern Poland, as Eastern Poland is not an "enemy controlled hex", as it is controlled by Russia.

There is, pending, the problem of how is Eastern Poland "liberated" by Germany, that is removed from being conquered by Russia, and when does it become part of Poland again.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 169
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/24/2007 8:29:33 PM   
mmn

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 11/2/2005
From: EU/DEN/CPH
Status: offline
I promised to follow up on the issue with liberation of Portugal. Below is my question to Ruediger Rinscheidt and his answer.

> Given the following steps:
>
> - CW DoWs Portugal and Portugal aligns with Italy
> - CW incompletely conquers Portugal
> - Germany evicts CW from Portugal and takes control of Lisbon
> - Germany does not liberate Portugal but instead chooses to revert
the
> hexes she controls to Portugal
>
> This is the situtation you clarified earlier:
> - Lisbon is (again) a secondary supply source for Italy.
> - Portugal becomes red partisan country.
> - Italy cannot liberate Portugal.
>
> The question I was asked to pass along is the following:
> Why can't Italy in a later Peace step liberate Portugal?

--->>> Because Italy doesn't control Lisbon at any time. This is the
pre-requisite for this action. At first GE controlled Lisbon and then
Portugal (after the reversion of previous GE controlled hexes).
Portugal is
the controller of these hexes now, not Italy (see rule 2.5, Changing
Control: "Note that even though major powers may control minor
countries
(see 9.8 & 13.7.1), it is the minors themselves that control hexes in
that
minor.")

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 170
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/24/2007 10:20:46 PM   
Mziln


Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

This was discussed again recently on the WiF list and although I agree it could use clarification and may well be unintended by the designers, the present rules in RAW do provide the answers.
1. East Poland is part of Poland (nothing else having been specified in RAW) and so it can be subject to partisans.
2. Russians don't count for the anti-partisan garrison because the CW must be the controller of the partisan and per RAW: "A unit has a garrison value only if it is face-up and not in the ZOC of an enemy unit. The unit must also be on the opposite side to the major power that will control the partisan."
3. Thus the partisan can be placed in East Poland, but cannot go inside the Nazi-Soviet pact area because per RAW neutrality pacts: "After you enter into a neutrality pact with a major power, units controlled by other major powers on your side cannot enter hexes that are part of your common border with that major power if they are at war with that other major power."
4. The CW is placing the partisan and RAW says that: "The controlling major power can place a partisan unit in any enemy controlled hex in its country that is not in an enemy ZOC. If there are no such hexes, put the partisan back into the force pool." It also says: "Partisans are always at war with the conquering major power (and it's aligned minors) even if the partisan's controlling major power is not at war with the conquerer." This last quote proves that the "enemy controlled hexes" are relative to the partisan - not to the CW.

So we may not like it, but RAW allows it.


As per the RaW Eastern Poland is not a Major or Minor power it does not meet the requirements. That would leave it as a territory.

(1) Poland is the source for partisans not Eastern Poland. Eastern Poland will only exist when the USSR conqueres it.

(2) USSR garison values would count if you are allowed to put partisans in Eastern Poland because you are puting them in a USSR conquered controled area.

(3&4) Using your example when did the CW sign a neutrality pact with Germany or the USSR? Polish partisans are controlled by the CW. So as per your example "Partisans are always at war with the conquering major power (and it's aligned minors) even if the partisan's controlling major power is not at war with the conquerer." Placing partisans in Eastern Poland would make them at war with the USSR not Germany. If Eastern Poland is considered a territory then it would have no effects on partisans placed in Poland and vice versa.



< Message edited by Mziln -- 4/24/2007 10:33:01 PM >

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 171
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/25/2007 7:37:31 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

This was discussed again recently on the WiF list and although I agree it could use clarification and may well be unintended by the designers, the present rules in RAW do provide the answers.
1. East Poland is part of Poland (nothing else having been specified in RAW) and so it can be subject to partisans.
2. Russians don't count for the anti-partisan garrison because the CW must be the controller of the partisan and per RAW: "A unit has a garrison value only if it is face-up and not in the ZOC of an enemy unit. The unit must also be on the opposite side to the major power that will control the partisan."
3. Thus the partisan can be placed in East Poland, but cannot go inside the Nazi-Soviet pact area because per RAW neutrality pacts: "After you enter into a neutrality pact with a major power, units controlled by other major powers on your side cannot enter hexes that are part of your common border with that major power if they are at war with that other major power."
4. The CW is placing the partisan and RAW says that: "The controlling major power can place a partisan unit in any enemy controlled hex in its country that is not in an enemy ZOC. If there are no such hexes, put the partisan back into the force pool." It also says: "Partisans are always at war with the conquering major power (and it's aligned minors) even if the partisan's controlling major power is not at war with the conquerer." This last quote proves that the "enemy controlled hexes" are relative to the partisan - not to the CW.

Well, seems to me that if "The controlling major power can place a partisan unit in any enemy controlled hex in its country that is not in an enemy ZOC. ", then no PART can be placed into Eastern Poland, as Eastern Poland is not an "enemy controlled hex", as it is controlled by Russia.

There is, pending, the problem of how is Eastern Poland "liberated" by Germany, that is removed from being conquered by Russia, and when does it become part of Poland again.


The Russians are enemy to the partisans, not the controller of the partisans - that is what #4 above is all about.

Liberation per RAW must be by walking over all the hexes - this applies even if you engage in the theory that the creators of RAW really meant that E. Poland is a territory.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 172
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/25/2007 8:05:50 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

As per the RaW Eastern Poland is not a Major or Minor power it does not meet the requirements. That would leave it as a territory.

(1) Poland is the source for partisans not Eastern Poland. Eastern Poland will only exist when the USSR conqueres it.

That is one theory that requires clarification from Harry. Against it is arrayed the argument that if that were the case, why not just say so somewhere in rule 19. It's probably easier to simply ask Harry if partisans can be placed in E. Poland. It being a territory or not has no other effect on game play.

quote:

(2) USSR garison values would count if you are allowed to put partisans in Eastern Poland because you are puting them in a USSR conquered controled area.

Not by RAW - "The unit must also be on the opposite side to the major power that will control the partisan." to be counted as part of the garrison. And the Russians are not on the opposite side to the CW.

quote:

Using your example when did the CW sign a neutrality pact with Germany or the USSR?

You miss the point entirely. The CW controls the partisan. The rule says "After you enter into a neutrality pact with a major power" (Germany and Russia do this), "units controlled by other major powers" (the partisans are controled by the CW) "on your side" (CW and Russia are on the same side) "cannot enter hexes that are part of your" (Russia's) "common border with that major power" (Germany) "if they" (the partisans) "are at war with that other major power" (Russia). The partisans are at war with both Germany and Russia because both conquered their country.

If E. Poland were considered a territory - this solves this issue. Does that mean Occupied France is a Minor Country? Does Bessarabia become a territory once taken by Germany from Russia? Be careful that a seemingly simple solution to one problem does not create several more elsewhere.

(in reply to Mziln)
Post #: 173
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/25/2007 5:27:54 PM   
Froonp


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

If E. Poland were considered a territory - this solves this issue. Does that mean Occupied France is a Minor Country? Does Bessarabia become a territory once taken by Germany from Russia? Be careful that a seemingly simple solution to one problem does not create several more elsewhere.

I don't think that considering Eastern Poland a Territory would mean that other problems would arise with other places. Bessarabia is well defined (as part of a Home Country, either Rumania or Russia), Occupied France too (as the incompletely conquered French 1939 home country).

Eastern Poland has so many questions asked because it is not well defined by the RAW.

quote:

The Russians are enemy to the partisans, not the controller of the partisans - that is what #4 above is all about.

Yes, I got it. I did not see it this way. Thanks.

So, this PART, if placed in Eastern Poland would deny the russians the benefits of controlling the hex it is in (as normal PART do). So, I don't see the reason why the CW would put a PART in Eastern Poland to hamper the Russians.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 174
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/25/2007 8:09:05 PM   
Mziln


Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

As per the RaW Eastern Poland is not a Major or Minor power it does not meet the requirements. That would leave it as a .

(1) Poland is the source for partisans not Eastern Poland. Eastern Poland will only exist when the USSR conqueres it.

That is one theory that requires clarification from Harry. Against it is arrayed the argument that if that were the case, why not just say so somewhere in rule 19. It's probably easier to simply ask Harry if partisans can be placed in E. Poland. It being a territory or not has no other effect on game play.

quote:

(2) USSR garison values would count if you are allowed to put partisans in Eastern Poland because you are puting them in a USSR conquered controled area.

Not by RAW - "The unit must also be on the opposite side to the major power that will control the partisan." to be counted as part of the garrison. And the Russians are not on the opposite side to the CW.

quote:

Using your example when did the CW sign a neutrality pact with Germany or the USSR?

You miss the point entirely. The CW controls the partisan. The rule says "After you enter into a neutrality pact with a major power" (Germany and Russia do this), "units controlled by other major powers" (the partisans are controled by the CW) "on your side" (CW and Russia are on the same side) "cannot enter hexes that are part of your" (Russia's) "common border with that major power" (Germany) "if they" (the partisans) "are at war with that other major power" (Russia). The partisans are at war with both Germany and Russia because both conquered their country.

If E. Poland were considered a territory - this solves this issue. Does that mean Occupied France is a Minor Country? Does Bessarabia become a territory once taken by Germany from Russia? Be careful that a seemingly simple solution to one problem does not create several more elsewhere.


Ah but you are forgetting that the USSR is a Neutral Major Power (per the RaW) and not on the same side as the CW. It is at peace. I will uae your quote from the RaW again "Partisans are always at war with the conquering major power (and it's aligned minors) even if the partisan's controlling major power is not at war with the conquerer."

"After you enter into a neutrality pact with a major power units controlled by other major powers on your side cannot enter hexes that are part of your common border with that major power if they are at war with that other major power". Note it says ENTER not PLACED.

Thanks Patrice for pointing out the status of Metro France (per the RaW)

Bessarabia becomes part of the USSR (per the RaW) (IMO) the same as Eastern Poland.

I agree with Paatrice. The use of Polish partisans against the USSR would be highly non-productive to the Allies.


Per the RaW Eastern Poland is a territory:

13.7.1 Conquest

"You can only conquer a home country or territory".

< Message edited by Mziln -- 4/25/2007 9:27:00 PM >

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 175
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/25/2007 8:25:05 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline
Bessarabia becomes part of the USSR home country. Eastern Poland does not, but it probably should.

The conclusion that placing Polish partisans in E. Poland is pretty foolish (until the Germans are the ones in control) is entirely correct.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Mziln)
Post #: 176
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/26/2007 7:17:59 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

Ah but you are forgetting that the USSR is a Neutral Major Power (per the RaW) and not on the same side as the CW.

That is not a concept recognized in RAW. These powers are on the same side regardless of whether they are neutral. There are two and only two sides in RAW - the axis and the allies - active or not. The rules are full of examples of this - start with the Sequence of Play and then browse thru the use of convoys in pipelines and for LOS supply. There are numerous other examples.
quote:

Note it says ENTER not PLACED.

Once its placed it obviously has entered the hex. But if I'm placing it and you insist that I CAN put it within 3 hexes on the Russian side of the border, then I wouldn't complain. As for why I might want to do this, please see my reply to Patrice.

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 177
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/26/2007 7:30:32 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

So, this PART, if placed in Eastern Poland would deny the russians the benefits of controlling the hex it is in (as normal PART do). So, I don't see the reason why the CW would put a PART in Eastern Poland to hamper the Russians.

Here is a situation where the CW player might do it: France has fallen and the Germans are racing back east to get into position for Barb 41, but have not got enough units into Poland to get a garrison of 6 or more. A partisan for Poland comes up. The CW player knows two things: Barb is coming and any partisan in German-controlled Poland is going to get vaporized. So if he places it in E. Poland, it will live to increase the partisan number in future rolls (though that likely won't matter) and it also stands a chance of being moved into a speed bump position without hindering the Russians. If so it would actually save the Russians a unit. (Is that entirely foolish, Christopher?)

Clearly since the CW places the partisan, he won't do it to hinder the Russians (except perhaps in a really vicious 5-player end-game). He'll do it because it is a better move then putting it in German-controlled Poland. The points I'm making are that RAW does not prohibit it, and that it can make sense to do it.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 178
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/26/2007 10:37:28 AM   
oscar72se

 

Posts: 100
Joined: 8/28/2006
From: Gothenburg Sweden
Status: offline
I have a question regarding partisans. Sometimes when we have played, the roll for partisans have been a '10' while the Netherlands are neutral. Does this mean that a partisan should be set up in NEI(which is a red country)? If yes, who controls the partisan? We have had quite a few discussions on this topic and house-ruled that no partisan should be set in a country that no major power controls. The problem, as I see it, is that no major power is eligble to control the partisan. We would greatly appreciate your views on this topic since we find that RaW under these circumstances is very fuzzy...

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 179
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/26/2007 7:14:10 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline
Outside of the Pripet Marshes, where would a partisan placed in Eastern Poland actually be safe? And aside from letting one less Russian army stand on the front line, how would it do any good as a speed bump? By 1941 most partisans are still 0-1 factor. Sure, there are plenty of forests and swamps in Eastern Poland, but a single partisan unit will stand no chance against any German army force that wants to take care of them - and since the slow-moving German forces will end their impulse in that area, I don't see how a partisan in Eastern Poland will actually slow the German advance. Either it goes in the clear and dies from the overrun, or it goes in the Carpathians and/or Pripets and either gets screened or gets blown away by slow-moving Germans, or it goes in the forests and gets blown away by slow-moving Germans.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to oscar72se)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Rules Clarification List Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   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

0.672