Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

The choice of phrasing about the NEI oil seems to indicate that 2 oil go to Japan and what ever else remains goes to the CW. If partisans are interfernig with the oil shipments, then the CW suffers - Japan still gets its 2 oil points. I guess the Japanese cried 'dibs' first.

This is right.
Japan is served first, CW takes what's left.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln

(First a description of what the NEI is)

13.3.2 US entry options

43. CW reinforces the Netherlands East Indies

“The Netherlands East Indies is a minor country consisting of all the 1939 NEI-controlled hexes in the Bay of Bengal, Bismark Sea, East Indian Ocean, South China Sea and Timor Sea. Its capital is Batavia.”

Now lets pour some gasoline on the fire. Here is the scenario:


5.1 Trade agreements

Netherlands

The Netherlands must supply Japan with 2 oil resources a turn. This continues until Japan is at war with either the Netherlands or the Commonwealth, or the US embargoes oil sales to Japan (see 13.3.2, entry option 31).

A neutral Netherlands must supply the CW with all its remaining oil.


Option 31 Oil embargo has not been implemented.



With Germany is controlling the partisans in the NEI.

Would a "red partisan" is in Palembang block only the shipments of oil from the NEI to the CW?



With The CW are controlling the partisans in the NEI.

Would "red partisans" in Palembang, Balikpapan, and Tarakan block only the shipments of oil from the NEI to Japan?

if 2 oil cannot be shipped to Japan will this also block oil shipments to the CW from the NEI?



Does China or Japan control partisans in the NEI if the Netherlands is conquered?

“Partisans in ‘red’ countries are controlled by the nearest major power currently at war with the major power that controls the country. The nearest is the major power whose capital city is closest to the minor’s capital city. If no major powers are at war with the controlling major power, then the nearest major power on the other side runs the partisans.”

quote:

Patrice, you are correct. JA gets their first and then CW gets the leftover. But that's not the issue that he is asking, I think. (I don't have the map in front of me. Say NEI has 4 oil.) I think that his question is as below:

If GE controls the Part, sitting on a 2 oil space, then are those two oil not produced/shipped; thus only allowing the remaining two to go JA and CW gets nothing?

OR

Are those two sent to JA (since the Part is GE controlled) thus the remaining two would be sent to CW?

I'd think the fomer. Correct?

quote:

ORIGINAL:  Frederyck

I hope you are only implying that Eastern Poland is a Territory *after* the USSR claims it. Before this happens there is only a single nation - Poland, with a capital. The construction of Eastern Poland was something invented for the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact.

And I think I agree with you, which is why I posed this very question in post 92, albeit asking the other way round (whether Eastern Poland was part of the Polish home country).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

There are some naval units in the game with identical names. This happens for the Finns and for the Yugoslavians. Since one of the matching units is a Cruiser and the other is a Light Cruiser, can I assume that the Cruiser is not used when the Cruisers in Flames optional rule is in effect? Cruisers in Flames adds all the Light Cruisers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
There are some naval units in the game with identical names. This happens for the Finns and for the Yugoslavians. Since one of the matching units is a Cruiser and the other is a Light Cruiser, can I assume that the Cruiser is not used when the Cruisers in Flames optional rule is in effect? Cruisers in Flames adds all the Light Cruisers.

Not that I would like to contradict our beloved game developper , but...

The Dalmacija exist in 2 versions in WiF FE. One belongs to WiF FE (CS24) and is a CL, and the other belongs to SiF (CS19) and is a CA. When SiF is in use, the WiF FE Classic ships are no more in use, so the Dalmacija from CS24 is not in use in MWiF (and is not in the game).
This Dalmacija CL is not part of CLiF, and anyway is not included in the MWiF neither, but anyway, you're right that CL included in MWiF (which are CL from CLiF, not CL fro WiF FE Classic) should not be in the game if the CLiF option is not selected.

The Vainamoinen exist in 4 versions.
- The first, is the LiF (CS25, 1998) version, depicting it as a BB class (1st cycle cost 2 BP).
- The second, is the CLiF (CS36, 2003) version, depicting it as a CL class (1st cycle cost 1 BP).
- The 3rd and 4th are on the latest CS23 (2007), both depicted as a BB class ship. One is WiF FE Classic scaled, the other is SiF Scaled, and is accompanied by its sistership the Ilnamoinen.

I think that only the latest should be kept (at SiF scale). The MWiF datafiles will be updated soon to include the 2007 counters, and I intend (if you agree with me) to have the Vainamoinen & Ilnamoinen appear in these data as the latest CS show them. As a last note, all versions of the Vainamoinen have the same factors, only the build cost are differents.

quote:

Are there any other naval counters/units with identical names I need to worry about?

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

Are there any other naval counters/units with identical names I need to worry about?

There are a number of divisions that have had iterations in several counter sheets, and only one should be in a game of WIFFE, per Patrice's excellent excel counter lists. If memory serves:
The Brit 50th Motorized Inf.
The French 3 DRM Armour
The Italian Trento Motorized Inf.
...there may be others.

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

Are there any other naval counters/units with identical names I need to worry about?

There are a number of divisions that have had iterations in several counter sheets, and only one should be in a game of WIFFE, per Patrice's excellent excel counter lists. If memory serves:
The Brit 50th Motorized Inf.
The French 3 DRM Armour
The Italian Trento Motorized Inf.
...there may be others.

quote:

With the new CS23, this problem has been solved, as the units who had a duplicate name are changed to other names.

quote:

But in the examples I gave I'm sure I found in your spreadsheet that not all are supposed to be used.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I am still trying to puzzle out duplicate names for naval units when the Cruisers in Flames units are added to the list of units. This comes up because I am working on getting the country setups correct for all the scenarios.

As a simple case, Rumania starts Barbarossa with
1 - a CA Destroyer Flotilla when playing without Cruisers in Flames and
2 - a CL Destroyer Flotilla instead when playing with Cruisers in Flames.

The counter sheets only have one counter for this, so I assume that in the first instance the unit is treated as a CA and in the second instance as a CL. None of the numbers would change(?). Do I need to change the unit type internally, or doesn't that make any difference?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I am still trying to puzzle out duplicate names for naval units when the Cruisers in Flames units are added to the list of units. This comes up because I am working on getting the country setups correct for all the scenarios.

As a simple case, Rumania starts Barbarossa with
1 - a CA Destroyer Flotilla when playing without Cruisers in Flames and
2 - a CL Destroyer Flotilla instead when playing with Cruisers in Flames.

The counter sheets only have one counter for this, so I assume that in the first instance the unit is treated as a CA and in the second instance as a CL. None of the numbers would change(?). Do I need to change the unit type internally, or doesn't that make any difference?

I think that there is a misunderstanding here, about Light Cruisers.

WiF FE Classic had Cruisers on CS1-6. These never were part of CWiF nor MWiF, as they included SiF in a mandatory way.
CLiF introduced CL to the game. These were added to MWiF, and are part of the game if the player chooses the option.

Now to Rumania. Rumania had a CL in WiF FE Classic, but it never was part of the Computer game. Rumania has no CL on the CLiF sheet (CS36). Rumania has a Destroyer Flotilla (as a CA) on SiF, and this is this counter that is included in MWiF, and only this one.

There is no "Destroyer Flotilla" counter on CS36 (CLiF).

So, to answer the question, Rumania starts the Barbarossa scenario with the Destroyer Flotilla counter whatever the CLiF option is, as this is not a CLiF counter.

quote:

I realize that there is no CL counter in the CLIF countersheet for the Destroyer Flotilla. However, the WIF FE set-ups (Section 30) for Germany lists both CL-Dest Flot (R) and CA - Dest Flot (R), with the latter for when playing with SIF. There is a badly worded rule that also seems to relate to this in Section 24.1.6: "(not in SIF)".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

I realize that there is no CL counter in the CLIF countersheet for the Destroyer Flotilla. However, the WIF FE set-ups (Section 30) for Germany lists both CL-Dest Flot (R) and CA - Dest Flot (R), with the latter for when playing with SIF. There is a badly worded rule that also seems to relate to this in Section 24.1.6: "(not in SIF)".

This also comes from the fact that CLs in the Setup charts are not distinguished whether they come from WiF FE Classic or from CLiF.
I always assumed that all WiF FE Classic CLs were included also in CLiF, but this is wrong with the Destroyer Flotillas of Rumania, Portugal & Poland.

For MWiF, I think that there simply should be no CL setup in games where the players ruled CLiF option out, and they should be setup if the option is chosen. For the case where you find in the setup charts a duplicate name like here, you should just check in the countermix of MWiF (I do that if you want) if the counter is really a duplicate or not. I believe that there are no more duplicate names now in the MWiF countermix.

quote:

Besides the Dutch, there are Danish and Norwegian naval units assigned to the CW in later scenarios. Given that Iceland is Danish, then Denmark is incompletely conquered. But Norway is completely conquered (I believe).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frederyck

Simple question: can you choose Bounce combat during Bounce combat?

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99
The "two aircraft fight one round of air-to-air combat" seems pretty unambiguous to me, although I agree that perhaps adding a line in parantheses about further bounce combats resulting from the actual bounce combat being prohibited would make certain there is no room for misinterpretation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
And no room neither in your bookcase, with the WiF FE complete and unambiguous rules taking 10 volumes of 1000 pages each .

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I have been reading the code for ATRs vis-a-vis optional rules (part of my quest to determine which optioanl rules have been coded, document them, and build a list of optional rules yet to be coded).

Currently the code interprets the deselection of Bombers-as-ATRs (i.e., the option is not in effect) to eliminate the No Para symbols from all ATRs. The result is that all ATRs can perform paradrops when the Bombers-as-ATRs option is turned off.

This doesn't seem correct to me. Your opinion and/or advice?