The full version

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

The full version

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 >> The full version

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

The full version - 8/15/2007 2:10:51 PM

Greyshaft

Posts: 2252
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

A tobacconist's shop. Text on screen: "In 1970, the British Empire lay in ruins, and foreign nationalists frequented the streets - many of them Hungarian (not the streets - the foreign nationals). Anyway, many of these Hungarians went into tobacconists' shops to buy cigarettes ..." A Hungarian tourist (John Cleese) approaches the clerk (Terry Jones). The tourist is reading haltingly from a phrase book. Hungarian: "I will not buy this record, it is scratched." Clerk: "Sorry?" Hungarian: "I will not buy this record, it is scratched." Clerk: "Uh, no, no, no. This is a tobacconist's." Hungarian: "Ah! I will not buy this *tobacconist's*, it is scratched." Clerk: "No, no, no, no. Tobacco ... um ... cigarettes." (holds up a pack) Hungarian: "Ya! See-gar-ets! Ya! Uh ... my hovercraft is full of eels." Clerk: "Sorry?" Hungarian: "My hovercraft ..." (pantomimes puffing a cigarette) "... is full of eels." (pretends to strike a match) Clerk: "Ahh, matches!" Hungarian: "Ya! Ya! Ya! Ya! Do you waaaaant ... do you waaaaaant ... to come back to my place, bouncy-bouncy?" Clerk: "Here, I don't think you're using that thing right." Hungarian: "You great poof." Clerk: "That'll be six and six, please." Hungarian: "If I said you had a beautiful body, would you hold it against me? I ... I am no longer infected." Clerk: "Uh, may I, uh ..." (takes phrase book, flips through it) "... Costs six and six ... ah, here we are." (speaks weird Hungarian-sounding words) Hungarian punches the clerk. Meanwhile, a policeman (Graham Chapman) on a quiet street cups his ear as if hearing a cry of distress. He sprints for many blocks and finally enters the tobacconist's. Cop: "What's going on here then?" Hungarian: "Ah. You have beautiful thighs." Cop: (looks down at himself) "WHAT?!?" Clerk: "He hit me!" Hungarian: "Drop your panties, Sir William; I cannot wait 'til lunchtime." (points at clerk) Cop: "RIGHT!!!" (drags Hungarian away by the arm) Hungarian: (indignantly) "My nipples explode with delight!" Scene switches to a courtroom. Characters are all in powdered wigs and judicial robes, except publisher and cop. Characters: Judge - Terry Jones; Bailiff - Eric Idle; Lawyer - John Cleese; Cop - Graham Chapman; Publisher - Michael Palin. Bailiff: "Call Alexander Yalt!" (voices sing out the name several times) Judge: "Oh, shut up!" Bailiff: (to publisher) "You are Alexander Yalt?" Publisher: (in a sing-songy voice) "Oh, I am." Bailiff: "Skip the impersonations. You are Alexander Yalt?" Publisher: "I am." Bailiff: "You are hereby charged that on the 28th day of May, 1970, you did willfully, unlawfully, and with malice of forethought, publish an alleged English-Hungarian phrase book with intent to cause a breach of the peace. How do you plead?" Publisher: "Not guilty." Bailiff: "You live at 46 Horton Terrace?" Publisher: "I do live at 46 Horton Terrace."

Bailiff: "You are the director of a publishing company?"

Publisher: "I am the director of a publishing company." Bailiff: "Your company publishes phrase books?" Publisher: "My company does publish phrase books." Bailiff: "You did say 46 Horton Terrace, did you?" Publisher: "Yes." Bailiff: (strikes a gong) "Ah! Got him!" Lawyer and cop applaud, laugh. Judge: "Get on with it, get on with it." Bailiff: "That's fine. On the 28th of May, you published this phrase book." Publisher: "I did." Bailiff: "I quote an example. The Hungarian phrase meaning 'Can you direct me to the station?' is translated by the English phrase, 'Please fondle my bum.'" Publisher: "I wish to plead incompetence." Cop: (stands) "Please may I ask for an adjournment, m'lord?" Judge: "An adjournment? Certainly not!" The cop sits down again, emitting perhaps the longest and loudest release of bodily gas in the history of the universe. Judge: "Why on earth didn't you say WHY you wanted an adjournment?" Cop: "I didn't know an acceptable legal phrase, m'lord." Cut to ancient footage of old women applauding.

Judge: (banging and swinging gavel) "If there's any more stock film of women applauding, I'll clear the court."

_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to Ballista)

Post #: 361

RE: The full version - 8/15/2007 2:32:17 PM

Froonp

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

What's this ?

(in reply to Greyshaft)

Post #: 362

RE: The full version - 8/15/2007 4:30:50 PM

composer99

Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline

That appears to be the complete text of a Monty Python's Flying Circus sketch.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 363

RE: The full version - 8/15/2007 5:32:43 PM

Neilster

Posts: 2890
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline

Yes. Surreal 70's English humour.

Cheers, Neilster

(in reply to composer99)

Post #: 364

RE: language - 8/16/2007 12:01:41 AM

Greyshaft

Posts: 2252
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ballista

"My hovercraft is full of eels...."

:)

I was providing the full text of Ballista's source material

< Message edited by Greyshaft -- 8/16/2007 12:02:42 AM >

_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to Ballista)

Post #: 365

RE: language - 8/16/2007 1:03:34 AM

composer99

Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline

Is it just me, or does that emoticon have a rather prurient expression on its face? Either that or predatory, I suppose, although the two could be conflated to some extent.

Edit: Prurient emoticons and Monty Python sketch scripts are not being included in MWiF (to my knowledge, anyway). But should they be?

< Message edited by composer99 -- 8/16/2007 1:06:50 AM >

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Greyshaft)

Post #: 366

RE: language - 8/16/2007 9:28:37 AM

rtamesis

Posts: 78
Joined: 7/24/2004
Status: offline

Is there any provision in this game for major powers to attempt to influence neutral countries to join them in the fight? For example, Hitler tried to convince Franco to join Germany, which would have saved Germany the effort of invading Spain if Hitler chose to do so. Expending political resources or points to influence another country's decision to join a side or stay neutral can have a large effect on the military strategy that you choose. This could be an interesting option for MWIF that can make it more unpredictable and realistic than, for example, just relying on how successful the Axis are in conducting the war or the CW invading neutral countries in influencing the timing of US entry into the war. If there was such an option and a system in place, I can envision the German player or AI trying to expend enough political points to convince Stalin to stay neutral and allow the capitalists to destroy each other or the CW player expending what ever points he or she has to try to increase the chance that the USA would join the war in Europe at a much earlier date.

(in reply to composer99)

Post #: 367

RE: The full version - 8/16/2007 9:38:41 AM

rtamesis

Posts: 78
Joined: 7/24/2004
Status: offline

In addition, if such a political subsystem was in place, then how about allowing the expenditure of enough political points to actually suppress a neutral country's ability to gear up their economy for war? For example, Germany can then keep a neutral Russia from building its military up too rapidly while Germany conquers England or gears up for Barbarossa and thereby achieve some measure of surprise when it actually does invade Russia.

(in reply to Greyshaft)

Post #: 368

RE: The full version - 8/16/2007 11:36:18 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtamesis

In addition, if such a political subsystem was in place, then how about allowing the expenditure of enough political points to actually suppress a neutral country's ability to gear up their economy for war? For example, Germany can then keep a neutral Russia from building its military up too rapidly while Germany conquers England or gears up for Barbarossa and thereby achieve some measure of surprise when it actually does invade Russia.

There is a supplemental game to WIF called Days of Decision. I have never played it, though it is now in its 3rd edition. The intent of the game is to provide alternative histories comparable to what you have suggested - it starts in 1936/7, I believe, and continues through to the war years. Since it uses the WIF system to a large degree (e.g., the same map and units) it has been penciled in as a future MWIF product (2 or 3).

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to rtamesis)

Post #: 369

RE: language - 8/16/2007 7:56:55 PM

Neilster

Posts: 2890
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtamesis

Is there any provision in this game for major powers to attempt to influence neutral countries to join them in the fight? For example, Hitler tried to convince Franco to join Germany, which would have saved Germany the effort of invading Spain if Hitler chose to do so. Expending political resources or points to influence another country's decision to join a side or stay neutral can have a large effect on the military strategy that you choose. This could be an interesting option for MWIF that can make it more unpredictable and realistic than, for example, just relying on how successful the Axis are in conducting the war or the CW invading neutral countries in influencing the timing of US entry into the war. If there was such an option and a system in place, I can envision the German player or AI trying to expend enough political points to convince Stalin to stay neutral and allow the capitalists to destroy each other or the CW player expending what ever points he or she has to try to increase the chance that the USA would join the war in Europe at a much earlier date.

You can spend resources to attempt and/or block coups.

Cheers, Neilster

(in reply to rtamesis)

Post #: 370

RE: language - 8/17/2007 5:48:22 AM

IrishGuards

Posts: 542
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline

You actually do way more than that ... Influence in all Minors is historically based to a degree at start ..
Majors influence all aspects .. The real objective is to make pacts .. resource and territorial .. political and military ..
When War breaks out .. thats your OOB ..
IDG

(in reply to Neilster)

Post #: 371

RE: language - 8/20/2007 5:52:32 AM

brian brian

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

Here is a question I've thought about starting a thread on but I think this is a good place to ask it. Will MWiF support player generated Trade Agreements? The classic example is Japan sending BPs to Russia in exchange for Oil. It's a bit of a grey area in the rules perhaps, and some groups outright disallow this, but when you read the Designer's Notes it seems clear that Harry wants this to be a possible part of the game play. This is probably most likely in a six player game with Japan on its own; also a six player game might see a brief Italian/French deal but that would be far more rare.

(in reply to IrishGuards)

Post #: 372

RE: language - 8/20/2007 5:55:41 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Here is a question I've thought about starting a thread on but I think this is a good place to ask it. Will MWiF support player generated Trade Agreements? The classic example is Japan sending BPs to Russia in exchange for Oil. It's a bit of a grey area in the rules perhaps, and some groups outright disallow this, but when you read the Designer's Notes it seems clear that Harry wants this to be a possible part of the game play. This is probably most likely in a six player game with Japan on its own; also a six player game might see a brief Italian/French deal but that would be far more rare.

Right now the code restricts new trade agreements to players on the same side.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to brian brian)

Post #: 373

RE: language - 8/20/2007 8:57:15 AM

Froonp

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

Trade Agreements can be done after Peace is reached, and a neutrality treaty is settled.

*****************************
13.7.3 Mutual peace
Two major powers at war can agree to come to peace on any terms mutually acceptable (except for transferring units). (...). A neutrality pact is then in place between the parties.
*****************************

And also :
9.5 Neutrality pacts
*****************************
Major powers from opposing sides can agree to enter into a neutrality pact during any peace step provided they are not at war with each other.
*****************************

The part that is disputed by some players is that "any terms mutually acceptable" is not very clear that Trade Agreements are authorized, but Harry clarified it that they are.

*****************************
Q180 :
Q180-1 : If Russia and Japan sign a neutrality pact can they negotiate a trade agreement (say Russia gives Japan 2 oil for 1 BP)?
A180-1 : Yes. Date: 16/09/1997

Q180-2 : If the CW and Italy (before they are at war) sign a neutrality pact, that they can also sign a trade agreement along with it?
A180-2 : I don�t see why not. Date: 17/09/1997
*****************************

< Message edited by Froonp -- 8/20/2007 9:00:38 AM >

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 374

RE: language - 8/20/2007 10:37:08 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

Does this mean that the only restriction is that the two major powers are not at war?

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 375

RE: language - 8/20/2007 10:39:33 AM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Does this mean that the only restriction is that the two major powers are not at war?

It seems to be.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 376

RE: language - 8/20/2007 11:57:57 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

It should be an easy change to make.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 377

RE: language - 8/22/2007 5:50:47 AM

paulderynck

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Does this mean that the only restriction is that the two major powers are not at war?

It seems to be.

Not exactly, they must also sign a neutrality pact.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 378

RE: language - 8/22/2007 6:21:45 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Does this mean that the only restriction is that the two major powers are not at war?

It seems to be.

Not exactly, they must also sign a neutrality pact.

If this is true, then that is also an easy check to make.

What is your source in the rules for this requirement?

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to paulderynck)

Post #: 379

RE: language - 8/22/2007 9:25:10 AM

Froonp

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

quote:

What is your source in the rules for this requirement?

See post #374, rule 13.7.3.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 380

RE: language - 8/22/2007 11:08:29 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

What is your source in the rules for this requirement?

See post #374, rule 13.7.3.

Ok.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 381

RE: language - 8/22/2007 7:00:59 PM

Ullern

Posts: 1837
Joined: 5/28/2006
Status: offline

It's important to recognise that the rule 13.7.3 is the only rule that allows a permanent trade agreement to be established. Therefore, as already pointed out, a new trade agreement also is a new neutrality pact.

Example: In my last board game Germany ask USSR to renegotiate the USSR-German trade agreement winter 41. USSR declined exactly because this also meant setting the date for the USSR-German neutrality pact to 1941. (USSR is not likely to be able to break the pact before game end with such a late neutrality pact date.)

Ullern

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 382

RE: language - 8/22/2007 7:32:53 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ullern

It's important to recognise that the rule 13.7.3 is the only rule that allows a permanent trade agreement to be established. Therefore, as already pointed out, a new trade agreement also is a new neutrality pact.

Example: In my last board game Germany ask USSR to renegotiate the USSR-German trade agreement winter 41. USSR declined exactly because this also meant setting the date for the USSR-German neutrality pact to 1941. (USSR is not likely to be able to break the pact before game end with such a late neutrality pact date.)

Ullern

Neutrality Pacts and Trade Agreements occur at different points in the sequence of play. NPs can be created or renewed during any DOW phase, which occurs every impulse. TAs are created during the Lending Phase which occurs once per turn. Effectively, this means that an NP has to have been established prior to the turn.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Ullern)

Post #: 383

RE: language - 8/22/2007 7:42:43 PM

composer99

Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline

Actually, neutrality pacts, as 9.5 states, are negotiated during the Peace Step, which is when 13.7.3 (Mutual Peace) takes place.

So in any given turn, during the peace step, two major powers may negotiate a neutrality pact including a trade agreement. The turn after (since peace happens after production) is when the trade agreement actually takes effect and has an impact on their production.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 384

RE: language - 8/22/2007 10:22:39 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

Actually, neutrality pacts, as�9.5 states, are negotiated during the Peace Step, which is when 13.7.3 (Mutual Peace) takes place.

So in any given turn, during the peace step, two major powers may negotiate a neutrality pact including a trade agreement. The turn after (since peace happens after production) is when the trade agreement actually takes effect and has an impact on their production.

Ah, my mistake.

NPs are reconfirmed during a DOW subphase, and are automatically created during a Peace subphase when a mutual peace is agreed to by the countries involved. Mutual peace includes the optional rule for USSR-Japan compulsory peace.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to composer99)

Post #: 385

RE: language - 8/22/2007 10:29:24 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

Actually, neutrality pacts, as�9.5 states, are negotiated during the Peace Step, which is when 13.7.3 (Mutual Peace) takes place.

So in any given turn, during the peace step, two major powers may negotiate a neutrality pact including a trade agreement. The turn after (since peace happens after production) is when the trade agreement actually takes effect and has an impact on their production.

Technically, trade agreements are only those that are in effect at the start of a scenario.

However, CWIF and MWIF use the label TA to apply to other lending arrangements. The small benefit is that the players can enter how many turns they want a TA to last, thereby saving themselves the need to reenter the same information every turn. Regardless, the TA is defined during the Lending phase not the Peace phase.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to composer99)

Post #: 386

RE: language - 8/22/2007 10:49:59 PM

Froonp

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

The Trade Agreements defined during the Lending phase are those between friendly countries

Those Trade Agreements that are defined in the Peace step as the result of a Neutrality Pact are between enemies, and you can't modify them once they are decided, contrarily to those defined between friendly countries that can be adjusted from turn to turn. To change those you made from Neutrality Pact, you need to break the Neutrality Pact.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 387

RE: language - 8/22/2007 11:32:32 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

The Trade Agreements defined during the Lending phase are those between friendly countries

Those Trade Agreements that are defined in the Peace step as the result of a Neutrality Pact are between enemies, and you can't modify them once they are decided, contrarily to those defined between friendly countries that can be adjusted from turn to turn. To change those you made from Neutrality Pact, you need to break the Neutrality Pact.

From whence cometh this rule? I do not see it in the version I am using.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 388

RE: language - 8/23/2007 12:09:47 AM

lomyrin

Posts: 3741
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

The Trade Agreements defined during the Lending phase are those between friendly countries

Those Trade Agreements that are defined in the Peace step as the result of a Neutrality Pact are between enemies, and you can't modify them once they are decided, contrarily to those defined between friendly countries that can be adjusted from turn to turn. To change those you made from Neutrality Pact, you need to break the Neutrality Pact.

From whence cometh this rule? I do not see it in the version I am using.

Paragraph 9.5 - Other Major Powers - details the setting up of new Neutrality Pacts which is different from variable length trade agreements.

Lars

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 389

RE: language - 8/23/2007 12:29:26 AM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

The Trade Agreements defined during the Lending phase are those between friendly countries

Those Trade Agreements that are defined in the Peace step as the result of a Neutrality Pact are between enemies, and you can't modify them once they are decided, contrarily to those defined between friendly countries that can be adjusted from turn to turn. To change those you made from Neutrality Pact, you need to break the Neutrality Pact.

From whence cometh this rule? I do not see it in the version I am using.

I suppose that this is an assumption made that mimics how 5.1 Trade Agreements are dealt with.

Trade Agreements listed in 5.1 are mandatory, until a specific event arrive (war, breaking of pact) and so the Trade Agreements agreed upon between enemies or with a Neutrality pact signing are assumed to work the same.

That is, when for example USSR has gained peace fro Japan and announced that they will make a Trade Agreement with Japan of 2 BP they receive for 2 OIL they give, this trade agreement is assumed to become as one of those of 5.1.

Harry has made clear that 5.1 trade agreements are mandatory.

It would be strange to have a trade agreement that would let one side of the trade agreement able to cancel it at will in the future. Only breaking pacts of declaring war can make that.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 390