Slitherine

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: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Edit : This does not clear up the question :
Within the "you announce all declarations of major powers", is the USA declaration war **roll** known for the others allied Major Powers before they annouce their DoWs. I'm talking about the declaration of war roll on the "It's war" chart, not about the US Entry effect of the DoW, which as you said is known only after all DoWs have been done.
Which I have asked separately by email, and will add to the list if I get an answer.

Well, Harry's just answered me and he wrote :
*************
Yes and yes.

Regards
Harry
*************
The second yes was for another question, as to whether he would have time this week to answer the 30 questions I had submitted to him last week .

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I thought I had this mostly straightened out. But I did not expect a Yes answer from Harry to your question.

First, a clarification as to what the question was asking, by 'rolled' do you mean whether the USA succeeded in its DOW on a major power?

quote:

If so, then the USA DOW's on majors should be a separate subphase that is performed first. Once that has been decided as succeeding/failing, then DOWs by non-USA major powers on other major powers would be the next subphase.

quote:

I just got the 8 existing DOW subphases executing correctly yesterday (though I haven't fully tested all the possibilities). I already have another subphase to add to the existing 8, that I believe is necessary. That would be to ask the players on the non-phasing side to determine which major power is going to control each of the attacked minors before setting them up. The reason I want this to be a separate subphase is because players can decline to be the controlling major power, which means that who is going to set them up is undetermined until the question for each attacked minor has been answered. Delaying the question of who until the minor is just about to be set up means that the responsibility may change and the player "making decisions" have to be switched. Best is to have all the questions about who is setting up which minors done separately, then the subphase for setting them up can proceed smoothly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I thought I had this mostly straightened out. But I did not expect a Yes answer from Harry to your question.

First, a clarification as to what the question was asking, by 'rolled' do you mean whether the USA succeeded in its DOW on a major power?

Yes.

quote:

If so, then the USA DOW's on majors should be a separate subphase that is performed first. Once that has been decided as succeeding/failing, then DOWs by non-USA major powers on other major powers would be the next subphase.

Well, within the answer to Q205 was :
*******************************
Well the rules say you announce all declarations of major powers, and then all minor countries. Then after all declarations of war you roll for the US entry effect and then work out alignment but within this, you can declare war in any order you like. Thus you can wait till other major powers on your side have declared war before you do. But no you don't know the result of US entry effects before you can declare war. Date 19/07/2007

Q0205 : Are alignment and DOW done simultaneously or sequentially?
Example : does the CW know the results of the US DOW attempt(s) before making his decisions?
*******************************

He says that "you can DoW in any order you like", and that you can "wait till other major powers on your side have declared war before you do".

This means that within the DoW part of the DoW phase, the DoWs are sequential.
Thus, why make the USA DoW separate ? Just have a dialog that allows DoWs to be made for each major power, and when the USA tries to DoW, the roll is immediately made, and others DoWs can be done.

quote:

I just got the 8 existing DOW subphases executing correctly yesterday (though I haven't fully tested all the possibilities). I already have another subphase to add to the existing 8, that I believe is necessary. That would be to ask the players on the non-phasing side to determine which major power is going to control each of the attacked minors before setting them up. The reason I want this to be a separate subphase is because players can decline to be the controlling major power, which means that who is going to set them up is undetermined until the question for each attacked minor has been answered. Delaying the question of who until the minor is just about to be set up means that the responsibility may change and the player "making decisions" have to be switched. Best is to have all the questions about who is setting up which minors done separately, then the subphase for setting them up can proceed smoothly.

This must be done that way anyway, as Harry said : "Then after all declarations of war you roll for the US entry effect and then work out alignment"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I came across some code the other day when checking whether the code for various optional rules was correct.

Here is the puzzlement: Crossing a strait is +1 for land units. Using a rail way connection is -1 for mechanized units. So what about a strait that has a rail line crossing it. The choices are: +1, -1, or 0 (they cancel each other out). CWIF had it as +1, and I changed that to -1. But now I believe I was wrong to make the change and I want to go back to +1.

Comments? Opinions? Actual knowledge as to which is correct?

Well, crossing a strait is always +1 for land units. This is not an optional rule.

The "using a railway connection" at -1 is if you use the optional rule 37 :
********************************
AiF/PatiF Option 37: (Railway movement bonus) A land unit pays 1 less movement point (minimum 1) to enter a hex when it moves, or advances after combat, along a railway (but not a road). This reduction occurs after you apply any weather (see 8.2) or overrun (see 11.11.6) effects.
********************************
It is for all units, not only mechanized. Why do you say it is for mechanized ?

So I'd say that if you play with option 37, a strait hexside with rail is at (+1) + (-1) = 0 movement points cost.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Ok.

I have made the USA the first Allied major power to DOW for whichever player is playing it, but that player can skip the USA, do DOW for his other major powers (on major powers only), and then come back to the USA - if he wants to. Once the USA player says he wants to DOW on Germany, Italy, or Japan, then it will be irrevocable, because the program wil immediately roll for success/failure. The results of that roll will be reported to all the players as an informational message (and their copies of the game brought up to date, of course).

The one caveat here is that some other Allied major power may DOW on a major before the USA decides whether to do that or not (e.g., the USSR on Japan). If so, he will not know in advance whether the USA succeeded or not. This means it is up to the players to do this in the correct (i.e., best for them) order, rather that the program acting as a guiding 'parent'.

I'll just move the code for testing success/failure for USA DOW on G/I/J up in the sequence of play. It had been part of the US Entry results subphase which follows DOWs on minor countries.

quote:

********************************
AiF/PatiF Option 37: (Railway movement bonus) A land unit pays 1 less movement point (minimum 1) to enter a hex when it moves, or advances after combat, along a railway (but not a road). This reduction occurs after you apply any weather (see 8.2) or overrun (see 11.11.6) effects.
********************************

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

********************************
AiF/PatiF Option 37: (Railway movement bonus) A land unit pays 1 less movement point (minimum 1) to enter a hex when it moves, or advances after combat, along a railway (but not a road). This reduction occurs after you apply any weather (see 8.2) or overrun (see 11.11.6) effects.
********************************

I hate this rule Option 37.
It should never have been part of normal WiF FE, and should have stayed with AiF, where it belongs.
It was made to have movement less harsh on pacific scaled maps in the first place, for the AiF game.
For me, having this used in regular WiF FE games on the European scaled maps, and worse in MWiF, is pure heresy. But I'm not the designer, Harry is, and Harry thought that having this in WiF FE was good.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

********************************
AiF/PatiF Option 37: (Railway movement bonus) A land unit pays 1 less movement point (minimum 1) to enter a hex when it moves, or advances after combat, along a railway (but not a road). This reduction occurs after you apply any weather (see 8.2) or overrun (see 11.11.6) effects.
********************************

I hate this rule Option 37.
It should never have been part of normal WiF FE, and should have stayed with AiF, where it belongs.
It was made to have movement less harsh on pacific scaled maps in the first place, for the AiF game.
For me, having this used in regular WiF FE games on the European scaled maps, and worse in MWiF, is pure heresy. But I'm not the designer, Harry is, and Harry thought that having this in WiF FE was good.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

********************************
AiF/PatiF Option 37: (Railway movement bonus) A land unit pays 1 less movement point (minimum 1) to enter a hex when it moves, or advances after combat, along a railway (but not a road). This reduction occurs after you apply any weather (see 8.2) or overrun (see 11.11.6) effects.
********************************

I hate this rule Option 37.
It should never have been part of normal WiF FE, and should have stayed with AiF, where it belongs.
It was made to have movement less harsh on pacific scaled maps in the first place, for the AiF game.
For me, having this used in regular WiF FE games on the European scaled maps, and worse in MWiF, is pure heresy. But I'm not the designer, Harry is, and Harry thought that having this in WiF FE was good.

I haven't kept up with the rules but I've always thought that rail movement didn't work quite right. It was frustrating to have a unit disrupted for up to 2 months after any rail movement when historically German Corps could pack-up in France, rail about 1500km to the Eastern Front and be in action in about a week. It often seemed quicker (in terms of being able to actually use it where required) to simply move the unit normally. We used to house-rule that railed units were unavailable until next impulse.

Option 37, however, seems like an overcorrection. Forgive me if I have missed something or got it hopelessly wrong as I haven't played a proper game of WiF for a few years.

Cheers, Neilster

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

The railway movement bonus doesn't have anything to do with rail movement per se.

Also, I am not certain that this option has much to do with Russian blow-outs, as I am not aware of how many people actually use it. Certainly my group never has, and we've had the odd blow-out nevertheless.

While I am not as likely to use religious terminology to condemn Option 37 as Patrice is (), I certainly don't like it either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

in our games the railway movement bonus helped the Japanese and hurt the Chinese the most. aside from that, it didn't seem very realistic to allow a movement bonus to groups of 20-40,000 men moving along a single track railway. WiF units are plenty fast enough already.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian
So was there any resolution on how to decide if is India or Canada that can deliver 3 BP's somewhere when the CW multiple is 1.25?

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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bredsjomagnus

 
I wonder about a rule regarding notional units.


If you invade a hex and paradrop on the same hex do they meet two notional units and whatever unit already in that hex or do they just meet one notional unit and whatever unit already in the hex?


In my opinion isn´t the rule very clear on this matter:


11.15 Paradrops
”Like invasions, each hex you paradrop into defends with a notional land unit in addition to any actual land unit in the hex. The notional unit has 1 combat factor, modified like invasions. The rules applying to notional units during invasions also apply to notional units in paradrops.”


I guess this isn´t the right forum for these kinds of questions but i ask it here anyway, because i don´t know where else to go to.


I could really use a FAQ-list. Do anyone know if and where I can find one?
/Magnus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Ok, here's a new rule question.

In Brute Force the Nationalist Chinese are suppose to set up a unit in Burma. But they do not control any hexes in Burma and they do not cooperate with the British who do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: doctormm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
In Brute Force the Nationalist Chinese are suppose to set up a unit in Burma. But they do not control any hexes in Burma and they do not cooperate with the British who do.

That's gonna have to go to Harry for a rule or setup change. As you say, there's no way that Chinese unit can be set up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: doctormm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
In Brute Force the Nationalist Chinese are suppose to set up a unit in Burma. But they do not control any hexes in Burma and they do not cooperate with the British who do.

That's gonna have to go to Harry for a rule or setup change. As you say, there's no way that Chinese unit can be set up.

Steve, in Brute Force (M/J 42) Burma is a minor country conquered by Japan, but who still have CW controlled hexes. Some on the north, and some on the east next to China's border.
China has completely the right to enter CW controlled hexes in conquered Burma.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I see. The problem is with that sentence of 24.1.6 says :
*******************************
If the set up gives you some latitude (e.g. “Europe” or “Burma”), you can set up the unit in any hex you or a co-operating major power controls in that place.
*******************************

And 24.4.4 that says :
*******************************
1. China
Burma 1 INF.
*******************************

I think that for MWiF, we can agree that we know that the intend is to let China set up 1 INF in Burma, but I can also add this to the list of clarifications so that it is either corrected in RAW or erraticized for WiF FE the paper game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Here is a question I've never thought of before. I was re-reading the Neutrality Pacts rules (9.5) to make up a fun solitaire game, and I noticed this:

"You may break a neutrality pact, any turn after the calendar year following its signing, provided you have...."


So with the main neutrality pact in the game being signed in August, 1939, does that mean you can't even break it until 1941?
The calendar year following its signing could be 1940. Or you could read it to mean that following it's signing, like the next day
or something I guess, the calendar year is 1939 of course, so on any turn after 1939 you can break it. Holy junior high school
sentence diagramming conundrum!

The part about "Double the defensive value of your units in the calendar year after the neutrality pact was made." pretty
much shows the intent, that you could break it the following calendar year (1940 for the German-Russian pact), or there is no point to the doubling.

That is how we have always played it but I could see someone reading it the other way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Here is a question I've never thought of before. I was re-reading the Neutrality Pacts rules (9.5) to make up a fun solitaire game, and I noticed this:

"You may break a neutrality pact, any turn after the calendar year following its signing, provided you have...."


So with the main neutrality pact in the game being signed in August, 1939, does that mean you can't even break it until 1941?
The calendar year following its signing could be 1940. Or you could read it to mean that following it's signing, like the next day
or something I guess, the calendar year is 1939 of course, so on any turn after 1939 you can break it. Holy junior high school
sentence diagramming conundrum!

quote:

The part about "Double the defensive value of your units in the calendar year after the neutrality pact was made." pretty
much shows the intent, that you could break it the following calendar year (1940 for the German-Russian pact), or there is no point to the doubling.

That is how we have always played it but I could see someone reading it the other way.