Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Sure, if they go to war with Finland or Rumania and those countries attack into or enter Russian home country hexes. Also Russia gets her city bumps in '42 and '43 regardless (if they hold them then) so if Germany never attacks her (the strategy known as Sitzkreig), Russia can still grow into a monster.

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

If MWiF were a video game a good description of this would be: "You have discovered a cheat."

But it's actually a low level bug. All the references to Construction Engineers in the original rules and in the Players Manual say the repair happens "in the next production step" which means you should not be able to overstack there because RTB is before Production in the sequence of play. We discovered (and reported) this same bug for factory repair in our multi-player Teamviewer game when we saw that captured factories with an engineer in them were producing that same turn as opposed to the next turn.

Given that very few players use the Construction Engineer option and the bug is relatively innocuous, I doubt it will be fixed anytime soon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

If MWiF were a video game a good description of this would be: "You have discovered a cheat."

But it's actually a low level bug. All the references to Construction Engineers in the original rules and in the Players Manual say the repair happens "in the next production step" which means you should not be able to overstack there because RTB is before Production in the sequence of play. We discovered (and reported) this same bug for factory repair in our multi-player Teamviewer game when we saw that captured factories with an engineer in them were producing that same turn as opposed to the next turn.

Given that very few players use the Construction Engineer option and the bug is relatively innocuous, I doubt it will be fixed anytime soon.

Alright then, I'll won't exploit this since it's not a legal move.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

If MWiF were a video game a good description of this would be: "You have discovered a cheat."

But it's actually a low level bug. All the references to Construction Engineers in the original rules and in the Players Manual say the repair happens "in the next production step" which means you should not be able to overstack there because RTB is before Production in the sequence of play. We discovered (and reported) this same bug for factory repair in our multi-player Teamviewer game when we saw that captured factories with an engineer in them were producing that same turn as opposed to the next turn.

Given that very few players use the Construction Engineer option and the bug is relatively innocuous, I doubt it will be fixed anytime soon.

Alright then, I'll won't exploit this since it's not a legal move.

I made the change (version 2.1.1.5) to check for overstacking at the end of the Return To Base phases (it was easy to do). I also inserted a check for damaged naval units in port so they get moved to the Repair Pool before the check for overstacking. This is presently how the end of phase for Naval Movement is currently processed.

So your move would generate an overstacking complaint - provided none of the units was damaged. If there were one or more damaged naval units, then it/they would be moved to the Repair Pool first, and no overstacking would exist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

My blind squirrel finds another acorn.

The situation is that the CV Bunker Hill and Intrepid arrived this turn in San Diego. However, their "planes" the two F4F-4 were already in San Diego and have been for 2 or 3 turns now. Until now, I thought I had to wait until the air rebase mode to put those planes on the carriers, however, I round that I could right click on a plane and then on a carrier and those planes would be put there.

By the way, the SBC-4 and SDB-1 in the setup tray were also deployed and both carriers were filled up. I knew that planes in the setup tray could be deployed to carriers but didn't know until now that planes already on the board could too during placement of reinforcements.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

My blind squirrel finds another acorn.

The situation is that the CV Bunker Hill and Intrepid arrived this turn in San Diego. However, their "planes" the two F4F-4 were already in San Diego and have been for 2 or 3 turns now. Until now, I thought I had to wait until the air rebase mode to put those planes on the carriers, however, I round that I could right click on a plane and then on a carrier and those planes would be put there.

By the way, the SBC-4 and SDB-1 in the setup tray were also deployed and both carriers were filled up. I knew that planes in the setup tray could be deployed to carriers but didn't know until now that planes already on the board could too during placement of reinforcements.

Unless there has been a rules change I am not aware of (which happens), this is a bug, not a feature. New CVPs can be put on existing carriers (including carriers built that turn), but new carriers should not be able to suck up already existing CVPs. Of course, if one has foresight (hah! ), what one can do is pull the CVPs off the map the turn before during the Remove Air portion of the reinforcement step, and bring them back the turn the carriers arrive. (Since the carriers are arriving in the hex, you will be able to remove air units from there.)

Having to remember to do this is annoying and pointless, so it is possible that someone made a rules change allowing a new carrier to suck up an already existing CVP. It would make sense. However, I do not know if any such change has been made. If it hasn't, this is a bug, but let's not tell anyone. It can be MWiF's first house rule. If one doesn't want to allow it, simply don't do it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

If enemy convoys are there, you still have a one in 10 chance to find them next turn if the weather is fine, but I would never leave them out in the zero box.

Generally the only time to leave them out is if they are not disorganized and there's a very good chance enemy units will RTB through their sea zone, especially if they are in the 3-box and even more especially if enemy convoys are also present, since if there's an RTB interception battle, they'll get another chance to search for the convoys if the subs are still around, unless the enemy aborts all his forces which is also a good outcome so close to the production phase.

Otherwise all that leaving them out does is subtract one tenth from their chances to find in the next turn, albeit you'll need to take an action choice that will get them out to sea again. Thus it's a bigger consideration for Germany as opposed to the other powers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cohen

If you can afford to re-oil them; sure.

The only exception usually is Germany, because they struggle to take a Combined / Naval action -- especially after Barbarossa. (Maybe in some Winter turns - but in most cases an Air is much better than Naval to let the Luftwaffe catch up with the front)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958


Now another question. As I believe is the case, "USSR Japan Compulsory Peace" optional rule isn't programmed yet?

After my last game I feel this rule might be an important one to enforce in MWiF. Does anyone else enforce this rule? And if so, how? By the way, I notice the wording in the RAW (see below), "... during the first war between ..." is used twice. This implies that there could be a second war between Japan and the USSR and if so that this rule no longer applies. My question is if I were to enforce a compulsory peace then under what conditions could either Japan or the Soviet Union start a second war?

From the MWiF help form under optional rules -

"USSR Japan Compulsory Peace [RAW option 50 section 13.7.3]

This optional rule reflects the willingness of both the USSR and Japan to remain at peace with each other
during WW II. Though they had been fighting a mostly unreported little war along the Manchurian border for
some time prior to Germany's invasion of Poland, they both felt a lot of pressure on other fronts: from Germany
for the USSR and from the USA and the Commonwealth for Japan. Agreeing to peace with each other was in
both of their self-interests.

If Japan controls Vladivostok during the first war between Japan and the USSR, the Japanese player must
agree to a peace if the Soviet player wants one. Similarly, if the USSR controls 3 or more resources that were
Japanese controlled at the start of the war, the Soviet player must agree to a peace if the Japanese player
wants one.

In either case, the new Russo-Japanese border is established by the hexes each controls at the time of the
compulsory peace. Any pocket of non-coastal hexes wholly surrounded by hexes controlled by the other major
power becomes controlled by the major power whose hexes surround them."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cohen

There would be also the matter of the Reserves which would disappear in case of Russia not being at war with Major powers.

But by how MWiF is shaped I tend to warmly suggest to house rule that Soviet Russia cannot DoW Japan. (At least in the early game)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cohen

There would be also the matter of the Reserves which would disappear in case of Russia not being at war with Major powers.

But by how MWiF is shaped I tend to warmly suggest to house rule that Soviet Russia cannot DoW Japan. (At least in the early game)

The problem I see with that is that it would leave Japan free to strip all their forces from Manchuria and Korea and use them elsewhere. I did that as the Japanese player in my just completed AAR. However, this left Japan so weak in those two countries that the Soviets invaded and easily took both from Japan. To me some implementation of this rule that allows for both Japan to attack the USSR or the USSR to attack Japan is very necessary. Hence my thinking for applying this optional rule as a house rule. I guess the only sticking point is once a "peace" is enforced how and when could that be broken?

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Personally I think garrison ratio without chits is better. Otherwise Russia has a big advantage because she can often bring on a lot of reinforcements close to the border, whereas Japan's must appear in Japan unless they are Manchurians. Japan could try and anticipate what can appear out of the blue and maintain a minimum garrison. Also in years one and two, defensive garrisons are much harder to break, without a large commitment of units, so thus the other power should rightly see that something is brewing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Personally I think garrison ratio without chits is better. Otherwise Russia has a big advantage because she can often bring on a lot of reinforcements close to the border, whereas Japan's must appear in Japan unless they are Manchurians. Japan could try and anticipate what can appear out of the blue and maintain a minimum garrison. Also in years one and two, defensive garrisons are much harder to break, without a large commitment of units, so thus the other power should rightly see that something is brewing.

Ok then, garrison ratios without chits. What ratios would you use?

1st year: No break or would allow if given certain ratio?

2nd year: ratio?

3rd year: ratio?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Personally I think garrison ratio without chits is better. Otherwise Russia has a big advantage because she can often bring on a lot of reinforcements close to the border, whereas Japan's must appear in Japan unless they are Manchurians. Japan could try and anticipate what can appear out of the blue and maintain a minimum garrison. Also in years one and two, defensive garrisons are much harder to break, without a large commitment of units, so thus the other power should rightly see that something is brewing.

Ok then, garrison ratios without chits. What ratios would you use?

1st year: No break or would allow if given certain ratio?

2nd year: ratio?

3rd year: ratio?

Use the rules as written: No break the first year; 2:1 ratio after that, with defender doubled the first year, times one the second, times one half the third, one third the fourth, etc.