Rules interpretation

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Rules interpretation

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 >> Tech Support >> Rules interpretation

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Rules interpretation - 7/23/2018 6:24:45 PM

TeaLeaf

Posts: 414
Joined: 11/5/2014
Status: offline

So how exactly should we interpret the following rule:

quote:

If, during production (see 13.6), it is possible for the promised resources (or build points) to be delivered then they must be delivered. If you cannot meet the promise you made (for example because the convoy points were not set up, were destroyed, or a railway line cut), you still cannot use them yourself this turn.

I think the way this rule is interpreted, impacts MWiF quite heavily (WiF not so much).
I can think of two different interpretations, one causing a lot of nightmares in MWiF (but not in WiF), the other causing much less or even no nightmares in MWiF:

1) If major power 'a' promises x resources to major power 'b', then if possible major power 'a' must transport x resources to this major power.

2) If major power 'a' promises resources x and y to major power 'b', then if possible those resources x and y must be transported.

Again, the impact of the first interpretation means MWiF will struggle a lot, often causing far bigger problems than necessary when looking for substitute resources for lost ones (and nightmares for the player), but the second interpretation is much simpler and much less annoying for the player (x convoys lost means a maximum of x resources that cannot reach their destination if the route is not repaired -regardless of the trade situation of the resource).

I know MWiF uses the first interpretation, but given the nightmares this often causes I'd think the second interpretation would be better for the sake of playability. Even if it would reflect the spirit of the rule a bit worse.

Post #: 1

RE: Rules interpretation - 7/24/2018 1:55:42 AM

paulderynck

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

Not sure I understand the difference between 1 and 2 nor what MWiF does or tries to do but the rule in the boardgame is that you promise a quantity of resources (or BPs but I'll keep this as just resources).

You don't say which ones - you say how many. In the production phase, if they possibly can be delivered then they must be - even if this means your own and/or your allies routes suffer due to congestion from resources that must be sent in place of ones you planned to send but now cannot, due to CP losses. However if it's impossible to make good on the promise then you lose that number of resources.

FREX CW says they'll give 2 resources to USSR and plans sending them via the Arctic, but at the beginning of production the CPs on the route to the Arctic have been aborted or sunk. Now, if there's a route say via the Persian Gulf from India to USSR then it must be utilized even if this means the CW cannot then pick up the oil lent to them by Persia. But then seeing this, if the CW RTBs its CPs in the Arabian Sea, then it can put the Persian oil in Kuwait and since there's no possible path to get the USSR its 2 resources, the CW player says "OK I'm losing the two resources in Malaya for the ones I can't deliver". This despite the fact the CW did not even plan to use the Malayan resources and has no CPs in the Bay of Bengal!

Are you suggesting it would be better if the lending player specifies exactly which resources are to be lent, thus reducing the possibility of having to hunt for all the convoluted "other" possibilities if the route from those specific resources does not exist at the beginning of the production phase?

That might actually be better, but it would not be RAW.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to TeaLeaf)

Post #: 2

RE: Rules interpretation - 7/24/2018 10:28:21 AM

TeaLeaf

Posts: 414
Joined: 11/5/2014
Status: offline

Hey Paul,

I see you understood it perfectly fine ;-).
Yes, that is indeed what I am suggesting:

quote:

it would be better if the lending player specifies exactly which resources are to be lent, thus reducing the possibility of having to hunt for all the convoluted "other" possibilities if the route from those specific resources does not exist at the beginning of the production phase.

I for one was not sure that it would not be RAW; the quoted rule is from RAW7 and I played the boardgame for about 20 years like that (interpretation 2). I just checked RAW8 on this (don't know if those are official yet), and those indeed are 1.

I was just thinking if it is not RAW, maybe it is still OK to implement it in MWiF, just to get rid of something I understand is quite difficult for the AI to handle correctly.

In my current game I am also wrestling with the AI because the Allies lose 3 BPs where they could lose none, all because the turn ended after Japan destroyed a conv in the Coral Sea, preventing the New Caledonian resource from transport to the USA. MWiF now picks a saved French oil from Beirut and gives that one to the US instead (and Gibraltar is 'closed', so you can imagine the alternative route).
Now I want to say 'Pick the saved French oil from Martinique (or some of the Carribbean islands), that doesn't do harm!'. Needless to say I just can't get MWiF to do that. It is hellbent on sending the Beirut oil...

So I was thinking OK, if it is too difficult for the program to get these things right, maybe we should use that better (easier to handle for MWiF) interpretation. Just to kill the struggle. It may not be RAW, but it improves the program and we don't lose the spirit of the rule. Not a lot of it anyway; you still suffer damage somewhere.

(in reply to paulderynck)

Post #: 3

RE: Rules interpretation - 7/24/2018 11:02:15 AM

Centuur

Posts: 8802
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline

Sounds like a bug to me...

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to TeaLeaf)

Post #: 4

RE: Rules interpretation - 7/24/2018 1:15:52 PM

TeaLeaf

Posts: 414
Joined: 11/5/2014
Status: offline

What's the bug, Peter?
That MWiF can't be persuaded to send a saved French oil from the Carribbean instead of the Beirut one, or that a saved oil is picked as 'fulfillment' of a trade agreement in the first place?

I must admit I am at a loss here, so if you could explain your thought, I can make a bugreport of it

(in reply to Centuur)

Post #: 5

RE: Rules interpretation - 7/24/2018 3:39:26 PM

paulderynck

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

I'd say there are two bugs here. One is that if New Caledonia was the planned source then it was a resource that was promised and in an Oil game (which it must be since Oil is being saved) you can't substitute one for the other.

The second is the choice of Beirut as the source (assuming it had been an oil from somewhere else that was promised). Is Syria the FF home country? This may be a hold over from early MWiF code which wanted to source all lends from the home country.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to TeaLeaf)

Post #: 6

RE: Rules interpretation - 7/24/2018 3:46:08 PM

paulderynck

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

I'd say there are two bugs here. One is that if New Caledonia was the planned source then it was a resource that was promised and in an Oil game (which it must be since Oil is being saved) you can't substitute one for the other.

Edit - well that's how we've played it over the board but I do recall now that MWiF has a summary line akin to FREX "lending 4 resources, 2 of which must be oil" so perhaps MWiF is not quite so strict on the substitution angle, which actually exacerbates this issue.

< Message edited by paulderynck -- 7/24/2018 3:47:39 PM >

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to paulderynck)

Post #: 7

RE: Rules interpretation - 7/24/2018 4:16:22 PM

Courtenay

Posts: 4003
Joined: 11/12/2008
Status: offline

I believe that oil and non-oil resources can not be substituted for each other in MWiF.

_____________________________

I thought I knew how to play this game....

(in reply to paulderynck)

Post #: 8

RE: Rules interpretation - 7/24/2018 6:33:41 PM

TeaLeaf

Posts: 414
Joined: 11/5/2014
Status: offline

Very sharp, guys! Two for the price of one

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
Is Syria the FF home country? This may be a hold over from early MWiF code which wanted to source all lends from the home country.

Mais non! France has not been vichied, France has been incompletely conquered, with Dakar as its new Capital, not cooperating with the CW, cooperating with the USA.

(in reply to paulderynck)

Post #: 9

RE: Rules interpretation - 7/24/2018 8:56:31 PM

Centuur

Posts: 8802
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline

There is another rule which we tend to forget here:

RAW:

Active major powers may contribute to the convoy chain of any other
major power on the same side.

Now, consider this for a moment. Let's say the US has a trade agreement with France. But to get the resources to France, it needs to use CW convoy points, now that the original route can't be made due to convoy losses. What if the CW doesn't allow the US to use the convoys for this resource transportation because they want to use those convoys for other resource tranportation? That's allowed, according to RAW...

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to TeaLeaf)

Post #: 10

RE: Rules interpretation - 7/24/2018 9:56:07 PM

TeaLeaf

Posts: 414
Joined: 11/5/2014
Status: offline

It gets better and better ;-)

(in reply to Centuur)

Post #: 11

RE: Rules interpretation - 7/24/2018 10:20:06 PM

paulderynck

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

There is another rule which we tend to forget here:

RAW:

Active major powers may contribute to the convoy chain of any other
major power on the same side.

Now, consider this for a moment. Let's say the US has a trade agreement with France. But to get the resources to France, it needs to use CW convoy points, now that the original route can't be made due to convoy losses. What if the CW doesn't allow the US to use the convoys for this resource transportation because they want to use those convoys for other resource tranportation? That's allowed, according to RAW...

Depends on the definition of "must".

Or are we to say "yes you have permission and lets plan our convoy chains to cooperate fully except when it's to our mutual advantage for you not to have permission, well then of course you don't have permission for this subphase only..."

< Message edited by paulderynck -- 7/24/2018 10:23:38 PM >

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Centuur)

Post #: 12

RE: Rules interpretation - 7/25/2018 2:00:33 PM

Centuur

Posts: 8802
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

There is another rule which we tend to forget here:

RAW:

Active major powers may contribute to the convoy chain of any other
major power on the same side.

Now, consider this for a moment. Let's say the US has a trade agreement with France. But to get the resources to France, it needs to use CW convoy points, now that the original route can't be made due to convoy losses. What if the CW doesn't allow the US to use the convoys for this resource transportation because they want to use those convoys for other resource tranportation? That's allowed, according to RAW...

Depends on the definition of "must".

Or are we to say "yes you have permission and lets plan our convoy chains to cooperate fully except when it's to our mutual advantage for you not to have permission, well then of course you don't have permission for this subphase only..."

It's the way we played this rule in our group in the past. And I can't see any ruling which does not allow this...

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to paulderynck)

Post #: 13

RE: Rules interpretation - 7/25/2018 3:28:24 PM

paulderynck

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

As you know it was recently clarified that with option 32 an axis power cannot attack US CPs taking stuff to a major power that axis power is not at war with.

So then in this same spirit of gamesmanship I imagine when option 32 is passed and the US lends an oil to China and 3 BPs to the Soviet Union - but doesn't have a CP path to China - your Japanese player declares "I agree to the transport of the oil to China going via Korea and through my lines to the Chinese" and then happily sinks the US CPs in the Sea of Japan because they "could" be carrying that oil...

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Centuur)

Post #: 14

RE: Rules interpretation - 7/25/2018 6:00:59 PM

gw15

Posts: 919
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline

This discussion is why MWIF is so hard to program.
Rules as coded. Go with it.

(in reply to paulderynck)

Post #: 15

RE: Rules interpretation - 7/26/2018 3:27:17 PM

Centuur

Posts: 8802
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gw15

This discussion is why MWIF is so hard to program.
Rules as coded. Go with it.

I agree on that one. The problems arise from a rulebook which sometimes can be explained in two different ways. Both than are acceptable to play. Unfortunately a computer can't play things two ways.

And I can live with the explanation that a "side" must deliver resources and build points promised to a major power. But to me, that is a deviation from RAW.

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to gw15)

Post #: 16

RE: Rules interpretation - 7/26/2018 11:11:05 PM

pzgndr

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gw15
This discussion is why MWIF is so hard to program.
Rules as coded. Go with it.

Ditto for Empires in Arms. But "rules as coded" must also be accurately documented in the Player's Manual, so players know what the rules are for MWiF.

_____________________________

Bill
Empires in Arms Development Team

(in reply to gw15)

Post #: 17

RE: Rules interpretation - 8/20/2018 2:30:27 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

The original problem described here (using an oil resource instead of a (Default) saved oil was a bug I corrected in version 02.09.00.00.

The program (newly created) was replacing the default and override settings for saved oil to always be saved (in place).

It should now let you specify (using default of override settings) that a saved oil fulfill a trade agreement.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 18