Suggested Rule Change

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Suggested Rule Change

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 >> Suggested Rule Change

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Suggested Rule Change - 9/10/2005 8:45:46 PM

Mziln

Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline

Incomplete Conquest

Merely conquering a Major Power or Minor Country doesn�t mean it is out of the game. That only happens when it is completely conquered. Until then, it fights on with its remaining units.

Incompletely conquered home countries:

Remove from the game all land and aircraft units that are in the incompletely conquered home country or not on the map.

Remove from the game any naval units in its force pools (except convoy points).

let all other units remain where they are.

If you are using Option 28: Pilots

Roll a die for each of its naval units on the Production Circle, in the Construction Pool, or in the Repair Pool on a:

�1� or �2� it becomes controlled by any Major Power the controlling Major Power of the incompletely conquered home country chooses (including itself).

�3� through �5� it is destroyed.

�6� or higher it becomes controlled by any Major Power the conquering Major Power chooses.

All units from the incompletely conquered home country:

Are moved to the nearest friendly hex (or port) within normal range outside the incompletely conquered home country that they may stack in.

Units cannot be moved into a hex (or port) in a home country or Territory controlled by a Major Power they are at war with.

Units that cannot do so are destroyed.

Post #: 1

RE: Suggested Rule Change - 9/11/2005 12:17:03 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln

Incomplete Conquest

Merely conquering a Major Power or Minor Country doesn�t mean it is out of the game. That only happens when it is completely conquered. Until then, it fights on with its remaining units.

Incompletely conquered home countries:

Remove from the game all land and aircraft units that are in the incompletely conquered home country or not on the map.

Remove from the game any naval units in its force pools (except convoy points).

let all other units remain where they are.

If you are using Option 28: Pilots

Roll a die for each of its naval units on the Production Circle, in the Construction Pool, or in the Repair Pool on a:

�1� or �2� it becomes controlled by any Major Power the controlling Major Power of the incompletely conquered home country chooses (including itself).

�3� through �5� it is destroyed.

�6� or higher it becomes controlled by any Major Power the conquering Major Power chooses.

All units from the incompletely conquered home country:

Are moved to the nearest friendly hex (or port) within normal range outside the incompletely conquered home country that they may stack in.

Units cannot be moved into a hex (or port) in a home country or Territory controlled by a Major Power they are at war with.

Units that cannot do so are destroyed.

It is not clear to me what you are changing. It would be helpful to me if you first stated what the problem is you have with the rule that you want to correct. Then give a general statement of how you propose to fix it, and lastly the actual wording of the rule.

As I read the rule (a very badly written rule, I might add):
(1) The incompletely conquered country loses all its land and aircraft units.
(2) Its naval units are up for grabs and either are destroyed or randomly handed out.
(3) Any naval units that are now in enemy controlled ports are treated as if they were overrun and therefore rebase.
(4) Other air and land units on the same side as the incompletely conquered country either remain in place (if they are at war with the conquereor) or teleport to the nearest friendly hex outside the country (if they are not at war with the conqueror).

The teleportation rules are always a strain on the imagination, though in this case it might be envisioned that the conqueror provides transportation to move them out of the country. #3 handles both the newly reassigned naval units and those onthe same side as the incompletely conquered country who are at war with the conqueror. Naval units that are not at war with the conqueror can remain in newly conquered ports - sort of like neutrals.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Mziln)

Post #: 2

RE: Suggested Rule Change - 9/11/2005 12:28:16 AM

Froonp

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

quote:

As I read the rule (a very badly written rule, I might add):

A personal opinion you share with yourself. I politely beg to difer.

quote:

(1) The incompletely conquered country loses all its land and aircraft units.

Not so. It looses the land & aircraft units that are inside its home country. Units in its controlled minor countries stay on the map.
i.e. : Belgium when conquered keep any units she still have in Belgian Congo.

By the way : Why change this rule ?
I have not understood neither.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 3

RE: Suggested Rule Change - 9/11/2005 9:19:07 AM

Mziln

Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline

quote:

From WiF RaW 7 aug 04 this is an exact quote:

All units from the conquered side in that country are now moved to the nearest friendly hex outside the country that they may stack in, unless they are at war with the conquerer.

quote:

What I suggest to replace this is:

All units from the incompletely conquered home country:

Are moved to the nearest friendly hex (or port) within normal range outside the incompletely conquered home country that they may stack in.

Units cannot be moved into a hex (or port) in a home country or Territory controlled by a Major Power they are at war with.

Units that cannot do so are destroyed.

The original segment of the rules is vague, badly written, and in some cases gives units abilities they normaly do not have.

According to the original rule theoreticaly a Danish crusier with a movement of 1 (and there was one in the beta) could rebase to Brittian if Denmark was incompletely conqured. (I was told in the beta there was a scuttle option planned for this situation.)

This would also stop the Commonwealth from using transports to pick up the Dutch army in the Netherlands move to them to sea and abandon their home country to incomplete conquest.

I include this to show this is a very real possiability: USA entry action 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.

I also belive my suggested version is more in line with the rules for incomplete and complete conquest.

Should "friendly hex" be changed to "controlled hex"?

< Message edited by Mziln -- 9/11/2005 9:51:25 AM >

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 4

RE: Suggested Rule Change - 9/11/2005 11:16:41 AM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln

quote:

From WiF RaW 7 aug 04 this is an exact quote:

All units from the conquered side in that country are now moved to the nearest friendly hex outside the country that they may stack in, unless they are at war with the conquerer.

The original segment of the rules is vague, badly written, and in some cases gives units abilities they normaly do not have.

Hummm..... The segment of the rule you just quoted is far from vague.
It is an abstract form the rule, and it is the one who deals about units on the side of the conquered country, but not at war with the conqueror.

quote:

According to the original rule theoreticaly a Danish crusier with a movement of 1 (and there was one in the beta) could rebase to Brittian if Denmark was incompletely conqured. (I was told in the beta there was a scuttle option planned for this situation.)

A Danish cruiser is not covered by the sentence you write.
It is not from a country on the Danish side not at war with the Germans.
It is not teleported.
It must return to base to another friendly port, within double range.

quote:

This would also stop the Commonwealth from using transports to pick up the Dutch army in the Netherlands move to them to sea and abandon their home country to incomplete conquest.

The Dutch army is not covered by the sentence you write.
It is not from a country on the Dutch side not at war with the Germans.
Moreover, the Dutch Army is normaly dead when it comes to the CW to play.
And anyway, if it wasn't dead, it is perfectly legal for a CW TRS to transport it back to Britain where it will survive destruction and fight later on.

Incomplete Conquest is a complicated matter (Complete conquest, Vichy are others), and the rule is written in sequential order. You must read it and do what it says, sequentialy, and when you reach the end of the rule reading, you've done all what was to do when a country is incompletely conquered. Such a complicated procedure cannot be without a long and extensive rule, who must try to cover all cases possible.

The case of units from the side of the conquered country, but not at war with the conquerer, happens very very very rarely, and was not in the original RAW of WiF FE. In fact, it covers what was called the "Peacekeepers" problem. It must be included in the incomplete conquest rule. The rule as you rewrote it does not mean the same and does not cover the same aspect of incomplete conquest.

(in reply to Mziln)

Post #: 5

RE: Suggested Rule Change - 9/11/2005 12:11:27 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln

quote:

From WiF RaW 7 aug 04 this is an exact quote:

All units from the conquered side in that country are now moved to the nearest friendly hex outside the country that they may stack in, unless they are at war with the conquerer.

quote:

What I suggest to replace this is:

All units from the incompletely conquered home country:

Are moved to the nearest friendly hex (or port) within normal range outside the incompletely conquered home country that they may stack in.

Units cannot be moved into a hex (or port) in a home country or Territory controlled by a Major Power they are at war with.

Units that cannot do so are destroyed.

The original segment of the rules is vague, badly written, and in some cases gives units abilities they normaly do not have.

According to the original rule theoreticaly a Danish crusier with a movement of 1 (and there was one in the beta) could rebase to Brittian if Denmark was incompletely conqured. (I was told in the beta there was a scuttle option planned for this situation.)

This would also stop the Commonwealth from using transports to pick up the Dutch army in the Netherlands move to them to sea and abandon their home country to incomplete conquest.

I include this to show this is a very real possiability: USA entry action 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.

I also belive my suggested version is more in line with the rules for incomplete and complete conquest.

Should "friendly hex" be changed to "controlled hex"?

I believe the confusion with this rule has to do with what its last phrase ("unless they are at war with the conquerer") is modifying. Patrice seems untroubled by this, but I find it hard to read even after the tenth time. Apparently the phrase modifes the first noun in the sentence: "All units".

This interpretation is consistent with Patrice's reading of the rule. What that means is what I was saying, this entire sentence does not apply to units who are (1) on the same side as the incompletely conquered country and (2) at war with the conqueror. Units meeting those qualifications just stay where they are.

It does apply to units who are (1) on the same side as the incompletely conquered country and (2) not at war with the conqueror.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Mziln)

Post #: 6

RE: Suggested Rule Change - 9/11/2005 7:41:41 PM

Mziln

Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline

quote:

I believe the confusion with this rule has to do with what its last phrase ("unless they are at war with the conquerer") is modifying. Patrice seems untroubled by this, but I find it hard to read even after the tenth time. Apparently the phrase modifes the first noun in the sentence: "All units".

This interpretation is consistent with Patrice's reading of the rule. What that means is what I was saying, this entire sentence does not apply to units who are (1) on the same side as the incompletely conquered country and (2) at war with the conqueror. Units meeting those qualifications just stay where they are.

It does apply to units who are (1) on the same side as the incompletely conquered country and (2) not at war with the conqueror.

So your saying:

We are to ingnore the fact that "All units from the conquered side" would include naval units in the incompletely home conquered country. Giving the conquror a free shot at overrunning them.

Remember durring the End of Turn Stage ~ Peace step ~ Conquest: all land and air units in the incompletely conquered home country have been removed.

If a home country is incompletely conqured.

Non-home country friendly land, air, or naval units not at war with the conqueror (whatever the weather, face down or face up, surrounded or not, in range or not, will move through units they are at war with if necessary) and show up at the nearest hex they can stack in (even if it would require naval units that don't exist).

These units would be able to enter countries without permission of the controlling Major Power and even change control of the hexs in these countries.

You could even argue that naval units could avoid naval interception since they are "moved to a friendly hex". After all look at the rules land and air units get to violate.

All this with out mention of Multiple States of War?

Then this rule violates just about every movement rule except stacking.

Here is a example of Multiple States of War with Incomplete Conquest:

The USA has not entered the war. Japan has conqured China. Germany has declaired war on the USSR. The Commonwealth is at war with Japan and has flown bombers in Vladivostok against Korean factorys.

The USSR is incompletely conqured and the Commonwealth bombers now are moved to India.

< Message edited by Mziln -- 9/11/2005 9:02:14 PM >

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 7

RE: Suggested Rule Change - 9/12/2005 1:48:52 AM

doctormm

Posts: 124
Joined: 5/28/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln

quote:

I believe the confusion with this rule has to do with what its last phrase ("unless they are at war with the conquerer") is modifying. Patrice seems untroubled by this, but I find it hard to read even after the tenth time. Apparently the phrase modifes the first noun in the sentence: "All units".

This interpretation is consistent with Patrice's reading of the rule. What that means is what I was saying, this entire sentence does not apply to units who are (1) on the same side as the incompletely conquered country and (2) at war with the conqueror. Units meeting those qualifications just stay where they are.

It does apply to units who are (1) on the same side as the incompletely conquered country and (2) not at war with the conqueror.

So your saying:

We are to ingnore the fact that "All units from the conquered side" would include naval units in the incompletely home conquered country. Giving the conquror a free shot at overrunning them.

Remember durring the End of Turn Stage ~ Peace step ~ Conquest: all land and air units in the incompletely conquered home country have been removed.

If a home country is incompletely conqured.

Non-home country friendly land, air, or naval units not at war with the conqueror (whatever the weather, face down or face up, surrounded or not, in range or not, will move through units they are at war with if necessary) and show up at the nearest hex they can stack in (even if it would require naval units that don't exist).

These units would be able to enter countries without permission of the controlling Major Power and even change control of the hexs in these countries.

You could even argue that naval units could avoid naval interception since they are "moved to a friendly hex". After all look at the rules land and air units get to violate.

All this with out mention of Multiple States of War?

Then this rule violates just about every movement rule except stacking.

Here is a example of Multiple States of War with Incomplete Conquest:

The USA has not entered the war. Japan has conqured China. Germany has declaired war on the USSR. The Commonwealth is at war with Japan and has flown bombers in Vladivostok against Korean factorys.

The USSR is incompletely conqured and the Commonwealth bombers now are moved to India.

Steve -

Please don't consider changing a rule just because someone repeatedly complains about their inability to comprehend the rules.

As an example, Mziln repeatedly says that the removal of troops to the nearest hex where they can stack allows (regardless of whether the owning player wants them or not), disregarding the rules about what hexes you may enter (which specifically state that you can't enter friendly countries without their owner's permission).

Regarding his last example, how did the CW units get to Vlad? (though it doesn't really matter) How did the USSR manage to get counquered (even incompletely) without Vlad falling? Who conquered the USSR? Germany? The CW units don't "teleport" to India, they are forced to rebase. If they can reach (over enemy territory), what's the problem? (They'll be face down, btw.)

Etc.

(in reply to Mziln)

Post #: 8

RE: Suggested Rule Change - 9/12/2005 6:16:56 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

Mzlin,

In reading this rule I separate the countries involved into 4 groups:
(1) The conqueror,
(2) The incompletely conquered,
(3) Allies of the conquered who are at war with the conqueror, and
(4) Allies of the conquered who are not at war with the conqueror.

The first and third groups stay put and continue fighting.

The second group has their army and airforce wiped out, unless they are out of the country, in which case they continue fighting. The naval units of the second group that are not in a home port, continue fighting. The naval units that are in a home port are up for grabs - let's call them the Random Naval Units (RNU). An RNU that goes to the conqueror, stays put. An RNU that goes to the third group is forced to immediately rebase, with all the normal rebase rules in effect.

All units of the fourth group teleport to the nearest friendly hex/port. These units are essentially neutrals who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and are now being told to leave by the conqueror. If you like, you can think of the conqueror providing them with all necessary logistics and even safe passage out of the country through what would otherwise be enemy lines. Remember, we are dealing with 2 month turns here. My use of the word teleportation is intended to convey how the player moves the units, not the elapsed simulated time that would be required.

I don't think this rule needs to be changed. It could do with a serious rewording. Perhaps what I just wrote above is sufficient?

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Mziln)

Post #: 9

RE: Suggested Rule Change - 9/12/2005 7:10:17 PM

Mziln

Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline

quote:

Original: doctormm

Regarding his last example, how did the CW units get to Vlad? (though it doesn't really matter) How did the USSR manage to get counquered (even incompletely) without Vlad falling? Who conquered the USSR? Germany? The CW units don't "teleport" to India, they are forced to rebase. If they can reach (over enemy territory), what's the problem? (They'll be face down, btw.)

I noted this would be a case of rule "9.9 Multiple States of War" which would require the USSR to have an aligned Minor Country in this case Mongolia (see rule: 19.8 Allied minor countries).

I used Vladivostok as an easy to reference geographical location rather than map cordinates to prove the point that distance would not matter.

The air units do not rebase they are "moved to the nearest friendly hex" (which would be in Mongolia).

If they started face down they would remain face down after the move.

If they started face up they would remain face up after the move.

Please read the previous post where I show the exact quote from WiF RaW 7 aug 04.

Shannon V. OKeets

Although I would rather have this fit within the other rules on movement. It would also simplify program coding if this rule fit within the movement rules.

This is why I suggested the change in the first place.

As I posted before "The original segment of the rules is vague, badly written, and in some cases gives units abilities they normaly do not have".

I look forward to your clarification when you release the Matrix version.

You will be comming out with a version of the rules for the MWiF won't you? Which buttons to push, hot keys, and etc.

< Message edited by Mziln -- 9/12/2005 7:14:52 PM >

(in reply to doctormm)

Post #: 10

RE: Suggested Rule Change - 9/12/2005 8:45:48 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln
Shannon V. OKeets

Although I would rather have this fit within the other rules on movement. It would also simplify program coding if this rule fit within the movement rules.

This is why I suggested the change in the first place.

As I posted before "The original segment of the rules is vague, badly written, and in some cases gives units abilities they normaly do not have".

I look forward to your clarification when you release the Matrix version.

You will be comming out with a version of the rules for the MWiF won't you? Which buttons to push, hot keys, and etc.

Rewrite the rules? On no, not me! I will be implementing them in the code, which means they will be rigorously and rigidly defined and continuously enforced. I have no intention of trying to translate the resulting code into English for various rules lawyers to bitch and moan about when they start losing a game. Instead, I will just blissfully refer them to RAW 7.0 and let them struggle with that the same way everyone who ever has played the board game has had to struggle.

One of my adages to live by is that "Perfection is an elusive goal." Rendering logic into English clearly quailfies.

< Message edited by Shannon V. OKeets -- 9/13/2005 7:36:57 AM >

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Mziln)

Post #: 11

RE: Suggested Rule Change - 9/13/2005 4:42:37 AM

doctormm

Posts: 124
Joined: 5/28/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln

quote:

Original: doctormm

Regarding his last example, how did the CW units get to Vlad? (though it doesn't really matter) How did the USSR manage to get counquered (even incompletely) without Vlad falling? Who conquered the USSR? Germany? The CW units don't "teleport" to India, they are forced to rebase. If they can reach (over enemy territory), what's the problem? (They'll be face down, btw.)

I noted this would be a case of rule "9.9 Multiple States of War" which would require the USSR to have an aligned Minor Country in this case Mongolia (see rule: 19.8 Allied minor countries).

I used Vladivostok as an easy to reference geographical location rather than map cordinates to prove the point that distance would not matter.

The air units do not rebase they are "moved to the nearest friendly hex" (which would be in Mongolia).

If they started face down they would remain face down after the move.

If they started face up they would remain face up after the move.

Please read the previous post where I show the exact quote from WiF RaW 7 aug 04.

Shannon V. OKeets

Although I would rather have this fit within the other rules on movement. It would also simplify program coding if this rule fit within the movement rules.

This is why I suggested the change in the first place.

As I posted before "The original segment of the rules is vague, badly written, and in some cases gives units abilities they normaly do not have".

I look forward to your clarification when you release the Matrix version.

You will be comming out with a version of the rules for the MWiF won't you? Which buttons to push, hot keys, and etc.

Who conquered Russia in your fantasy example above? Odds are it's gonna be Germany, or maybe Italy. The odds of Japan being the conqueror are so vanishingly small as to be impossible to compute even with a computer game.

In how many games have you seen a situation where the CW isn't at war with IT or GE?

If you're going to insist on making up examples to show how badly the rules work, at least come up with one that stands a chance of actually happening in a game of WiF.

[though you are right about the fact that they are no longer overrun - Harry changed that in the latest rules to include hexes occupied solely by air units. But there is still no case to be made for them teleporting to Mongolia, or India, or Belgian Congo.]

(in reply to Mziln)

Post #: 12

RE: Suggested Rule Change - 9/13/2005 1:01:40 PM

Froonp

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

quote:

In how many games have you seen a situation where the CW isn't at war with IT or GE?

This can't be in WiF FE.

(in reply to doctormm)

Post #: 13

RE: Suggested Rule Change - 9/13/2005 1:14:01 PM

c92nichj

Posts: 440
Joined: 1/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

In how many games have you seen a situation where the CW isn't at war with IT or GE?

In my last game Italy and CW was at peace well into Barbarossa, Italy was at war with both Russia and France(which surrendered their home country and fought on from their colonies)

(in reply to doctormm)

Post #: 14

RE: Suggested Rule Change - 9/13/2005 6:54:02 PM

Mziln

Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline

quote:

Who conquered Russia in your fantasy example above? Odds are it's gonna be Germany, or maybe Italy. The odds of Japan being the conqueror are so vanishingly small as to be impossible to compute even with a computer game.

In how many games have you seen a situation where the CW isn't at war with IT or GE?

If you're going to insist on making up examples to show how badly the rules work, at least come up with one that stands a chance of actually happening in a game of WiF.

[though you are right about the fact that they are no longer overrun - Harry changed that in the latest rules to include hexes occupied solely by air units. But there is still no case to be made for them teleporting to Mongolia, or India, or Belgian Congo.]

So you think the rule is crystal clear?

quote:

Just so you don't miss it again from WiF RaW 7 aug 04 this is an exact quote:

All units from the conquered side in that country are now moved to the nearest friendly hex outside the country that they may stack in, unless they are at war with the conquerer.

Lets take it slowly just for you:

"All units from the conquered side in that country" this means all units to me. The Commonwealth being at war or not with Germany makes no diference.

"are now moved to the nearest friendly hex outside the country that they may stack in, " to me this means they are moved not rebased to a friendly hex outside the incompletly conqured home country that they may stack in.

"unless they are at war with the conquerer." unelss the HEX is controlled by the conqurer. Friendly is not defined as "on the same side" you could argue that it means "not at war with" (see rule: 9.9 Multiple states of war).

Otherwise it would read:

quote:

All units from the conquered side in that country, unless they are at war with the conquerer, are now moved to the nearest friendly hex outside the country that they may stack in.

I see it as a rule simular to (from WiF RaW 7 aug 04 this is an exact quote):

quote:

See rule: 17. Vichy France ~ 17.1 Creation ~ 17.3 Units

Non-French units

The owning player moves every non-French controlled land and aircraft unit in a Vichy French hex to the nearest hex they can stack in controlled by its major power, or a co-operating major power, or their aligned minors.

Rebase every non-French controlled naval unit in these territories or minor countries to the nearest friendly controlled port within double the range of the rebasing naval units. If there is no friendly base it can stack in within double the naval unit�s range, it is destroyed instead.

Which is a clear an precise rule and in my opinion how the rule should have been written or referenced to in the first place. Since we are doing practicaly the same the same thing. It should look like this...

quote:

Units on the side of the Incompletely Conqured Home Country

In the following a friendly hex or port is defined as: A hex or port controlled by its major power, or a co-operating major power, or their aligned minors.

In the incompletely conqured home country the owning player of non-incompleatly conqured home country units:
.....Move their land and aircraft units to the nearest friendly hex.
.....Rebase their Naval units to the nearest friendly port they can stack in within double the naval unit�s range. If there is no base it can stack in it is destroyed instead.

The Incomplete Conquest rules are for any home country with the exception of Italy (See: 13.7.1 Conquest ~ Italy) who suffer a Complete Conquest if 3 of 4 objectives are met. So Germany would not need to leave Italy if it is conqured.

But it is not up to me to interpret the rule.

Shannon V. OKeets

I did not mean to infer or imply a rewrite. I made sure to leave that word out. But you will have instructions on hot keys and things used by the interface, won't you?

< Message edited by Mziln -- 9/13/2005 8:58:28 PM >

(in reply to doctormm)

Post #: 15

RE: Suggested Rule Change - 9/13/2005 10:29:49 PM

Froonp

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

Wow....
I think you are deeply misled Mzlin, very deeply...
The advantage of being not native english speaker, is that I did not even notice that the rule could be read another way that I read it.
But I can ensure you that you are in error. You are stretching things far too much.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln
Lets take it slowly just for you:

"All units from the conquered side in that country" this means all units to me. The Commonwealth being at war or not with Germany makes no diference.

"are now moved to the nearest friendly hex outside the country that they may stack in, " to me this means they are moved not rebased to a friendly hex outside the incompletly conqured home country that they may stack in.

"unless they are at war with the conquerer." unelss the HEX is controlled by the conqurer. Friendly is not defined as "on the same side" you could argue that it means "not at war with" (see rule: 9.9 Multiple states of war).

So you are arguying that the "they" refers to the hexes ??????
An hex is not "at war" with anyone, if you were right, it would be written "controlled by the enemy".
Please.... come on....

quote:

The Incomplete Conquest rules are for any home country with the exception of Italy (See: 13.7.1 Conquest ~ Italy) who suffer a Complete Conquest if 3 of 4 objectives are met. So Germany would not need to leave Italy if it is conqured.

The incomplete conquest is for every country, Italy too.
For Italy, only the conditions of conquest are different. For everyone it is : Have all the factories & the capital. For Italy it is different, but when the condition is achieved, the result can be either a complete or an incomplete conquest.

(in reply to Mziln)

Post #: 16

RE: Suggested Rule Change - 9/13/2005 11:31:37 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln

I did not mean to infer or imply a rewrite. I made sure to leave that word out. But you will have instructions on hot keys and things used by the interface, won't you?

One of the threads I want to start this month is on a help system and tutorials. I expect that to all get thrashed out then.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Mziln)

Post #: 17

RE: Suggested Rule Change - 9/14/2005 3:22:15 AM

doctormm

Posts: 124
Joined: 5/28/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln

Just so you don't miss it again from WiF RaW 7 aug 04 this is an exact quote:

All units from the conquered side in that country are now moved to the nearest friendly hex outside the country that they may stack in, unless they are at war with the conquerer.

Lets take it slowly just for you:

"All units from the conquered side in that country" this means all units to me. The Commonwealth being at war or not with Germany makes no diference.

"are now moved to the nearest friendly hex outside the country that they may stack in, " to me this means they are moved not rebased to a friendly hex outside the incompletly conqured home country that they may stack in.

"unless they are at war with the conquerer." unelss the HEX is controlled by the conqurer. Friendly is not defined as "on the same side" you could argue that it means "not at war with" (see rule: 9.9 Multiple states of war).

Your inability to properly parse even this relatively simple sentence pretty much dooms you. This animated gif should convey my thoughts on continuing this discussion:

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Mziln)

Post #: 18

RE: Suggested Rule Change - 9/14/2005 12:55:25 PM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
One of the threads I want to start this month is on a help system and tutorials. I expect that to all get thrashed out then.

This is very important in my mind, maybe even more than the animation / historic details.
WiF is such a large scope game that help should be provided in as many ways as possible.
I look forward to this thread.

Best Regards

Patrice

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 19

RE: Suggested Rule Change - 9/14/2005 5:02:54 PM

Mziln

Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln

So you are arguying that the "they" refers to the hexes ??????
An hex is not "at war" with anyone, if you were right, it would be written "controlled by the enemy".
Please.... come on....

"All units from the conquered side in that country are now moved to the nearest friendly hex outside the country that they may stack in, unless they are at war with the conquerer"

1. The subject of the sentence is the "All units from the conquered side in that country".

2. The action is they "are now moved to the nearest friendly hex outside the country that they may stack in, ".

3. "unless they are at war with the conquerer" modifies the action, ie. hexes controled by the conquring power may not be entered.

What you are saying is:

1. The subject of the sentence is the "All units from the conquered side in that country".

2. The action is they "are now moved to the nearest friendly hex outside the country that they may stack in, ".

3. "unless they are at war with the conquerer" modifies the subject of the sentence. ie. who may be moved.

(1) The conqueror,
(2) The incompletely conquered,
(3) Allies of the conquered who are at war with the conqueror, and
(4) Allies of the conquered who are not at war with the conqueror.

Country 1 and 2 are declaring peace.

What You are saying:

Country 2 does not care that hostile units from country 3 remain in country 1?

What I am saying is:

Country 1 is telling country 3 get out of my country. I'm declaring peace and do not want country 2 to have an excuse to go to war again.

Patrice, please don't consider me rude it iis not my intention. It is a problem with the english language.

To put it simply you are saying "The cat ran black" and I am saying "the cat ran fast".

We agree on the subject "The cat" and the action "ran".

What we diagree on is what is being modifed the subject or the action.

doctormm:

I will not resort to pictograms to try and make points. Please note I did not say "make a point".

< Message edited by Mziln -- 9/14/2005 6:27:28 PM >

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 20

RE: Suggested Rule Change - 9/15/2005 3:18:05 AM

doctormm

Posts: 124
Joined: 5/28/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln

doctormm:

I will not resort to pictograms to try and make points. Please note I did not say "make a point".

Good for you. You're still mind-numbingly wrong. Patrice has quite politely shown you your errors. Yet you persist.

If you're really into analyzing syntax, going with your reading of the rule, why is it "they" and not "it"? Note that there is only one plural noun in the sentence for "they" to agree with - "units".

(in reply to Mziln)

Post #: 21

RE: Suggested Rule Change - 9/15/2005 10:50:45 AM

Froonp

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

As I simply said, hexes are never "at war" so Mzlin interpretation is just plainly and definitely wrong.
The "they" evidently designate the units, not the hexes.

Anyway Mzlin, may I suggest you if you have any other suggestions to do regarding the re-wording of the rules, to do them on the WiF Discussion Yahoo list, as it is more appropriate to that.
Moreover, you'll find there some buddies who will straight your understanding of the rules.

It is here (you'll need to create a free Yahoo account to subscribe)
http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/wifdiscussion

If you want to learn French, there even is a French WiF discussion group there :
http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/WorldinFlames_en_francais/

This forum is for designing MWiF, and Steve has made it clear that he does not intend to re-write the rules (hopefully), he's only here to put them faithfully into a great working software.

Best Regards

< Message edited by Froonp -- 9/15/2005 10:53:04 AM >

(in reply to doctormm)

Post #: 22

RE: Suggested Rule Change - 9/15/2005 5:55:47 PM

Mziln

Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

As I simply said, hexes are never "at war" so Mzlin interpretation is just plainly and definitely wrong.
The "they" evidently designate the units, not the hexes.

Anyway Mzlin, may I suggest you if you have any other suggestions to do regarding the re-wording of the rules, to do them on the WiF Discussion Yahoo list, as it is more appropriate to that.
Moreover, you'll find there some buddies who will straight your understanding of the rules.

It is here (you'll need to create a free Yahoo account to subscribe)
http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/wifdiscussion

If you want to learn French, there even is a French WiF discussion group there :
http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/WorldinFlames_en_francais/

This forum is for designing MWiF, and Steve has made it clear that he does not intend to re-write the rules (hopefully), he's only here to put them faithfully into a great working software.

Best Regards

All units from the conquered side in that country are now moved to the nearest friendly hex outside the country that they may stack in, unless they are at war with the conquerer.

In this case "unless they are at war with" represents Major Powers, Minor Countries, and Territories.

Units do not declare war or conquer anything. "The military is a tool used to pursue diplomacy by other means".

Major Powers declare war. Major Powers conquer home countries and territories. Aligned Minor Countries and Territories are at war with anyone their controlling Major Power is at war with.

Major Powers, Minor Countries, and Territories are geographical entities (see rule: 2.5 Control).

Therfore its the hexes not the units.

You have given your interpretation I challenge you to support your claim. I have given mine and supported them in several of the rules already.

Cite a historical precedent for your interpretation of this rule or a rule supporting your claim. Don't even try to cite the foreign intervention in Russia in 1919. The war between the Reds and the Whites was from 1918 to 1920.

Cite an instance where country 1 surrendered to country 2 and allowed country 3 to remain in country 1.

Please note that I have repeatedly stated I have no problem with any Matrix interpretation of this or any other rule.

I have repeatedly posted why I cannot post at the Yahoo site.

Thank you for the links Patrice.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 23

RE: Suggested Rule Change - 9/15/2005 9:25:10 PM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln
Cite an instance where country 1 surrendered to country 2 and allowed country 3 to remain in country 1.

Country 1 = Italy.
Country 2 = USA of CW.
Country 3 = Germany.

History tells that when the Italian surrendered to the Allies, the German were still there, and they did not go away peacefully by themselves escorted byt the Allies.

Country 1 = Belgium.
Country 2 = Germany.
Country 3 = France & CW.

etc etc.....

(in reply to Mziln)

Post #: 24

RE: Suggested Rule Change - 9/15/2005 9:30:57 PM

Froonp

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

quote:

All units from the conquered side in that country are now moved to the nearest friendly hex outside the country that they may stack in, unless they are at war with the conquerer.

In this case "unless they are at war with" represents Major Powers, Minor Countries, and Territories.

Units do not declare war or conquer anything. "The military is a tool used to pursue diplomacy by other means".

Major Powers declare war. Major Powers conquer home countries and territories. Aligned Minor Countries and Territories are at war with anyone their controlling Major Power is at war with.

Major Powers, Minor Countries, and Territories are geographical entities (see rule: 2.5 Control).

Therfore its the hexes not the units.

Incredible as you can torture a simple sentence to make it means absolutely anything you want.
I prefer to stop answering you about this, you're too stubborn.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Mziln)

Post #: 25

RE: Suggested Rule Change - 9/15/2005 9:41:36 PM

Froonp

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

quote:

I have repeatedly posted why I cannot post at the Yahoo site.

Sorry, I don't remember having seen this explanation, I didn't know that there may be problems for people to subscribe to yahoo groups.

(in reply to Mziln)

Post #: 26

RE: Suggested Rule Change - 9/17/2005 7:11:44 AM

Mziln

Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln Suggested Rule Change - 9/13/2005 4:54:02 PM

The Incomplete Conquest rules are for any home country with the exception of Italy (See: 13.7.1 Conquest ~ Italy) who suffer a Complete Conquest if 3 of 4 objectives are met. So Germany would not need to leave Italy if it is conqured.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 27

RE: Suggested Rule Change - 9/17/2005 7:45:00 AM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln
The Incomplete Conquest rules are for any home country with the exception of Italy (See: 13.7.1 Conquest ~ Italy) who suffer a Complete Conquest if 3 of 4 objectives are met. So Germany would not need to leave Italy if it is conqured.

Look.
13.7.1 first explains how countries are conquered (Territories, Italy, Others Home Countries headings).
Next, 13.7.1 explains that being conquered does not means the country is out of the game (Incomplete Conquest heading).
Then, 13.7.1 explains what happens when complete conquest comes (complete conquest heading).

Merely having Italy as a separate case for conquest conditions does not mean that it is a separate case for conquest consequences.

And best of all, look at the incomplete conquest heading, Italy is even cited as an example of Incomplete conquest.

Isn't that sufficient for you to understand this ????
Could you please read the rules fully before asking for any change ?

< Message edited by Froonp -- 9/17/2005 7:46:39 AM >

(in reply to Mziln)

Post #: 28

RE: Suggested Rule Change - 9/17/2005 9:42:35 AM

Mziln

Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline

Home Countries other than Italy:

every printed factory hex
You do not need to control a hex
controls most factories in the home country (again hexes)
Has the highest garrison value (one for units)
Occupied the home country�s last factory or capital city. (again hexes)
remove home country units
change comtrol of the country (hexes) this is the same for incomplete or complete conquest (with one exception).
pick a new home country
If a unit�s original home country is conquered and not yet liberated
Incompletely Conquered Major Power Reinforcement Restrictions
incompletely conquered Minor Country aircraft units into The Reserve Pool
Incompletely conquered Major Powers have only half their normal Activity Limits

Does this sum up incomplete conquest or not?

Evidently you have not read where I have been reorganizing my copy of the rules and putting them in a html format.

Its only a few hundred files that I have been working on in my spare time for the last several months.

Would you like a copy to view?

I was going to offer you a copy anyway even before I started this thread.

Perhaps this will convince you that I have read the rules.

1.11 Sequence of Play Outline (Rule 3.1 Sequence of play)

The sequence of play in a turn is:
A. 2.1 Reinforcement Stage (REINFORCEMENT STAGE)
B. 2.2 Transferring Resources and Build Points Stage (LENDING RESOURCES STAGE)
C. 2.3 Determining Initiative Stage (INITIATIVE STAGE)
D. 3.0 The Action Stage (ACTION STAGE)
Repeat D1 through D3 until the action stage ends.
D1 3.1 The Weather Step (Determine weather)
3.2 The Length of the Turn
D2 First side�s impulse
Every major power on the first side performs these steps:
D2.1 4.0 The War Declaration Step (Declare war)
D2.2 3.3 Choosing an Action Step (Choose action)
Choose a pass, a naval, an air, a land or a combined action.
D2.3 5.0 Implementing Actions Step (Perform actions)
The major powers that didn�t pass perform these steps in this order (their action choice will limit what they can do ~ see action limits table):
A: 5.1 The Surprise Impulse
B: 5.2 Port Attack Missions
C: 5.3 Naval Air Missions
D: 5.4 Naval Movements
E: 5.5 Naval Combat (Your naval combat)
F: Opponent�s Naval Combat Step
G: 5.7 Strategic Air Missions (Strategic bombardment)
H: Option 32: Carpet Bombing
I: 5.8 Ground Strike Missions
J: 5.9 Rail Movements
K: 5.10 Land Movement
L: 5.10.3 Air Transport Missions
M: 5.10.4 Debark Land Units at Sea
N: 5.10.5 Invasions
O: 5.10.6 Paradrops
P: 5.11 Land Combat
Q: 5.12 Re-basing Aircraft (Air re-bases)
R: 5.13 Reorganization
D2.4 3.5 Last Impulse Test (end of action)
Roll to end the action stage. If it doesn�t end, advance the impulse marker the number of spaces shown on the weather chart for the current weather roll. If it ends, move on to stage E - the end of turn.
D3 Second side�s impulse
If the action stage didn�t end, repeat the steps in D2 for the second side. If the action stage doesn�t end after the second side�s impulse, go back to D1.
E. 6.0 End of Turn Stage (END OF TURN STAGE)
Both sides perform these steps in this order:
E1 Option 46: Partisans (Partisans)
E2 6.1 How The USA Enters the War (US entry)
E3 6.2 Naval Return to base (Return to base)
E4 6.3 Final Reorganization
E5 6.4 Production
E6 Option 63: Intelligence (Intelligence (option 63))
E7 6.5 Peace
E7.1 6.5.1 Conquest
E7.2 6.5.2 Allies Support a Minor Country (Allied minor support)
E7.3 6.5.3 Mutual Peace
E7.4 6.5.4 Vichy/Free France
E7.5 6.5.5 Liberation
E7.6 6.5.6 Surrender
E8 6.6 Victory Check
E9 Option 30: Factory Destruction and Construction

< Message edited by Mziln -- 9/17/2005 10:05:30 AM >

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 29

RE: Suggested Rule Change - 9/17/2005 10:19:13 AM

Froonp

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

quote:

Home Countries other than Italy:

every printed factory hex
You do not need to control a hex
controls most factories in the home country (again hexes)
Has the highest garrison value (one for units)
Occupied the home country�s last factory or capital city. (again hexes)
remove home country units
change comtrol of the country (hexes)

pick a new home country
If a unit�s original home country is conquered and not yet liberated
Incompletely Conquered Major Power Reinforcement Restrictions
incompletely conquered Minor Country aircraft units into The Reserve Pool
Incompletely conquered Major Powers have only half their normal Activity Limits

Does this sum up incomplete conquest or not?

Far from this.
You forgot the main characteristic of Incomplete conquest.
The main characteristic of incomplete conquest, is that the conquered country still controls at least an Aligned Minor Country.
This is the only difference between an Incomplete and a Complete conquest, speaking of the definition, not the consequences. The consequences are far different.

quote:

Evidently you have not read where I have been reorganizing my copy of the rules and putting them in a html format.

No I didn't.
I always thought that any retranscription / rewritting of the RAW was dangerous, risking to loose / denature precious information. You seem to be the proof I was right by blatantly trying to make points using your rewrite while denying things plainly written in RAW7.
I tell you, I even prefer to read RAW in English rather than French, because one never know the traductions error that might have been overlooked, even if I'm French. English is not so hard to learn, read & understand, at least I though before reading this thread.

Maybe your reorganizing need rewritting, not the RAW, but for me it is useless as the only trustworthy reference to WiF FE rules is WiF FE RAW.

quote:

Its only a few hundred files that I have been working on in my spare time for the last several months.

Would you like a copy to view?

I was going to offer you a copy anyway even before I started this thread.

It's very kind of you.
But I'm sorry to say that I think you're wasting your time. You'd better use it for something more useful to the MWiF project.
Rewritting the RAW is useless because of the point I just made above, and also because RAW7 is subject to change over the time. When changes will be brought to RAW, you'll be obliged to track those changes in your rewrites, hence adding possibilities of errors, if you missed some changes for example.
If I'm not mislead, Vesa Saarinen once made an HTML version of RAW4 back in time, at http://www.helsinki.fi/~vsaarine/wif/, but he dropped this when he saw the problems there were with RAW changes.

I'm sorry, but people playing WiF FE using your rewrite may well be playing some sort of WWII grand strategic game, maybe Mziln in Flames, but it is not WiF FE, WiF FE is played by RAW7 august 04 as of today.

< Message edited by Froonp -- 9/17/2005 10:21:00 AM >

(in reply to Mziln)

Post #: 30