RE: optional rules (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames



Message


composer99 -> RE: optional rules (9/6/2006 3:25:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Last, but not least, the final optional rule writeup.

At several places in this thread forum members have mentioned than the player should have the ability to select some parts of an optional rule and not other parts. This possibility is most apparent for the Convoy in Flames optional rule below, which introduces many different unit types. How do you feel about this? Should there be a sub-selection process for some optional rules? I am opposed to adding sub-choices simply for the sake of adding sub-choices. Afterall, the 80 or so separate optional rules seems like a lot to me - "Jeez Louise, enough already!". However, fighting to keep an open mind on this, I ask for your opinion, and will cut them into separate pieces when a good reason for doing so is put forth. For example, I already have split the engineer optional rule into 2: combat and construction.


I rather like the notion explored in posts after this one of splitting CoiF into 2 subrules (one adding the tankers and minor-power nationality convoys/tankers and the other adding speciality subs and cruisers and the asw ships and aircraft designed to fight them).

Thinking of other optional rules, I really hope you also make (or have made) the rough seas rule a subrule (or separate rule) from the Light Cruisers rule.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: optional rules (9/6/2006 3:49:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
At several places in this thread forum members have mentioned than the player should have the ability to select some parts of an optional rule and not other parts. This possibility is most apparent for the Convoy in Flames optional rule below, which introduces many different unit types. How do you feel about this? Should there be a sub-selection process for some optional rules? I am opposed to adding sub-choices simply for the sake of adding sub-choices. Afterall, the 80 or so separate optional rules seems like a lot to me - "Jeez Louise, enough already!". However, fighting to keep an open mind on this, I ask for your opinion, and will cut them into separate pieces when a good reason for doing so is put forth. For example, I already have split the engineer optional rule into 2: combat and construction.

I rather like the notion explored in posts after this one of splitting CoiF into 2 subrules (one adding the tankers and minor-power nationality convoys/tankers and the other adding speciality subs and cruisers and the asw ships and aircraft designed to fight them).

Thinking of other optional rules, I really hope you also make (or have made) the rough seas rule a subrule (or separate rule) from the Light Cruisers rule.


That was my question (though perhaps buried in the other text).

One of the advantages of splitting the Convoys in Flames optional rules into 2 pieces, and making Rough Seas a optional sub-rule from Cruisers in Flames, is that CWIF did not contain either of those addons, so there is no existing code to modify. Just new code to write.

Are there other optional rules that should be split (or merged)?




Froonp -> RE: optional rules (9/6/2006 5:47:09 PM)

quote:

Are there other optional rules that should be split (or merged)?

Wow...
Each time I thought an optional rule should be splitted, I mentionned it in my comments. Now I do not remember all my comments, but they are all here inthis thread, somewhere.




composer99 -> RE: optional rules (9/11/2006 3:24:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Are there other optional rules that should be split (or merged)?



The only two I can think of for splitting are, to my knowledge, already split; namely (a) the Planes & Flames units and pilots being split, and (b) Ships in Flames units and carrier planes also being split.

The only thing I can think of for merging would be to merge all the division-size units, which represents three optional rules (divisions, artillery, and supply units) into a single rule. Seems to me that if one is to play with one of those, it makes sense to play with all of them. However, I would also say that it would not do much to subtract from the complexity of the game, so I don't really think it's necessary to merge the rules.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: optional rules (9/11/2006 4:21:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Are there other optional rules that should be split (or merged)?


The only two I can think of for splitting are, to my knowledge, already split; namely (a) the Planes & Flames units and pilots being split, and (b) Ships in Flames units and carrier planes also being split.

The only thing I can think of for merging would be to merge all the division-size units, which represents three optional rules (divisions, artillery, and supply units) into a single rule. Seems to me that if one is to play with one of those, it makes sense to play with all of them. However, I would also say that it would not do much to subtract from the complexity of the game, so I don't really think it's necessary to merge the rules.


Yes. I posed the question just in case someone could see something that I was missing. For optional rules that are already split (e.g., all the different air combat changes due to aircraft type), leaving them as is seems ok. It's no big deal to click on 3 or 4 optional rules rather than just one button, and there might be some player out there who really detests one optional rule in a group, but likes the others.

So for now I have the following changes:

1 - Split Rough Seas out from Cruisers in Flames, with the former a subrule of the latter. That is, the latter is a prerequisite for the former.

2 - Split Oil tankers out from Convoys in Flames. There would be no interdependency between these two rules. Choose either, neither, or both.

3 - Split Construction Engineers out from Combat Engineers. No interdependency.

4 - Intergrate Carrier Planes CV Only into Carrier Planes. The former is simply part of the latter.

Unresolved issues:

5 - Determining the maximum limit on partisans.

6 - Mechanics of selecting Corps/Armies units from the BrokenDown Pool for transfer to the Force Pool when 2 or more divisions have been lost.

7 - Offensive Chit effects when played during a Naval Action.

I'll review what has already been posted on #5 and #7 and try to reach a decision today or tomorrow on them. For #6, I'll handle that when I write the code for it. [It has to be rigorous and cover all possible situations that might arise.]




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: optional rules (9/12/2006 10:36:36 PM)

Here are the two optional rules I have split out from Cruisers in Flames and Convoys in Flames respectively.

I also decided that MWIF Product 1 would contain both versions of the Effects of Offensive Chits during Naval Actions. The players can choose whichever they like for a game (but not both simultaneously).

[I am still looking nito the maximum # of partisan units per country.]
=============================================================
[54][Rough Seas][Cruisers in Flames, RAW 75 s. 22.4.6]
Within Cruisers and Flames there is an optional rule for Rough Seas which makes it more difficult for the lighter ships to move during bad weather. That rule is included here separate from the Cruisers in Flames optional rule so the players can choose whether to add it or not. Note that Rough Seas is only available if and only if you have already selected Cruisers in Flames.

Rough weather slows down smaller ships. This is implemented during the naval movement step only, and each light cruiser, destroyer flotilla, naval transport, and convoy that moves into 1 or more sea areas in blizzard or storm has its movement allowance and range reduced by 1 for that step (note that this may prevent the unit from entering its final sea area).
=============================================================
[73][Oil Tankers][Convoys in Flames - RAW 76 s. 11.11.2, 19.4, and 22.4.19]
Convoys in Flames contains an optional rule that separates convoys into two types: oil tanker convoys and regular convoys. That rule is included here as a separate optional rule so players can decide whether to use it or not, regardless of whether they want to play with the Convoys in Flames optional rule.

Minor Convoys
When using this optional rule, the number of convoys with which minor countries start is different from the number they normally receive. Some of the convoys are oil tankers.

Oil Tankers
Oil-carrying tankers are a special kind of convoy. They are treated as convoy points for all purposes unless otherwise indicated below. Only tankers can transport oil resources overseas and only convoys may transport non-oil resources or build points overseas.

Each tanker costs 1 build point and takes 5 turns to build.

At the start of any friendly impulse, a player may freely convert any of their organized convoy points in port into tanker points, or vice versa. When doing so, it takes 2 convoy points to convert into 1 tanker point, or 2 tanker points to convert into 1 convoy point.

For example, desperate for more tankers, Kasigi converts 4 convoys in Tokyo into 2 tanker points at the beginning of his impulse, and then sails them immediately.

If you are not playing with this option, tanker units are considered just more convoy points.
=============================================================
[80][Naval Offensive Chit][RAW 61 s. 16]
This optional rule replaces the effects of using an Offensive Chit during a Naval Action as described in the optional rule Offensive Chits. The purpose of this replacement rule is to bring the MWIF optional rule set into agreement with RAW, August 2004. However, the author strongly prefers the older definition of the effects of playing an Offensive Chit (OC) during a Naval Action, so both rules are provided. If you select this optional rule, then you are playing according to the August 2004 version of RAW.

A second reason for providing both versions (the old and the new) is that when playing by email (PBEM) the newer version of the effects of an OC during a Naval Action could require additional emails. Therefore, only the older version is available for PBEM. Specifically, this optional rule can not be used for PBEM games.

If you play an offensive chit at the start of a naval action, specify one of your face up HQs that is in a port hex. Any naval or aircraft units stacked in that hex that initiates a naval combat may demand a re-roll of the search dice by both sides, in any round of combat this impulse.
Re-rolling of naval search dice may be demanded any number of times this impulse provided that the total number demanded does not exceed the HQ's reorganization value.

For example, Nimitz is in Pearl Harbor stacked with 3 SCS and a P-38G fighter. The USA player plays a naval offensive chit on Nimitz at the start of his naval action. The Lighting flies into the 4 box of the Hawaiian Islands and the 3 SCSs into the 4 box of the Marshalls sea area, both of which contain Japanese and US units. During the naval combat step the US picks the Marshall Sea area and they both roll search die. The Japanese roll a 2 to a US roll of 10.
The US demands a re-roll. This time he rolls a 5 while the Japanese player rolls a 3. This commits the entire Japanese navy but only the US carrier fleet in the 4 box is included. The US player could take a risk and use up Nimitz's third and last re-roll on another roll, but decides to save this for later rounds (or even to help the Lightning in the Hawaiian Islands) on the (wise) assumption that the search re-roll might end up worse rather than better.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: optional rules (9/12/2006 11:20:02 PM)

Here is what I have come up with for calculating the maximum # of partisans in a country.

Partisans are drawn randomly from the partisan force pool. There is a maximum # of partisan units per country (described in the next paragraph), and since they are corps sized units, the maximum number of partisan units in a hex is 2. The composition of the partisan force pool changes year to year which changes the probability of drawing weak, weaker, or very weak partisan units. The strength of the units you have drawn previously has no effect on the probability of what you will draw next. In particular, there is a limitless pool of partisans to draw from - subject to the partisan maximum per country. [This section of the partisan rule is quite different from WIF FE because there is no longer any restriction due to the counter mix.]

The maximum number of partisans permitted in a country is a function of the country’s partisan number and the probability of the country checking for partisans. The second factor is the number of times the country appears on the partisan table (13.1).

The maximum = (Partisan #) * (table occurrences) / 5, with a minimum of 2 if the partisan # is 4 or more.

Some examples are:
France: 15 * 4 / 5 = 12
USSR: 25 * 4 /5 = 20
Siberia: 5 * 2 / 5 = 2
United Kingdom: 15 * 2 /5 = 6
Ireland: 5 * 1 /5 = 2 (Partisan # > 3)
Norway: 4 * 4 /5 = 3
China: 10 * 3 /5 = 6
Yugoslavia: 9 * 5 /5 = 9
Greece: 6 * 3 /5 = 4




Froonp -> RE: optional rules (9/12/2006 11:25:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here are the two optional rules I have split out from Cruisers in Flames and Convoys in Flames respectively.

I also decided that MWIF Product 1 would contain both versions of the Effects of Offensive Chits during Naval Actions. The players can choose whichever they like for a game (but not both simultaneously).

This IS a GREAT thing I think, really.

quote:

[I am still looking nito the maximum # of partisan units per country.]
=============================================================
[54][Rough Seas][Cruisers in Flames, RAW 75 s. 22.4.6]
Within Cruisers and Flames there is an optional rule for Rough Seas which makes it more difficult for the lighter ships to move during bad weather. That rule is included here separate from the Cruisers in Flames optional rule so the players can choose whether to add it or not. Note that Rough Seas is only available if and only if you have already selected Cruisers in Flames.

Rough weather slows down smaller ships. This is implemented during the naval movement step only, and each light cruiser, destroyer flotilla, naval transport, and convoy that moves into 1 or more sea areas in blizzard or storm has its movement allowance and range reduced by 1 for that step (note that this may prevent the unit from entering its final sea area).
=============================================================

Don't forget AMPH, who are treated as TRS, except for their special invading feature and INF only feature.

quote:

[73][Oil Tankers][Convoys in Flames - RAW 76 s. 11.11.2, 19.4, and 22.4.19]
Convoys in Flames contains an optional rule that separates convoys into two types: oil tanker convoys and regular convoys. That rule is included here as a separate optional rule so players can decide whether to use it or not, regardless of whether they want to play with the Convoys in Flames optional rule.

(...)
=============================================================

Good thing. Having played 2 campaigns with Tankers (I was very excited with this at start), I was disapointed, and found out that they added little to the game, for a too big overhead. Personal opinion.




composer99 -> RE: optional rules (9/12/2006 11:47:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

[...]

The maximum number of partisans permitted in a country is a function of the country’s partisan number and the probability of the country checking for partisans. The second factor is the number of times the country appears on the partisan table (13.1).

The maximum = (Partisan #) * (table occurrences) / 5, with a minimum of 2 if the partisan # is 4 or more.

[...]



I rather like this solution - it is simple and elegant. I might add that you will need to double the limit for China that you originally listed, because their partisan number is 20.




Froonp -> RE: optional rules (9/12/2006 11:56:14 PM)

quote:

The maximum = (Partisan #) * (table occurrences) / 5, with a minimum of 2 if the partisan # is 4 or more.

You can feel the mathematician here, who tried to convert into equations what he felt would be right for the max number of partisans [:D].

quote:

Some examples are:
France: 15 * 4 / 5 = 12
USSR: 25 * 4 /5 = 20
Siberia: 5 * 2 / 5 = 2
United Kingdom: 15 * 2 /5 = 6
Ireland: 5 * 1 /5 = 2 (Partisan # > 3)
Norway: 4 * 4 /5 = 3
China: 10 * 3 /5 = 6
Yugoslavia: 9 * 5 /5 = 9
Greece: 6 * 3 /5 = 4

From these examples, I think it is the good path, if the number of partisans should be maximized (which I am against, just wanted to express it again).
There are errors in the Partisan numbers you used. Those are the one from the 1996 maps. The latest maps have other Partisans numbers.
I'll send you an Excel file listing those, or you can look at the 2004 maps you have.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: optional rules (9/12/2006 11:56:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

[...]

The maximum number of partisans permitted in a country is a function of the country’s partisan number and the probability of the country checking for partisans. The second factor is the number of times the country appears on the partisan table (13.1).

The maximum = (Partisan #) * (table occurrences) / 5, with a minimum of 2 if the partisan # is 4 or more.

[...]



I rather like this solution - it is simple and elegant. I might add that you will need to double the limit for China that you originally listed, because their partisan number is 20.


Thanks.

Oops, I was looking at an old map for China's partisan #. I'll check what the program is using.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: optional rules (9/13/2006 12:06:47 AM)

The program has both the partisan number and probability as data in the CSV file. They appear to be correct as far as I checked.

There is a weirdness for South and Central America though with the probabiliites for individual countries in those areas at 4% instead of the 20% that the table uses.




Froonp -> RE: optional rules (9/13/2006 12:25:01 AM)

South America should be 30%, Central American should be 20%.
I do not remember why those numbers were reduced. Maybe you should ask Chris.
Also, I have a couple of document from the CWiF time about partisans, written by people who worked on the subject for Chris. I can send them to you if you're interested.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: optional rules (9/13/2006 12:45:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

South America should be 30%, Central American should be 20%.
I do not remember why those numbers were reduced. Maybe you should ask Chris.
Also, I have a couple of document from the CWiF time about partisans, written by people who worked on the subject for Chris. I can send them to you if you're interested.

Yes.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: optional rules (10/1/2006 11:37:37 PM)

These screen shots fall somewhere between optional rules, player interface, and help screens. I placed them here, more or less arbitrarily.

What is new is the formatted contextual help for the optional rules. I have created a little formatting language for displaying long text messages. As you can tell, I am inserting a blank line before each new paragraph and indenting 4 spaces. I also have a header format, which is used for the Stacking and Repairs headers.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/069F1804E1F1464B96A8E3D9CC298A11.jpg[/image]




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: optional rules (10/1/2006 11:40:46 PM)

Here is another screen shot for the Partisans optional rule. These show the bullet format. I am getting a spurious blank line at times, which I may or may not bother to track down and correct.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/0663AF56D9E242E1A3162C9D979AC53F.jpg[/image]




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: optional rules (10/1/2006 11:43:46 PM)

This shows the use of numbered lists. Actually the formatting knows nothing about the numbers, it is just indenting. I have automated the removal of extraneous blanks from the original text and placement of 2 blanks after each period. That is probably causing the problem with the extra blank lines.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/57D68A78A9C34C4DB2268372C3115EA3.jpg[/image]




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: optional rules (10/1/2006 11:45:57 PM)

Here are the headers and bullets used in combination. The insertion of the format controls/symbols is very easy. I formatted all 81 optional rules is about a half hour.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/E989EC30F25646CBA07A1BECF893FEF2.jpg[/image]




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: optional rules (10/1/2006 11:49:02 PM)

Though I have been showing long-winded text descriptions, most of the optional rules have short descriptions, like this one. I messed around with trying to figure out whether a scroll bar was needed or not but it become too complex and not worth the effort. So, every text message has a vertical scroll bar whether it needs it or not.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/60A9A8AB0CE447299A893F7986E9A45C.jpg[/image]




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: optional rules (10/1/2006 11:53:03 PM)

Last in the series. This is one of the more complex optional rules in WIF, and only part of the text description is shown here. there's one extra blank line, but otherwise I am pretty happy with it.

I'll take a crack at formatting some of the units description next (air, naval, and HQ), then on to formatting some of the tutorial text.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/4F05B194D86344E0BD1BAF0E676EB40D.jpg[/image]




Froonp -> RE: optional rules (10/2/2006 12:03:06 AM)

These screens are good to me.
An improvement could be to have the white place where the text is appearing be written as if on a WWII paper.
Maybe some kind of paper with blue 5 mm square grid (as if from a notepad), with 2 rounds holes on the side as if extracted from a binder.
Could have a stamp somewhere from a WWII military organisation related to command (because it explains how some "military" things are working.
This is only a suggestion out of the blue.

For the scroll bars, you are right not to bother with making them present or not.

I suppose / hope however that the size of the scrolling rectangle (inside the bar) has a size proportionnal to the displayed text reported to the whole text, as in modern programs.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: optional rules (10/2/2006 12:34:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
These screens are good to me.
An improvement could be to have the white place where the text is appearing be written as if on a WWII paper.
Maybe some kind of paper with blue 5 mm square grid (as if from a notepad), with 2 rounds holes on the side as if extracted from a binder.
Could have a stamp somewhere from a WWII military organisation related to command (because it explains how some "military" things are working.
This is only a suggestion out of the blue.

For the scroll bars, you are right not to bother with making them present or not.

I suppose / hope however that the size of the scrolling rectangle (inside the bar) has a size proportionnal to the displayed text reported to the whole text, as in modern programs.


Standard scrolling stuff - I avoid reinventing wheels whenever possible.

I have literally billions of colors to choose from but have decided to go with black text on a white background. These text message are purely informative and I prefer having as high a contrast between the background color and the text color for best legibility.

Using different colors or a patterned background is easy to do (a few minutes) , so it is merely a question of the trade-off between functionality and prettiness.




Neilster -> RE: optional rules (10/2/2006 5:28:56 AM)

These are very legible.

Perhaps it would look better for the bullets to be next to text they refer to.

Cheers, Neilster




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: optional rules (10/2/2006 5:53:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

These are very legible.

Perhaps it would look better for the bullets to be next to text they refer to.

Cheers, Neilster


Ok.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: optional rules (10/2/2006 6:05:48 AM)

Like this.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/9E8CF11F57854FB88F4C82963CCF26DA.jpg[/image]




amwild -> RE: optional rules (10/2/2006 8:06:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

These screens are good to me.
An improvement could be to have the white place where the text is appearing be written as if on a WWII paper.
Maybe some kind of paper with blue 5 mm square grid (as if from a notepad), with 2 rounds holes on the side as if extracted from a binder.
Could have a stamp somewhere from a WWII military organisation related to command (because it explains how some "military" things are working.
This is only a suggestion out of the blue.

For the scroll bars, you are right not to bother with making them present or not.

I suppose / hope however that the size of the scrolling rectangle (inside the bar) has a size proportionnal to the displayed text reported to the whole text, as in modern programs.



If nothing else, the font used here could be replaced with a font like "Secret Service Typewriter" or some other typewriter-like font, since WWII documents would have been produced in fonts like these that lacked the sharp-edged quality of modern digital fonts. Since this font is licensed, perhaps a freeware font could be substituted. Here is a link to some that I found: http://simplythebest.net/fonts/typewriter_fonts.html Some wouldn't be suitable, but (on the page I have included the link for) Mom's Typewriter, Teletype, The Quest, or (on the next page) Typical Writer may work. There are a lot of other free typewriter-like fonts floating around the net too.

Players could also be given a choice of Arial/Tahoma or a typewriter font.




Neilster -> RE: optional rules (10/2/2006 10:37:33 AM)

Re bullets. Yes, IMHO it looks better.

Cheers, Neilster




hakon -> RE: optional rules (10/2/2006 7:21:57 PM)

Just a couple comments:

CVP cost: When playing with pilots, some late war planes cost 2bp. When playing without pilots, i believed the cost was printed cost minus 2, but i may be wrong here.

Partisans: Instead of listing paradrop as a posiblity into a partisan held hex, it should be listed as a possibility to do air rebase into the hex. Air rebase has the following advantages:
- Mountain corps and inf divs can be air rebased (but not paradropped)
- When rebased into a hex, a para/mtn corps wil excert ZOC into nearby hexes, making it much easier to put enemy corps out of supply
- An air rebased unit can participate in a land attack just after landing, if they are in supply

Such use of partisan/air rebase can potentially create huge out of supply pockets of axis units during a 1943/1944 russian reconquest of her motherland.

Partisans: The disadvantages section should be renamed into restrictions section. Having partisans has no real disadvantages, unless you should face something really odd, like stacking problems, or making easy training targets for building soviet GBA's

Air offensives: I think that the ability that the HQ's will have to MOVE when playing an air offensive is rather restricted. Even air rebase, requires a land move, IIRC.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: optional rules (10/2/2006 11:29:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hakon
Just a couple comments:

CVP cost: When playing with pilots, some late war planes cost 2bp. When playing without pilots, i believed the cost was printed cost minus 2, but i may be wrong here.

Partisans: Instead of listing paradrop as a posiblity into a partisan held hex, it should be listed as a possibility to do air rebase into the hex. Air rebase has the following advantages:
- Mountain corps and inf divs can be air rebased (but not paradropped)
- When rebased into a hex, a para/mtn corps wil excert ZOC into nearby hexes, making it much easier to put enemy corps out of supply
- An air rebased unit can participate in a land attack just after landing, if they are in supply

Such use of partisan/air rebase can potentially create huge out of supply pockets of axis units during a 1943/1944 russian reconquest of her motherland.

Partisans: The disadvantages section should be renamed into restrictions section. Having partisans has no real disadvantages, unless you should face something really odd, like stacking problems, or making easy training targets for building soviet GBA's

Air offensives: I think that the ability that the HQ's will have to MOVE when playing an air offensive is rather restricted. Even air rebase, requires a land move, IIRC.


CVP costs when playing with pilots are either 0 or 1.

I believe you mean air transported, not air rebased. Your point is a good one, nonetheless. I'll add something about this 'trick' so newbies aren't completely surprised when they first encounter it.

I meant the disadvantages of depending on partisans to accomplish tasks. I'll look at that wording again (but 'restrictions' doesn't seem right to me either).

Patrice had some comments about an HQ being designated for an Offensive Chit, but the chit not actually being applied until after the impulse is underway. Personally, I am a little fuzzy on all that.




Froonp -> RE: optional rules (10/2/2006 11:37:09 PM)

quote:

Air offensives: I think that the ability that the HQ's will have to MOVE when playing an air offensive is rather restricted. Even air rebase, requires a land move, IIRC.

If you are in an Air Offensive, basicaly you're in an Air Action, and no HQ can move during Air Actions.
Air Rebases require an Air Mission, no Land Move.




Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.78125