RE: Rules Clarification List (Full Version)

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



Message

Ullern -> RE: Rules Clarification List (1/11/2008 12:29:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

While I was digging my hard drive with something about US Entry Chits, I found this VERY interesting piece of statistic about the A2A table.

IMO it shows something highly interesting.
I'll try to show it using an example :

The German sends an air mission against the British, escorted by 1 FTR who has an air to air combat factor of 6.
The British can only intercept with 2 FTR with air to air combat factor of 5.

Well, the thing is, from the statistics below, that the British would be better advised to only send 1 FTR, fighting at +1/-1 (+1 for Germans) rather than send all their FTRs to fight at 0/0.

I explain :
Fighting at 0, or -1, the Brits have the same chance of letting the enemy bomber clear through : 36%. Clear through being the worst the Brits want to happen.
Fighting at 0, or +1, the Germans have the same chance of hurting the British fighters : 56%.

So, same chances of suffering losses, same chances of letting the enemy clear through, why send 2 planes.
By sparing 1 FTR, the British may well be able latter to intercept an enemy mission that he would not been able to intercept if he had sent both his FTRs in the first raid.

Indeed, fighting at -1 instead of 0 will have the Brits score more - (no effect), twice indeed. Scoring no effects is bad, as this let the chance to the enemy to live to fight for a further round.

So it may have bad effects, to be at -1 instead of 0, but if you're stranded and short of FTRs, and want to spare some to achieve air superiority somewhere in the future, you can try this.



If the German air mission is a ground strike against an out of supply Gort and black print MECH then Patrices argument is bullshit of course. [:o] In other cases it would be good. [:)]It all depends on the situation.

I will now add the following information:
A) I assume the phasing player (the German) will abort or kill his own FTR if he gets the choice (DA or DX results).
B) If the CW FTR isn't removed but the German FTR is removed the German player will abort the combat.

With those two asumptions the standings after one round of combat is:
LND cleared directly: 36%
LND cleared because it survived but CW FTR is aborted or destroyed: 27%

LND aborted or destroyed directly: 16%
LND aborted because CW FTR survives but the German FTR does not: 8%

Bounce combat on German LND: 9%
No result: 4%

To simplify I will assume that the bounce combat will abort or destroy the LND 70% of the time and clear him 20% of the time (roughly +4/-4 odds).
Then I can write the results after first combat round even simpler:

1 FTR against 1 FTR + 1 LND with the A2A beeing -1 and +1 respectively gives the following results after one round of combat:
LND cleared: 65%
No result: 4%
LND aborted or destroyed: 31%

On the other hand if the CW had two FTR fighting at zero A2A. Then the similar odds after one round of combat would be (roughly estimated):
LND cleared: 45%
No result: 1%
LND aborted or destroyed: 54%

Would you rather have a 31% abort chance in two different combats (which gives you a 53% chance of aborting at least one of them, but a small chance for aborting both) or do you want 54% abort chance in a single combat only? It all depends doesn’t it?



Ullern -> RE: Rules Clarification List (1/11/2008 12:53:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Look, I made this, that compares the Air to Air table with normal FTRs (top) and the one used by Orange circled & non night fighters fighting at night (bottom).

Edit (advised by Mziln) :
The top chart is used by all Non-orange circled fighters on day missions and all Night fighters on night missions.
The bottom chart is used by all Orange circled fighters fighting Non-orange circled fighters and all Non-night fighters on night missions.


The very strange thing about orange A2A FTRs is that if you fly them as bombers they get -1 to A2A rating (all FTR flying as bombers get that) but looses orange status.

Now assume you are attacked and have the choice of whether to counter the other player’s ground support as a FTR or to bomb defensively. If you fly as FTR you will use the left hand column below (0 table A2A but orange rating), if you fly as bomber you will use the right hand table (-1 A2A, but not orange rating). What would you prefer?

[image]local://upfiles/20823/BC94AFCA64394F71AF92E196007F4A38.jpg[/image]



Mziln -> RE: Rules Clarification List (1/11/2008 3:03:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ullern

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Look, I made this, that compares the Air to Air table with normal FTRs (top) and the one used by Orange circled & non night fighters fighting at night (bottom).

Edit (advised by Mziln) :
The top chart is used by all Non-orange circled fighters on day missions and all Night fighters on night missions.
The bottom chart is used by all Orange circled fighters fighting Non-orange circled fighters and all Non-night fighters on night missions.


The very strange thing about orange A2A FTRs is that if you fly them as bombers they get -1 to A2A rating (all FTR flying as bombers get that) but looses orange status.

Now assume you are attacked and have the choice of whether to counter the other player’s ground support as a FTR or to bomb defensively. If you fly as FTR you will use the left hand column below (0 table A2A but orange rating), if you fly as bomber you will use the right hand table (-1 A2A, but not orange rating). What would you prefer?



quote:

ORIGINAL: WiFFe-RAW-7.0.pdf

14.3 Air-to-air combat ~ 14.3.2 Combat ~ Combat values
If you have no fighter group, your air-to-air strength equals the air-to-air rating of your front bomber only.

Option 53: (Twin-engined fighters) In air-to-air combat during the day, all front fighters with an orange air-to-air rating achieve one result less than normal when the front enemy fighter in the combat does not have an orange air-to-air rating. In these cases an AX result becomes a DX, a DX becomes an AA, an AA becomes a DA and so on. A DC result is unaffected.

Option 54: (Fighter bombers) Reduce the air-to-air rating of the front bomber by 1 if it is a FTR.


Option 53 says nothing about mission types.

The top chart is used by all:
Non-orange air-to-air rating fighters on day missions
Orange air-to-air rating fighters fighting enemy front fighters with an Orange air-to-air rating. <== NEW
Night fighters on night missions.

The bottom chart is used by all:
Orange air-to-air rating fighters fighting Non-orange air-to-air rating fighters <== Edited
Non-night fighters on night missions.

Note: "circle" replaced by "air-to-air rating" per the RAW.



If you have no fighter group, your air-to-air strength equals the air-to-air rating of your front bomber only.

When the rolling players front aircraft has a Orange air-to-air rating and the Non-rolling players front aircraft has a Non-orange air-to-air rating you achieve one result less than normal.

If the fighter flies as a bomber you get -1 to its air-to-air rating.




Flying as a bomber doesn't make the fighter better. You receive the result shift AND the -1 to the air-to-air rating.


Which means a Bf110c really would provide the maximum vacuum (suck) if jumped while being a bomber.



Froonp -> RE: Rules Clarification List (1/11/2008 8:48:13 AM)

quote:

If you have no fighter group, your air-to-air strength equals the air-to-air rating of your front bomber only.

When the rolling players front aircraft has a Orange air-to-air rating and the Non-rolling players front aircraft has a Non-orange air-to-air rating you achieve one result less than normal.

If the fighter flies as a bomber you get -1 to its air-to-air rating.

Flying as a bomber doesn't make the fighter better. You receive the result shift AND the -1 to the air-to-air rating.

I'm gonna correct that.

This is from the questions we submitted to Harry :
***********************************
Q294> Are Twin-Engined FTR acting as a bomber one result less than normal in an Air to Air combat in which enemy fighters are involved?

Answer> No. You are not one result less than normal as you are not a fighter when you are a bomber. However if also playing Option 54 then your air to air rating is reduced by 1. Date 29/12/2007

Relevant Rule Quote>
14.3.2 Option 53: (Twin-engined fighters) In air-to-air combat during the day, all front fighters with an orange air-to-air rating achieve one result less than normal when the front enemy fighter in the combat does not have an orange air-to-air rating. In these cases an AX result becomes a DX, a DX becomes an AA, an AA becomes a DA and so on. A DC result is unaffected.
14.3.2 Option 54: (Fighter bombers) Reduce the air-to-air rating of the front bomber by 1 if it is a FTR.
***********************************



Froonp -> RE: Rules Clarification List (1/11/2008 8:50:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ullern
The very strange thing about orange A2A FTRs is that if you fly them as bombers they get -1 to A2A rating (all FTR flying as bombers get that) but looses orange status.

Interesting indeed.
Being lessened result seems worse than being -1.



Mziln -> RE: Rules Clarification List (1/11/2008 2:54:47 PM)

This would also mean that if you don't use Option 54.

There would be no penalties for a orange air-to-air rating fighter flying as a bomber.



Don't drop those bombs Fritz they stablize the aircraft! [X(]



composer99 -> RE: Rules Clarification List (1/11/2008 5:41:08 PM)

Most orange a2a fighters are on average 1-2 factors worse than their regular counterparts at any rate, so even without the lesser rating they are in trouble enough flying as bombers going up against fighters.

But, yes, it is kind of unusual that when their maneouverability is circumscribed by a heavier bomb load they are in some way better than when it's not.



NeBert -> RE: Rules Clarification List (1/11/2008 10:24:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I think it happened at least over Britain in late 40 early 41 during the Blitz, where Germans sent Night Fighter raiders to disrupt the British Night Fighters job. I believe it also happened (but I am less sure) in the reverse way with Mosquito II night fighters patroling the European skies looking for German Night Fighters.

In WiF FE, it is ultimately rare too. I do not recall indeed such a fight.

About Night Fighting in WiF FE, there is something that we overlooked a long time in our games, and I'd like to share it with the people here, this is that non night fighters fighting at night suffer the lessened effect even against bombers, and also that bombers also suffer from that when returning fire at night.

In 1941 german night fighters were sent out to attack british bombers when they were returning from their mission. It was called "ferne Nachtjagd / remote nightfight" and was overall extremely successful. Those night fighters were mostly not equiped with RADAR (Ju88, Do217, sometimes Do17), they just followed the bombers on their way back and attacked them when they were flying holding patterns or during landing.
At that time the bombers were very vulnerable (low speed, landing lights on, crew´s attention fully covered with landing procedure). But the greates impact was not the aircraft that were shot down, moreover the following confusion at the airport (lights off, all the other bombers want to land a quick as possible -> lots of crash landings) was much more effective.

In contrast to those actions (which were stopped after a short period because of a direct order from Hitler) the British and US began the chase of german night fighters in 1944/45 (mostly Mosquito, some P-61) around their bases - also with quite good success.

Back to the rules-issue: those actions in 1944/45 would fit to the FTR against FTR issue of the rules.
Maybe a rule that prevents FTR-escort for night bombing would be the closest approach to reality?



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Rules Clarification List (1/11/2008 11:45:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeBert


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I think it happened at least over Britain in late 40 early 41 during the Blitz, where Germans sent Night Fighter raiders to disrupt the British Night Fighters job. I believe it also happened (but I am less sure) in the reverse way with Mosquito II night fighters patroling the European skies looking for German Night Fighters.

In WiF FE, it is ultimately rare too. I do not recall indeed such a fight.

About Night Fighting in WiF FE, there is something that we overlooked a long time in our games, and I'd like to share it with the people here, this is that non night fighters fighting at night suffer the lessened effect even against bombers, and also that bombers also suffer from that when returning fire at night.

In 1941 german night fighters were sent out to attack british bombers when they were returning from their mission. It was called "ferne Nachtjagd / remote nightfight" and was overall extremely successful. Those night fighters were mostly not equiped with RADAR (Ju88, Do217, sometimes Do17), they just followed the bombers on their way back and attacked them when they were flying holding patterns or during landing.
At that time the bombers were very vulnerable (low speed, landing lights on, crew´s attention fully covered with landing procedure). But the greates impact was not the aircraft that were shot down, moreover the following confusion at the airport (lights off, all the other bombers want to land a quick as possible -> lots of crash landings) was much more effective.

In contrast to those actions (which were stopped after a short period because of a direct order from Hitler) the British and US began the chase of german night fighters in 1944/45 (mostly Mosquito, some P-61) around their bases - also with quite good success.

Back to the rules-issue: those actions in 1944/45 would fit to the FTR against FTR issue of the rules.
Maybe a rule that prevents FTR-escort for night bombing would be the closest approach to reality?

WIF doesn't try to duplicate history but instead provide the restraints/elements that the decision makers had and let the players do what they will. So if the ability to fly escorted night missions existed at the time, then WIF should provide that capability, whether it was used historically or not. The game is chock-a-block full of things like this, where it did not happen historically, but it could have, and the players are given the chance to see what happens if different decisions are made.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Rules Clarification List (3/16/2008 6:16:10 AM)

I am checking the code for strategic bombing and noticed something for carrier air units (a.k.a. carrier planes).

For port attacks, carrier air units can attack ports that are within range, or adjacent to the sea area they are in, even if the port is out of range.

1 - That seems a little weird to me. I can only assume it refers to carrier air units with a range less than 1 (perhaps due to weather?), since the distance from a carrier air unit at sea to any port adjacent to the sea area is 1.

2 - The code from CWIF appears to only permit port attacks by carrier air units on ports adjacent to the sea area occupied by the carrier. After reading through the rules, I believe that is wrong. They should be able to port attack any port within range. This also applies to other air missions, such as strategic bombing.

Am I interpretting these rules correctly?



Froonp -> RE: Rules Clarification List (3/16/2008 7:28:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I am checking the code for strategic bombing and noticed something for carrier air units (a.k.a. carrier planes).

For port attacks, carrier air units can attack ports that are within range, or adjacent to the sea area they are in, even if the port is out of range.

1 - That seems a little weird to me. I can only assume it refers to carrier air units with a range less than 1 (perhaps due to weather?), since the distance from a carrier air unit at sea to any port adjacent to the sea area is 1.

2 - The code from CWIF appears to only permit port attacks by carrier air units on ports adjacent to the sea area occupied by the carrier. After reading through the rules, I believe that is wrong. They should be able to port attack any port within range. This also applies to other air missions, such as strategic bombing.

Am I interpretting these rules correctly?

Rule quote :
*************************************
14.4 CV units
(...)
A carrier plane can only fly air missions from a sea-box and only if its CV is undamaged and face-up. It can never fly missions from a port (not even to intercept enemy aircraft attacking its CV). A carrier plane does not fly naval air missions but it can take part in naval air combats in its sea area, even if its CV is face-down.
A carrier plane can fly a mission to any hex in range. Measure the range from any hex-dot in the CV’s sea area (it’s usually best to pick the hex-dot closest to your target). A carrier plane can fly, and return from, a port attack mission that is out of range, if the port is adjacent to any hexdot in the sea area.
After a carrier plane has completed its mission, it is assumed to have returned to its CV. Turn the CV face-down.
*************************************



Froonp -> RE: Rules Clarification List (3/16/2008 7:31:37 AM)

The part about the Port and the Ports Attack is here for example for planes port attacking Truk from the Bismarck Sea. On the WIF FE map, you ought to have CVP with 4 in range to reach Truk. This rule allows all CVP to be able to Port Attack Truk, even if they do not have the range.

The rationale is that if the ships can reach a port to enter it and leave it, then they can close enough to it to launch planes for port attack.

What is weird is that CVP still need 4 in range to Ground Strike Truk.

All this is in WiF FE, as in MWiF the range needed are different because of map changes.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Rules Clarification List (3/16/2008 7:33:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I am checking the code for strategic bombing and noticed something for carrier air units (a.k.a. carrier planes).

For port attacks, carrier air units can attack ports that are within range, or adjacent to the sea area they are in, even if the port is out of range.

1 - That seems a little weird to me. I can only assume it refers to carrier air units with a range less than 1 (perhaps due to weather?), since the distance from a carrier air unit at sea to any port adjacent to the sea area is 1.

2 - The code from CWIF appears to only permit port attacks by carrier air units on ports adjacent to the sea area occupied by the carrier. After reading through the rules, I believe that is wrong. They should be able to port attack any port within range. This also applies to other air missions, such as strategic bombing.

Am I interpretting these rules correctly?

Rule quote :
*************************************
14.4 CV units
(...)
A carrier plane can only fly air missions from a sea-box and only if its CV is undamaged and face-up. It can never fly missions from a port (not even to intercept enemy aircraft attacking its CV). A carrier plane does not fly naval air missions but it can take part in naval air combats in its sea area, even if its CV is face-down.
A carrier plane can fly a mission to any hex in range. Measure the range from any hex-dot in the CV’s sea area (it’s usually best to pick the hex-dot closest to your target). A carrier plane can fly, and return from, a port attack mission that is out of range, if the port is adjacent to any hexdot in the sea area.
After a carrier plane has completed its mission, it is assumed to have returned to its CV. Turn the CV face-down.
*************************************


Yeah, that is what I saw.

Given the absence of specific restrictions, it seems a carrier in the North Sea could port attack Copenhagen, if it had the range.



Froonp -> RE: Rules Clarification List (3/16/2008 9:29:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Given the absence of specific restrictions, it seems a carrier in the North Sea could port attack Copenhagen, if it had the range.

I think that port attacking Copenhagenis from the North Sea is legal.

The part about Port Attacks "A carrier plane can fly, and return from, a port attack mission that is out of range, if the port is adjacent to any hexdot in the sea area." is in addition to the previous part about how range is calculated for CVP "A carrier plane can fly a mission to any hex in range. Measure the range from any hex-dot in the CV’s sea area (it’s usually best to pick the hex-dot closest to your target)."



Norman42 -> RE: Rules Clarification List (3/16/2008 7:55:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
The part about the Port and the Ports Attack is here for example for planes port attacking Truk from the Bismarck Sea.


Rule:
quote:


A carrier plane can fly, and return from, a port attack mission that is out of range, if the port is adjacent to any hexdot in the sea area.


Truk is not adjacent to any hexdot on the Bismarck sea area(on WiFFE map), so it seems to me that you cannot Port Attack it from the B. Sea at all unless you have 4(or 3 rounding up) range on the CVP. Likewise with the Solomons.

My understanding of this rule was to allow a carrier at sea on the old Americas map to port strike say New York (which costs 6 movement points America Map movement, but is adjacent to a hexdot) even if your CVP had under 6 range, ie most of them.

This rule would help justify some of the differences in map scale in WiFFE with regards to port attacks.

With the unified map scale in MWiF I think this special rule's purpose no longer exists, since CVP won't need 'help' to reach ports on some maps, and it can simply be left as "A carrier plane can fly a mission to any hex in range. Measure the range from any hex-dot in the CV’s sea area".

Yes, this would leave Truk un-port-strikable from Bismarck Sea(in WiFFE) unless you had the proper range, which seems to be the rule as written.

quote:

I think that port attacking Copenhagenis from the North Sea is legal.


Agreed, as long as your CVP has the range it seems perfectly legal according to the above rules.


Rule:
quote:

A carrier plane can fly a mission to any hex in range.


Being in/adjacent to the sea area is not a requirement.




IKerensky -> RE: Rules Clarification List (3/16/2008 8:04:27 PM)

I could be wrong. But if a CV is in Box4, didn't his planes be fairly too far to port bomb anything in the adjacent see zone anyway ? Or is the CvP not accounting the box range when flying out of their sea boxes in adjacent sea area ?



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Rules Clarification List (3/16/2008 8:35:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KERENSKY

I could be wrong. But if a CV is in Box4, didn't his planes be fairly too far to port bomb anything in the adjacent see zone anyway ? Or is the CvP not accounting the box range when flying out of their sea boxes in adjacent sea area ?

Yes.

[>:]When I woke up this morning, I was able to figure out several situations where it is necessary to have the additional rule for being able to port attack ports adjacent to the sea area the carrier occupies.



Froonp -> RE: Rules Clarification List (3/16/2008 8:35:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Norman42
Truk is not adjacent to any hexdot on the Bismarck sea area(on WiFFE map), so it seems to me that you cannot Port Attack it from the B. Sea at all unless you have 4(or 3 rounding up) range on the CVP. Likewise with the Solomons.

My understanding of this rule was to allow a carrier at sea on the old Americas map to port strike say New York (which costs 6 movement points America Map movement, but is adjacent to a hexdot) even if your CVP had under 6 range, ie most of them.

This rule would help justify some of the differences in map scale in WiFFE with regards to port attacks.

With the unified map scale in MWiF I think this special rule's purpose no longer exists, since CVP won't need 'help' to reach ports on some maps, and it can simply be left as "A carrier plane can fly a mission to any hex in range. Measure the range from any hex-dot in the CV’s sea area".

Yes, this would leave Truk un-port-strikable from Bismarck Sea(in WiFFE) unless you had the proper range, which seems to be the rule as written.

Thanks for the correction, this is it.
I think you're totaly right here (except for the 3 rounded up to 4 -- a plane with range 3 on the Pacific map of WiF FE can't travel 2 hexes, as each hex cost 2. First hex it spends 2, second hex it ought to spend 2 more, and has it has not, it can't move the second hex).



Froonp -> RE: Rules Clarification List (3/16/2008 8:38:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KERENSKY

I could be wrong. But if a CV is in Box4, didn't his planes be fairly too far to port bomb anything in the adjacent see zone anyway ? Or is the CvP not accounting the box range when flying out of their sea boxes in adjacent sea area ?

No because RAW says : "Measure the range from any hex-dot in the CV’s sea area (it’s usually best to pick the hex-dot closest to your target). "
The seabox section you're in is irrelevant for air missions. Only relevant to rebase from Carrier to land and from land to carrier.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Rules Clarification List (3/16/2008 11:49:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: KERENSKY

I could be wrong. But if a CV is in Box4, didn't his planes be fairly too far to port bomb anything in the adjacent see zone anyway ? Or is the CvP not accounting the box range when flying out of their sea boxes in adjacent sea area ?

No because RAW says : "Measure the range from any hex-dot in the CV’s sea area (it’s usually best to pick the hex-dot closest to your target). "
The seabox section you're in is irrelevant for air missions. Only relevant to rebase from Carrier to land and from land to carrier.

Good thing you made this post.[&o] I was about to code it up wrong.[X(]



Froonp -> RE: Rules Clarification List (3/17/2008 12:22:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Good thing you made this post.[&o] I was about to code it up wrong.[X(]


Yes, it is 14.4.1
*******************************
14.4.1 Carrier plane units (CVPiF & SiF option 56)
(...)
Rebasing
During the rebase aircraft step of each turn, you can rebase a face-up carrier plane, up to double its range, from its CV to a hex or vice versa (including the cost to get into or out of the sea-box section).
You can also rebase a carrier plane from a CV to another CV in the same sea-box section or port or from a CV to the port hex it is in or vice versa. Each of these counts as a rebase for activities limits. Like all other rebases, the carrier plane remains face-up.
*******************************

I'd add that Option 44 applies to CVP too :
*******************************
11.17 Aircraft rebases
(...)
Option 44: An aircraft can rebase up to triple its printed range (or 6 times its printed range if it has extended range), if it only flies over friendly controlled hexes, and sea-dots in sea areas that don’t contain an enemy aircraft, undamaged CV with carrier plane, or SCS unit.
*******************************



Norman42 -> RE: Rules Clarification List (3/17/2008 3:49:22 AM)

Yes, Patrice has it right on that.  Seabox doesnt matter when flying CVP missions as far as range is concerned.



paulderynck -> RE: Rules Clarification List (3/18/2008 1:02:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Norman42
Truk is not adjacent to any hexdot on the Bismarck sea area(on WiFFE map), so it seems to me that you cannot Port Attack it from the B. Sea at all unless you have 4(or 3 rounding up) range on the CVP. Likewise with the Solomons.

My understanding of this rule was to allow a carrier at sea on the old Americas map to port strike say New York (which costs 6 movement points America Map movement, but is adjacent to a hexdot) even if your CVP had under 6 range, ie most of them.

This rule would help justify some of the differences in map scale in WiFFE with regards to port attacks.

With the unified map scale in MWiF I think this special rule's purpose no longer exists, since CVP won't need 'help' to reach ports on some maps, and it can simply be left as "A carrier plane can fly a mission to any hex in range. Measure the range from any hex-dot in the CV’s sea area".

Yes, this would leave Truk un-port-strikable from Bismarck Sea(in WiFFE) unless you had the proper range, which seems to be the rule as written.

Thanks for the correction, this is it.
I think you're totaly right here (except for the 3 rounded up to 4 -- a plane with range 3 on the Pacific map of WiF FE can't travel 2 hexes, as each hex cost 2. First hex it spends 2, second hex it ought to spend 2 more, and has it has not, it can't move the second hex).


Agree on the fact you don't round the range up. However, I thought the whole reason for the exception rule r.e. port attacks was for when you play with CV units without CVPs. This is for two reasons:
1. The rule citation appears under CV units (14.4), not under CVP units (14.4.1).
2. The RAW rule quote: The range of Japanese carrier planes is double their CV’s air component. All other carrier planes’ range, and all carrier planes’ air-to-air rating and air-to-sea factors equal their CV’s air component. All carrier planes’ tactical factors are half the value of their CV’s air component. Their strategic bombardment factors are one quarter of their CV’s air component. then implies a non-Japanese CV unit with an air component of 1 would not be able to attack any hex on the Pacific map. So the exception for port attacks allows such units to perform that mission in the Pacific.

Our group struggled with that rule's wording and its placement in RAW for some time before we came up with this interpretation. Since we always play with CVPs, the rule does not affect us (although it could now, if Patrice is right) because there are no CVPs with a range of 1.

For MWiF this may not matter due to the standardization of the scale of the maps, however depending where the hex-dots and sea zone boundary lines are, there may be missions that can now be flown in MWiF that are impossible in WiFFE.

Regards,
Paul




Taxman66 -> RE: Rules Clarification List (3/28/2008 3:01:37 AM)

I was reading over the RAW 7 rules (last set I used was 6.02 in 2002) and noticed lots of differences, however a  few stuck out, I figured this was the best forum to put them in:

1)
The base surprise rule now has a new clause: "Furthermore, they are not surprised by land or aircraft units attacking from, or flying over, hexes controlled by a major power or minor country at war with them last impulse."

However that clause does not interact well with the way the rules in 15.1 are written:
e.g. "If a land unit controlled by a major power declaring war on you enters a hex containing one of your faceup aircraft units, it (PiF Option 28: and its pilot ~ see 14.6) is destroyed, not rebased."
e.g.  "Aircraft units controlled by a major power declaring war, cannot be intercepted if they are flying: * a strategic bombardment mission against a hex controlled by a surprised major power or minor country; or * any other mission exclusively against surprised units."

Is the new clause ment to allow aircraft (under the stated conditions) to be intercepted or not?  I can see the arguement both ways.  I think/guess that the intent is that said aircraft gain none of the benefits of surprise, but am not sure of that as the Rules As Written aren't truely clear on that issue (again how 15 & 15.1 interact language wise).

The intent seems to be to stop the old USSR is surprised by the Italian air force trick.  As an aside, this has a somewhat negative effect as the threat of this 'trick' is about the only way to ever get GE & IT to DOW the USA (and when playing with DOD III, provide the USA with needed P.E. shifts)

Of lesser importance...
2)
What is Option 49 (Hitler's War) supposed to represent?

3)
Can anyone explain to me how in the world an A-bomb is less effective at night?  And I'm not buying the 'accuracy' arguement.  I doubt rain/snow would be much of a factor (except perhaps reducing the effects of fallout) either.  --This isn't really a big deal as unless you're playing into '46+ I don't think I've ever seen an A-bomb actually effect the results of the game (in terms of victory conditions, i.e. strategic hexes/cities).



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Rules Clarification List (3/28/2008 3:53:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

I was reading over the RAW 7 rules (last set I used was 6.02 in 2002) and noticed lots of differences, however a  few stuck out, I figured this was the best forum to put them in:

1)
The base surprise rule now has a new clause: "Furthermore, they are not surprised by land or aircraft units attacking from, or flying over, hexes controlled by a major power or minor country at war with them last impulse."

However that clause does not interact well with the way the rules in 15.1 are written:
e.g. "If a land unit controlled by a major power declaring war on you enters a hex containing one of your faceup aircraft units, it (PiF Option 28: and its pilot ~ see 14.6) is destroyed, not rebased."
e.g.  "Aircraft units controlled by a major power declaring war, cannot be intercepted if they are flying: * a strategic bombardment mission against a hex controlled by a surprised major power or minor country; or * any other mission exclusively against surprised units."

Is the new clause ment to allow aircraft (under the stated conditions) to be intercepted or not?  I can see the arguement both ways.  I think/guess that the intent is that said aircraft gain none of the benefits of surprise, but am not sure of that as the Rules As Written aren't truely clear on that issue (again how 15 & 15.1 interact language wise).

The intent seems to be to stop the old USSR is surprised by the Italian air force trick.  As an aside, this has a somewhat negative effect as the threat of this 'trick' is about the only way to ever get GE & IT to DOW the USA (and when playing with DOD III, provide the USA with needed P.E. shifts)

Of lesser importance...
2)
What is Option 49 (Hitler's War) supposed to represent?

3)
Can anyone explain to me how in the world an A-bomb is less effective at night?  And I'm not buying the 'accuracy' arguement.  I doubt rain/snow would be much of a factor (except perhaps reducing the effects of fallout) either.  --This isn't really a big deal as unless you're playing into '46+ I don't think I've ever seen an A-bomb actually effect the results of the game (in terms of victory conditions, i.e. strategic hexes/cities).

As I understand it, yes, the idea was to prevent the Italian air force from basing in hexes controlled by Germany (this is after Germany and the USSR are at war) and then 'surprise' the USSR by declaring war.

I don't know about the other stuff you asked about.



Taxman66 -> RE: Rules Clarification List (3/28/2008 4:50:24 AM)

That's what I guessed, it's just not written well when taken with the rest of the surprise rules.

I believe the special rule allowing port strikes that would otherwise be out of range is in there primarly for dealing with port strikes into off map boxes with ports, but it looks like you figured it out.

As for the Twin engine fighter and fighter bomber rules... yeah we figured that weirdness out a long time ago. We experimented with reversing the rule (i.e. Twin Eng fighters got the -1 and Fighter's flying as bombers got the worse result), wound up not making much of a difference as our play style typically didn't see fighters flying as bombers where they weren't escorted or couldn't be intercepted. It might've come up more if we used the bounce optional rule, but we generally hated that option.



Froonp -> RE: Rules Clarification List (3/28/2008 10:51:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

I was reading over the RAW 7 rules (last set I used was 6.02 in 2002) and noticed lots of differences, however a  few stuck out, I figured this was the best forum to put them in:

1)
The base surprise rule now has a new clause: "Furthermore, they are not surprised by land or aircraft units attacking from, or flying over, hexes controlled by a major power or minor country at war with them last impulse."

However that clause does not interact well with the way the rules in 15.1 are written:
e.g. "If a land unit controlled by a major power declaring war on you enters a hex containing one of your faceup aircraft units, it (PiF Option 28: and its pilot ~ see 14.6) is destroyed, not rebased."
e.g.  "Aircraft units controlled by a major power declaring war, cannot be intercepted if they are flying: * a strategic bombardment mission against a hex controlled by a surprised major power or minor country; or * any other mission exclusively against surprised units."

Is the new clause ment to allow aircraft (under the stated conditions) to be intercepted or not?  I can see the arguement both ways.  I think/guess that the intent is that said aircraft gain none of the benefits of surprise, but am not sure of that as the Rules As Written aren't truely clear on that issue (again how 15 & 15.1 interact language wise).

The intent seems to be to stop the old USSR is surprised by the Italian air force trick.  As an aside, this has a somewhat negative effect as the threat of this 'trick' is about the only way to ever get GE & IT to DOW the USA (and when playing with DOD III, provide the USA with needed P.E. shifts)

Of lesser importance...
2)
What is Option 49 (Hitler's War) supposed to represent?

3)
Can anyone explain to me how in the world an A-bomb is less effective at night?  And I'm not buying the 'accuracy' arguement.  I doubt rain/snow would be much of a factor (except perhaps reducing the effects of fallout) either.  --This isn't really a big deal as unless you're playing into '46+ I don't think I've ever seen an A-bomb actually effect the results of the game (in terms of victory conditions, i.e. strategic hexes/cities).

The best place to discuss this may be the WiF Discussion List rather than here.



hakon -> RE: Rules Clarification List (3/28/2008 1:00:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

If you have no fighter group, your air-to-air strength equals the air-to-air rating of your front bomber only.

When the rolling players front aircraft has a Orange air-to-air rating and the Non-rolling players front aircraft has a Non-orange air-to-air rating you achieve one result less than normal.

If the fighter flies as a bomber you get -1 to its air-to-air rating.

Flying as a bomber doesn't make the fighter better. You receive the result shift AND the -1 to the air-to-air rating.

I'm gonna correct that.

This is from the questions we submitted to Harry :
***********************************
Q294> Are Twin-Engined FTR acting as a bomber one result less than normal in an Air to Air combat in which enemy fighters are involved?

Answer> No. You are not one result less than normal as you are not a fighter when you are a bomber. However if also playing Option 54 then your air to air rating is reduced by 1. Date 29/12/2007

Relevant Rule Quote>
14.3.2 Option 53: (Twin-engined fighters) In air-to-air combat during the day, all front fighters with an orange air-to-air rating achieve one result less than normal when the front enemy fighter in the combat does not have an orange air-to-air rating. In these cases an AX result becomes a DX, a DX becomes an AA, an AA becomes a DA and so on. A DC result is unaffected.
14.3.2 Option 54: (Fighter bombers) Reduce the air-to-air rating of the front bomber by 1 if it is a FTR.
***********************************



I just saw this one. I think that the prosed change is a bad one, here is why:
- Fighters flying as bombers defend at -1, as well as get worse attack results. This means they are already penalized by being easier to shoot down. This alone balances the slightly better damage that they will inflict
- Fighters flying as bombers don't actively seek targets out. If it's combat value comes into play at all, all enemy bombers will get through. (Except when it escorted by another fighter, and is bounced)
- Fighters flying as bombers never get to bounce enemy bombers
- When attacked/found by enemy fighters, fighters flying as bombers would just drop their bomb load, and fight as normal, without any penalty, so a double penalty is too harch

If you ignore the orange result when the fighters fly as bombers, you get:
- More friendly casualties
- More enemy fighter casualties
- No enemy bomber casualties

I find this quite realistic. If these fighters would fly as fighters, the enemy fighters would avoid them, making both sides score fewer kills. If they fly as bombers, they will be sought out, then drop their bombs, and engage in dogfight, leading to higher casualties for both sides.

And since all enemy bombers will get through this way, it's not only realistic, but also balanced.

Cheers
Hakon



Froonp -> RE: Rules Clarification List (3/28/2008 10:10:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hakon
I just saw this one. I think that the prosed change is a bad one, here is why:

This is not a change, this is RAW clarified.

Edit : Moreover, I don't understand your point at all.



paulderynck -> RE: Rules Clarification List (4/13/2008 10:15:24 PM)

quote:


Agree on the fact you don't round the range up. However, I thought the whole reason for the exception rule r.e. port attacks was for when you play with CV units without CVPs. This is for two reasons:
1. The rule citation appears under CV units (14.4), not under CVP units (14.4.1).
2. The RAW rule quote: The range of Japanese carrier planes is double their CV’s air component. All other carrier planes’ range, and all carrier planes’ air-to-air rating and air-to-sea factors equal their CV’s air component. All carrier planes’ tactical factors are half the value of their CV’s air component. Their strategic bombardment factors are one quarter of their CV’s air component. then implies a non-Japanese CV unit with an air component of 1 would not be able to attack any hex on the Pacific map. So the exception for port attacks allows such units to perform that mission in the Pacific.

Our group struggled with that rule's wording and its placement in RAW for some time before we came up with this interpretation. Since we always play with CVPs, the rule does not affect us (although it could now, if Patrice is right) because there are no CVPs with a range of 1.

For MWiF this may not matter due to the standardization of the scale of the maps, however depending where the hex-dots and sea zone boundary lines are, there may be missions that can now be flown in MWiF that are impossible in WiFFE.

Regards,
Paul



Hi Steve,

Just curious on how this one ended up getting coded? Did you decide the exception was for CVs without CVPs or for both with and without CVPs?



Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.716797