quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
They can fly CAP as much as they want, but they can't fight when the Russians come. They are not at war with the Russians, and no German unit is attacked.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
In particular, I am trying to prevent the use of CAP missions as a way of getting around the limits on air rebase missions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
In particular, I am trying to prevent the use of CAP missions as a way of getting around the limits on air rebase missions.

You should not, CAP missions are specificaly cited by Harry Rowland as a means to do face-down rebases.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

As an example, which units on the non-phasing side can fly CAP over a hex where major power A might air transport a unit from major power B to a hex controlled by a unaligned minor (e.g., If an Italian ATR might transport a German INF to Helsinki, can CW - only at war with Germany - fly CAP from a carrier based in the Baltic?).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
In particular, I am trying to prevent the use of CAP missions as a way of getting around the limits on air rebase missions.

You should not, CAP missions are specificaly cited by Harry Rowland as a means to do face-down rebases.

WTF! Is that some rule I missed?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
In particular, I am trying to prevent the use of CAP missions as a way of getting around the limits on air rebase missions.

You should not, CAP missions are specificaly cited by Harry Rowland as a means to do face-down rebases.

WTF! Is that some rule I missed?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

As an example, which units on the non-phasing side can fly CAP over a hex where major power A might air transport a unit from major power B to a hex controlled by a unaligned minor (e.g., If an Italian ATR might transport a German INF to Helsinki, can CW - only at war with Germany - fly CAP from a carrier based in the Baltic?).

A quick peek at the rules gives the following in regards of transports

"During port strikes and naval combats, a unit can’t fight against units from the
other side unless it is at war with at least one of them (being at war with an enemy
unit the naval unit is transporting is not enough)."

And if that applies to ATR (as I would think) the carrier may not fight the Italian ATR and if you play with CAP on legal targets only the CVP may not CAP.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

And if that applies to ATR (as I would think) the carrier may not fight the Italian ATR and if you play with CAP on legal targets only the CVP may not CAP.

I think that Orm is right, except that I'd allow the CW to perform a CAP, but they would not be able to fight because they are not at war with the Italian ATR.
Why would the CW be prevented from doing a CAP over any hex during the other side's air transport phase ? The only thing that is forbidden is for the British to fight the Italians.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm
Hence the "if you play with CAP on legal targets only"

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
In particular, I am trying to prevent the use of CAP missions as a way of getting around the limits on air rebase missions.

You should not, CAP missions are specificaly cited by Harry Rowland as a means to do face-down rebases.

WTF! Is that some rule I missed?

The rules specifically state that in para 14.2.1

Lars

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
In particular, I am trying to prevent the use of CAP missions as a way of getting around the limits on air rebase missions.

You should not, CAP missions are specificaly cited by Harry Rowland as a means to do face-down rebases.

WTF! Is that some rule I missed?

Not a rule, but it is very widely known amongst the WiF players (please tell Steve I'm right [;)]) that CAP is a way for players to perform extra short range rebases, at the price of having the air unit turned face-down.

Speaking of rules, the CAP rules never say that the target you decide to cover with CAP has to be threatened by the enemy.

This said, there was an option in CWiF to only allow CAP to valid target hexes to limit it somehow so that gamey play is excluded. I think that this option was good, and I turned it on when I played.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I am quite willing to permit flying an air rebase that does not count against air activity limits provided the air unit becomes disorganized at the end of its move. But having "air rebases" occur during CAP operations doesn't appeal to me at all.

And why are they called "short rebases"? Is that because they are not triple the unit's range over neutral territory?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I am quite willing to permit flying an air rebase that does not count against air activity limits provided the air unit becomes disorganized at the end of its move. But having "air rebases" occur during CAP operations doesn't appeal to me at all.

And why are they called "short rebases"? Is that because they are not triple the unit's range over neutral territory?

I wonder if we are not misunderstanding here. I'm not asking to perform rebase missions during the CAP, I just say that CAP can be used as a kind of rebase, as lomyrin pointed out from 14.2.1.

I called this short rebase because CAP can't be triple range.

quote:

I am quite willing to permit flying an air rebase that does not count against air activity limits provided the air unit becomes disorganized at the end of its move. But having "air rebases" occur during CAP operations doesn't appeal to me at all.

And why are they called "short rebases"? Is that because they are not triple the unit's range over neutral territory?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

To get around the 'illlogic' you could add additional/unlimited rebases (or reduced range rebases) where the plane flips at the end.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

To get around the 'illlogic' you could add additional/unlimited rebases (or reduced range rebases) where the plane flips at the end.

Yes, I would prefer to simply allow the phasing player, during the rebase phase, to rebase any organized air units he so desires (not just fighters) with the choice of either:
(1) expending an air rebase 'activity' with the air unit remaining organized after rebasing, or
(2) not expending an air rebase 'activity' with the air unit becoming disorganized after rebasing.

#1 is the current rule on rebasing air units. #2 is a proposed replacement of the "CAP rebase" rule.
---
For now, I am only writing code for #1 above. And I am enforcing the "can not fly CAP unless the hex is threatened" deviation from RAW that I wrote into RAC section 14.2.1.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

To get around the 'illlogic' you could add additional/unlimited rebases (or reduced range rebases) where the plane flips at the end.

Yes, I would prefer to simply allow the phasing player, during the rebase phase, to rebase any organized air units he so desires (not just fighters) with the choice of either:
(1) expending an air rebase 'activity' with the air unit remaining organized after rebasing, or
(2) not expending an air rebase 'activity' with the air unit becoming disorganized after rebasing.

#1 is the current rule on rebasing air units. #2 is a proposed replacement of the "CAP rebase" rule.
---
For now, I am only writing code for #1 above. And I am enforcing the "can not fly CAP unless the hex is threatened" deviation from RAW that I wrote into RAC section 14.2.1.

If you look into the Annual 2008, this is one of the house rules that are proposed in the section "House of rules" :

*********************************
Aircraft rebasing (WiF 11.17)
During aircraft rebase, aircraft may rebase as normal at no mission cost. However aircraft rebased in this manner must end their move face-down.
*********************************

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

There is an ADG sanctionned house rule (that I quoted above) so why discuss it further by saying only FTR, only double range & all ? This is an house rule ADG has published in the official Annual 2008, so if we want something on the line of extra rebases with the air unit disrupted, then let's take it as it is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

There is an ADG sanctionned house rule (that I quoted above) so why discuss it further by saying only FTR, only double range & all ? This is an house rule ADG has published in the official Annual 2008, so if we want something on the line of extra rebases with the air unit disrupted, then let's take it as it is.

1. Um, this is a discussion forum - or am I mistaken?
2. Steve has stated in one of the umpteen posts I've read recently, that where MWiF will deviate from WiFFE, the intention is to minimize the deviation.
3, As you say ADG calls it a House Rule suggestion. I should not have referred to it as an Optional. I believe I've also read recently that nothing from the 08 Annual will make it into the first MWiF release and my intention was not to suggest this at all. My intention was to suggest that this may be a better way to handle CAP rebases (as a deviation from WiFFE) based on the struggle Steve described he was having with it.

Upon further reflection, as long as Steve is successful in programming all possible CAP opportunities, he will de facto allow players to do short range flipped rebasing of fighters to their heart's content - probably more in the spirit of RAW's original intent - and the whole issue goes away! The reason it ever got mentioned in RAW as a "short range rebase" was probably that a rules writer twigged to the fact that players could make use of CAP for exactly this purpose and there was no way to limit it. What are you going to do - argue with your opponent about why he flew a legal mission?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
1 - I will implement the deviation to CAP missions as I documented it in RAC months ago (described in an earlier post in this thread today).

2 - I have the nitty-gritty of determining viable target hexes worked out at this point. Air Transport missions were the most wide open, since the non-phasing player needs only have a fighter capable of reaching a hex where an air transport from the phasing side might drop or pick up a unit.

3 - Though I offered earlier today to implement the rebasing house rule from 2008 WIF Annual, at the time I did not know it was presented as such therein. My standard policy on house rules, and those in the 2008 Annual in paerticular, is that they are for a future MWIF product, not for MWIF #1.

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

"Units from a minor country cooperate with units from its controlling major power or minor country."

becomes:

"Units from a minor country cooperate with units from the major power with which it is aligned."

The Dutch & the Belgians have their own aligned minor countries (Belgian Congo & NEI) that have units.

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

"Units from a minor country cooperate with units from its controlling major power or minor country."

becomes:

"Units from a minor country cooperate with units from the major power with which it is aligned."

The Dutch & the Belgians have their own aligned minor countries (Belgian Congo & NEI) that have units.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

"Units from a minor country cooperate with units from its controlling major power or minor country."

becomes:

"Units from a minor country cooperate with units from the major power with which it is aligned."

The Dutch & the Belgians have their own aligned minor countries (Belgian Congo & NEI) that have units.

Oh yes, good catch Christopher, I had missed this from the post of Steve.
Christopher is right Steve, and you should keep the original sentence.

Edit : There is also
- Portugal that controls Angola, Mozambique and Portuguese Guinea.
- Spain that controls Er Rif and Spanish Sahara.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

An ATR can start empty or carrying another unit/cargo for an air transport mission. For a paradrop mission, it has to be carrying a qualified unit/cargo. Let’s call its starting hex O for point of origination. The weather in the hex O does not matter for either air transport or paradrop missions. The weather in the destination hex, D, does matter, and may prevent either mission type from being flown.

For air transport missions, the ATR may start empty in hex O and pick up a unit/cargo in hex D. Whether dropping off or picking up cargo in hex D, the air transport mission requires that the ATR be capable of landing in hex D, though it does not have to actually land there. For instance, normally the terrain in hex D could not be mountain.

quote:


For paradrop missions, the ATR has to be capable of landing in D, if D is a friendly controlled hex (explicitly stated in the rules). Implicit from that statement is that a paradrop can be made into hex D, even if the ATR can not land there, but if and only if the hex is enemy controlled.

quote:


After completing their mission in hex D, both air transport and paradrop missions fly to a return hex, R. Since both air transport and paradrop missions are subject to air-to-air and anti-air combat in hex D, they might be aborting their mission when they fly to R.

Now the tricky bit is that an ATR is forbidden from returning to R with cargo if the weather in R is bad (storm/blizzard). Note that if it is empty, the ATR can return to a bad weather hex. And if the weather isn’t bad, the ATR can return with cargo. The abort result can produce a situation where the ATR still has its cargo and has to find a return hex with acceptable weather.

So my question is what happens to the ATR and its cargo that has been forced to abort, with cargo, from an air transport or paradrop mission when there is no viable return hex due to bad weather?

One partial solution is that for an air transport mission the ATR be forced to land in D, which has good weather and where we know it is capable of landing. This does raise the question of what ‘abort’ means for an air transport mission. For example, the ATR might have been simply trying to fly its cargo from O to D. Even though it is aborted over hex D, is it still permitted to land/deliver its cargo there? I would say yes. But I do not know whether that means it is subject to a second round of air-to-air and anti-air combat? - which would be true if its return hex R is not D.

The more difficult case is for a paradrop mission where the expected mission was to fly from O (which has bad weather) to D, drop the paratroop unit and then return to R (which has bad weather). In fact, R could very well be O. Two solutions are: (1) force the ATR to return to O, so there is no advantage to the phasing player, or (2) destroy the cargo unit and let the ATR return anywhere it likes. I sort of doubt that the crew of the ATR would be capable of pushing all the paratroopers out of the plane, just so the ATR could return to base safely. My preference is for #1.

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
For paradrop missions, the ATR has to be capable of landing in D, if D is a friendly controlled hex (explicitly stated in the rules). Implicit from that statement is that a paradrop can be made into hex D, even if the ATR can not land there, but if and only if the hex is enemy controlled.

No, the ATR does not have to be capable of landing in hex D for paradrops.

quote:


After completing their mission in hex D, both air transport and paradrop missions fly to a return hex, R. Since both air transport and paradrop missions are subject to air-to-air and anti-air combat in hex D, they might be aborting their mission when they fly to R.

Now the tricky bit is that an ATR is forbidden from returning to R with cargo if the weather in R is bad (storm/blizzard). Note that if it is empty, the ATR can return to a bad weather hex. And if the weather isn’t bad, the ATR can return with cargo. The abort result can produce a situation where the ATR still has its cargo and has to find a return hex with acceptable weather.

So my question is what happens to the ATR and its cargo that has been forced to abort, with cargo, from an air transport or paradrop mission when there is no viable return hex due to bad weather?

One partial solution is that for an air transport mission the ATR be forced to land in D, which has good weather and where we know it is capable of landing. This does raise the question of what ‘abort’ means for an air transport mission. For example, the ATR might have been simply trying to fly its cargo from O to D. Even though it is aborted over hex D, is it still permitted to land/deliver its cargo there? I would say yes. But I do not know whether that means it is subject to a second round of air-to-air and anti-air combat? - which would be true if its return hex R is not D.

The more difficult case is for a paradrop mission where the expected mission was to fly from O (which has bad weather) to D, drop the paratroop unit and then return to R (which has bad weather). In fact, R could very well be O. Two solutions are: (1) force the ATR to return to O, so there is no advantage to the phasing player, or (2) destroy the cargo unit and let the ATR return anywhere it likes. I sort of doubt that the crew of the ATR would be capable of pushing all the paratroopers out of the plane, just so the ATR could return to base safely. My preference is for #1.

About the second round of of AtoA and flak after a combat abort, I had never thought of that before and brought it up on the Yahoo Rules Group. Patrice and I and one other member discussed this and concluded that there is no second round because:
1. The combat abort takes the ATR (and its cargo) out of the normal Air Transport sequence. The ATR aborts, it and its cargo flips and it cannot be intercepted again.
2. Another problem with intercepting a combat abort is that it would open the door to a potentially (but of course unlikely) endless chain of re-aborts and re-interceptions.
Of course if the ATR clears through then the Air Transport sequence continues and it may be intercepted later when it returns to base.
As there is presently consensus on the Rules List about this, it will not likely be asked of Harry.

About the abort going to a bad weather hex, the present recommendation to Harry is that this only be allowed to occur with cargo onboard if (a) there is no other choice that has acceptable weather and (b) it goes back to its origin. But of course Harry must still approve this version of the clarification as of this date.