RE: Rules Clarification List

RE: Rules Clarification List (Full Version)

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

Message

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Rules Clarification List (1/27/2007 5:41:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mziln Yup, Sequential. MWiF is probably safer for the players because it shows which minors you can align before you accidentally DOW them. 9. Declaring war All major powers on this side announce which major powers on the other side they are declaring war on this impulse. They then all announce which neutral minor countries they are declaring war on this impulse. 9.8 Aligning minors If a neutral minor can align with your major power (see 19.6, 19.7 and 19.8), you can declare that it is aligning with you. You can only declare one minor aligned with your major power in each friendly impulse. 13.3.1 Entry markers The US entry level is changed by the entry markers you draw. You will have an entry level against Japan and another against Germany and Italy. This is explained in 9.4. Only you will know your entry levels, although your opponents will make guesses based on the entry options you choose and may learn some information from intelligence operations (option 63: see 22.1). You can look at your own markers after you have committed them to a particular entry pool but you can’t show them to anyone else (even on your own side). Ok, I'll add some information to the DOW form as to which countries can be aligned by whom. You won't be able to align them using that form though.

Froonp -> RE: Rules Clarification List (1/27/2007 10:47:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets I follow your logic but propose changing the label for your 4th step to: US rolls for attempted DOWs against Germany/Italy/Japan. That the US is going to make an attempt to DOW on one of the Axis major powers is done in step 1. Yes but the problem I see is that RAW has the USA makes his DoWs after the US Entry dices for all other DoWs are already made and known. That is, the USA can decide whether the US entry level is high enough or not before announcing his DoWs. So, making the USA announce his DoWs (while the USA are bound by the US Entry rules) at the same time as the other major powers seems wrong to me. All the major powers on the Allied Side should announce their DoWs, coordinating at will, then all US Entry rolls are made, then the USA, knowing his new US Entry level, announces his DoWs over the Axis Major Powers. This is clear that the USA player should also warn his fellow allies powers that he intends to also DoW if his Entry allow for this, but this can be taken care of by normal communications between players (phone, MSN, speaking, etc...). It seems weird to me (and contrary to RAW) that the USA shoudl announce for example that they will DoW Japan (step 1)) just to discover because of US Entry rolls made in step 2) that this has become impossible, or that this has gone to levels that the US player was not willing to face. quote: What I envision here are two different, but similar forms for Aligning countries and DOW. The form consists of a matrix with the phasing side's major powers as the columns and the target DOW/Align countries as the rows. Some of the cells will be blank (possible) some will be black (impossible). For example, the US might be able to DOW on Germany, but the CW can't because they are already at war. The CWiF program already has such a matrix doesn't it ? quote: On the side are check boxes for each major power on the phasing side: Proposed and Final. By clicking Proposed the MP lets other MPs review and enter their selections. By clicking Final, the MP says his decisions are final. Once all MPs have Final checked, the 1st step is complete. At that point the program can performed steps 2 -> 4 by itself and only come back to the players for decisions if step 5 (reserves) or 6 (minors) require setting up units. And also (step 6)), deciding what Major Power aligns which minor country that was DoWed by the other side.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Rules Clarification List (1/27/2007 11:41:45 AM)
There is a matrix as to the political relationships between countries but is is not specifically for DOW or Aligning purposes - just information. Who controls a minor country is determined by closest capital - that calculation is already in the program (from CWIF). It is not clear to me that 9.2 doesn't also apply to the US. It starts: "All major powers on this side ...". That seems to me to include the USA.

Froonp -> RE: Rules Clarification List (1/27/2007 12:06:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets There is a matrix as to the political relationships between countries but is is not specifically for DOW or Aligning purposes - just information. Who controls a minor country is determined by closest capital - that calculation is already in the program (from CWIF). Not only. The Major Power with the closest capital will be proposed first, but if he declines, the next closer is proposed next, so in practice, any active major power can choose to control the minor, tere are just distances priorities that must be respected in case 2 major powers wan't to control it. quote: It is not clear to me that 9.2 doesn't also apply to the US. It starts: "All major powers on this side ...". That seems to me to include the USA. Yes, 9.2 talks about all generalities about DoWing, but 9.4 and then 9.5 makes the specifices of the case they cover, and each chapter talks about the major powers making their DoWing at this step. Quote from the rules : ********************************** 9.4 US entry** (...) Attempting to Declare war Announce your attempt to declare war on a major power. Then, on the “It’s War” table, cross index your entry level against that major power with your tension level against it to find the war number. ********************************** As this is stated in 9.4, this is done when 9.4 arrives, that is, after all US Entry rolls have been made and resolved. Quote from the rules : ******************************** 9.5 Neutrality pacts (...) You may only declare war on a major power you have a neutrality pact with by first breaking the pact in your declaration of war step. Once you have broken a pact, you and the other major power can declare war on each other without restriction. You could even declare war in the same step. Once a pact is broken, both major powers return the entry markers they have placed in their common border (see below) to the common entry marker pool. ********************************** 9.5 specificaly points out that you can DoW right after having broken the pact, and the pact breaking is here in 9.5, which happens right after USA DoWings and US Entry rolls.

Jimm -> RE: Rules Clarification List (1/27/2007 2:02:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets It is not clear to me that 9.2 doesn't also apply to the US. It starts: "All major powers on this side ...". That seems to me to include the USA. Yes, 9.2 talks about all generalities about DoWing, but 9.4 and then 9.5 makes the specifices of the case they cover, and each chapter talks about the major powers making their DoWing at this step. To me its clear that 9.2 implies that all the MPs on the relevant side make their declarations at that point, as Steve suggests, including the US. Seems to me that the entry in 9.4 is a clarification of the specific process for the US but it doesn't directly imply that the actual decision to DOW by the US comes after all the others are resolved- although the process of working it out comes after the entry effect of the others. Thats just how I read it! Jimm

Froonp -> RE: Rules Clarification List (1/27/2007 3:33:45 PM)
So the US announce that they will DoW Japan for instance, without knowing his chances of success ??? As all other DoWs will have an effect on their level, and not a slight one, this can lead to nonsenses like dropping from 50% chances of success which is acceptable, to 20-30% with is less acceptable. No, this is not logical to me, and I don't know any gaming group who plays with such a blind US DoW, and the rule being written in sequence of play order supports the fact that the USA announce his DoW in 9.4, as Germany and / or USSR announce that they will try to break their pacts in 9.5, and make their subsequent DoWs. How could Grmany DoW Russia in 9.2, as it has not broken the pact ? How can the USA announce any DoW in 9.2, as it can only compute his level and roll for his success or failure in 9.4 ??? quote: ORIGINAL: Jimm quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets It is not clear to me that 9.2 doesn't also apply to the US. It starts: "All major powers on this side ...". That seems to me to include the USA. Yes, 9.2 talks about all generalities about DoWing, but 9.4 and then 9.5 makes the specifices of the case they cover, and each chapter talks about the major powers making their DoWing at this step. To me its clear that 9.2 implies that all the MPs on the relevant side make their declarations at that point, as Steve suggests, including the US. Seems to me that the entry in 9.4 is a clarification of the specific process for the US but it doesn't directly imply that the actual decision to DOW by the US comes after all the others are resolved- although the process of working it out comes after the entry effect of the others. Thats just how I read it! Jimm

Jimm -> RE: Rules Clarification List (1/27/2007 4:58:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp So the US announce that they will DoW Japan for instance, without knowing his chances of success ??? As all other DoWs will have an effect on their level, and not a slight one, this can lead to nonsenses like dropping from 50% chances of success which is acceptable, to 20-30% with is less acceptable. No, this is not logical to me, and I don't know any gaming group who plays with such a blind US DoW, and the rule being written in sequence of play order supports the fact that the USA announce his DoW in 9.4, as Germany and / or USSR announce that they will try to break their pacts in 9.5, and make their subsequent DoWs. How could Grmany DoW Russia in 9.2, as it has not broken the pact ? How can the USA announce any DoW in 9.2, as it can only compute his level and roll for his success or failure in 9.4 ??? Yes but how often do you get multiple DOWs on the same impulse? ok it can happen but not that often? 9.2 also says:- "Each declaration of war on a major power or neutral minor country could trigger a US entry effect (see 13.3.3), *which are rolled for after all* declarations of war**." (italics on "all" are from RAW) To me that implies that all the declarations, if there are more than one, are effectively simultaneous and therefore the US Entry effect of one would not be taken into account on a US DOW made at the same time- so the US player is not "blind". With the breaking of pacts, yes, you break the pact in the DOW step and as it says "...You could even declare war in the same step..." so the breaking of the pact and the DOW effectively can take place at the same time without a problem. How often have you seen a German player specifically renouncing the Nazi Soviet pact, pausing and then declaring on Russia as a seperate act? Its 99 times out of a hundred effectively the same action. To me 9.4 and 9.5 are simply clarifying the specific situations of DOWing with USA and when there is a pact- I see it as logical and supported by the wording of 9.2 that the DOWs are simultaneously announced and worked out? I cant remember this ever being an issue in a game I've played, but its one of those where the wording is sufficiently ambiguous to cause problems when you analyse it in the detail needed to get a computer to run it! Jimm

Froonp -> RE: Rules Clarification List (1/27/2007 5:51:07 PM)
I think this is a valid reading too, and as far as I remember, I don't remember having had this isssue in a game I was in neither. I don't remember neither having had a CW DoW for example, having an impact on an US DoW made during the same impulse. My own reading was maybe a too much literal reading of the rule. Which does not mean that it was wrong neither, as I think that both readings are valid too, but the "All major powers on this side ..." part that is in 9.2 tend to make your reading seems to be more likely to be the right one.

Jimm -> RE: Rules Clarification List (1/27/2007 7:14:28 PM)
Its a tricky one and I can see how you came to your original view too. I blame Harry!

coregames -> RE: Rules Clarification List (1/27/2007 7:34:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: trees trees COOL, a new Harry game? Yay! I still haven't completely chewed and digested 7 Ages yet, but if he does spring another game on us, I will just have to be a glutton.

Mziln -> RE: Rules Clarification List (1/27/2007 8:07:18 PM)
Sigh; to me step 9 includes ALL who can DOW. Here is the entire paragraph... 9. Declaring war In this step, your major powers can declare war on major powers from the other side or on unaligned minor countries. There are restrictions on some major powers declaring war (see China - 9.2, US entry - 13.3, neutrality pacts - 9.5 and Soviet border rectification - 19.6). Interacting with countries you are not at war with If you’re not at war with a particular major power or minor country, your interaction with it is limited. You can’t attack its units (exception: see 9.9, multiple states of war). You can’t bomb factories or resources it controls. You can’t enter a hex controlled by: • a neutral minor country; • a neutral major power on your side; or • a major power or minor country you’re not yet at war with on the other side. I agree with Jimm "Each declaration of war on a major power or neutral minor country could trigger a US entry effect (see 13.3.3), which are rolled for after all declarations of war." But the DOW's would be sequential (including the US) and after the DOW's the entry marker pools would be adjusted simultaneously either positively or negatively. This way the US might not be able to DOW in one step but might have the tension pool totals to do it the next DOW step. The Tension Pool level decides if the USA can go to war. The only way to negatively adjust a Tension pool is to fail an attempt to DOW. On the other hand the entry marker pool is what is being adjusted here. If it is empty and you are required to remove a marker from it will keep the USA from entering the war against that major power at all. As far as the US communicating with other powers is concerned. As Patrice has pointed out there is no way to enforce the USA's not telling other players what is in the tension pools.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Rules Clarification List (1/27/2007 10:22:30 PM)
I am sitting in the camp that has all DOWs done simultaneously and the US Entry effects calculated in a separate, later step. As to the US not knowing the chances of success, if the US performs their DOW first, and calculates the effects of that first, then the DOW(s) - and effects thereof - of the other Allied major powers will occur later and not impact the US's chance of success. The hard part for the CW is deciding to DOW on Japan in the same impulse that the US is going to try. It can be awkward if the US DOW attempt fails and the CW ends up going it alone against Japan.

Mziln -> RE: Rules Clarification List (1/27/2007 10:42:26 PM)
If DOW's are done simultaneously then Persia could be at war with Japan and the USSR on impulse 2. And Japan and the USSR would be at peace. Who would control Persia? Rule 9.9 Multiple States of War only involves Major powers.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Rules Clarification List (1/28/2007 12:07:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mziln If DOW's are done simultaneously then Persia could be at war with Japan and the USSR on impulse 2. And Japan and the USSR would be at peace. Who would control Persia? Rule 9.9 Multiple States of War only involves Major powers. DOW are done simultaneously for the phasing side, not for both the Axis and the Allied powers.

Froonp -> RE: Rules Clarification List (1/28/2007 1:39:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets I am sitting in the camp that has all DOWs done simultaneously and the US Entry effects calculated in a separate, later step. As to the US not knowing the chances of success, if the US performs their DOW first, and calculates the effects of that first, then the DOW(s) - and effects thereof - of the other Allied major powers will occur later and not impact the US's chance of success. The hard part for the CW is deciding to DOW on Japan in the same impulse that the US is going to try. It can be awkward if the US DOW attempt fails and the CW ends up going it alone against Japan. Well, I think that his opinion should be asked to Harry Rowland about this in the end, as this is quite a touchy subject amongst players.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Rules Clarification List (1/28/2007 1:50:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets I am sitting in the camp that has all DOWs done simultaneously and the US Entry effects calculated in a separate, later step. As to the US not knowing the chances of success, if the US performs their DOW first, and calculates the effects of that first, then the DOW(s) - and effects thereof - of the other Allied major powers will occur later and not impact the US's chance of success. The hard part for the CW is deciding to DOW on Japan in the same impulse that the US is going to try. It can be awkward if the US DOW attempt fails and the CW ends up going it alone against Japan. Well, I think that his opinion should be asked to Harry Rowland about this in the end, as this is quite a touchy subject amongst players. Then this should be on the Rules Clarification List submitted to Harry. How is that coming, by the way?

Froonp -> RE: Rules Clarification List (1/28/2007 11:46:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp Well, I think that his opinion should be asked to Harry Rowland about this in the end, as this is quite a touchy subject amongst players. Then this should be on the Rules Clarification List submitted to Harry. How is that coming, by the way? Peter Kanjorski who offered to lead this has given no news since some weeks ago (a month ?), and half a dozen people have answered the 200 questions of the Excel list, giving their opinion about each "rule question". This is quite stalled for the moment.

Froonp -> RE: Rules Clarification List (1/28/2007 11:50:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp Well, I think that his opinion should be asked to Harry Rowland about this in the end, as this is quite a touchy subject amongst players. Then this should be on the Rules Clarification List submitted to Harry. How is that coming, by the way? This question is on our list (#35), and here are the comments about it so far : Question : Does a side declares DOWs all at once? FAQ Answer : Believe ruled that a Side declares the DOWs in major - minor order, the actual DOWs are resolved in order of declaration (see 9.7) but treated simultaneously. So GE + IT DOWing Turkey would be 1 joint DOW on Turkey, not China and could be resolved before or after a DOW on NETH by Japan (for example). (unconfirmed) Jeff Wang : RAI - yes, I still think US "It's War" DOWs should be resolved first Wendell : Yes, except first declare wars on major powers, then on minors. Patrice : Yes, except first declare wars on major powers, then on minors. Lane Brody : all mp's then all minors Tom Bell : 9.2 you announce all DoWs at once. There is no sequence to DoW. Important in border garrisons ratios.

Ullern -> RE: Rules Clarification List (1/30/2007 11:22:09 PM)
_ These trivial questions. Because the following two line of events will for all practical purposess be identical, even though they are not: A1) All dows are made, exepct for the USA still not at total war. A2) the US-entry effects are implemented A3) USA decidedes wether to DOW and implements it. ... B1) All dows are made, including the USA B2) the US-entry effects are implemented, but the effect of the USA dow are implemented first ... There is a clear difference between A and B but I claim its only theoretical, because game theory should cause you to behave the same regardless _ well unless you are a CW player who wants the US to stay out of the war for another turn. As I said - purely a theoretical idea. (But on the other hand: if the result of the USA DOW was known somehow before the B1 or A1 was finished, that would cause people do make different decisions.) Ullern

Mziln -> RE: Rules Clarification List (1/31/2007 10:02:14 PM)
I vote for plan "B".

c92nichj -> RE: Rules Clarification List (2/14/2007 1:42:20 AM)
Where is Build points produced? and can be lendleased from. I see two options: A) Production points are produced at the factory but then all PP are summed up and a production multiplier is applied to the total, all BP's arrive in the Capital. B) BP's appear at the factories. This gives a problem with rounding, assume CW has production multiplier 1.25. 2 factories in india times 1.25 leaves 2.5 BP >>3BP 2 factories in Canada times 1.25 leaves 2.5 BP >>3 BP So four factories gives 6BP? or do they produce 5BP? is it in india or Canada that you get 3BP's? This is important when it comes to lendlease of BP's to for example FF or Russia from Indian/Canadian/Australian factories, to reduce need of convoys.

Jimm -> RE: Rules Clarification List (2/14/2007 2:00:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: c92nichj Where is Build points produced? and can be lendleased from. I see two options: A) Production points are produced at the factory but then all PP are summed up and a production multiplier is applied to the total, all BP's arrive in the Capital. B) BP's appear at the factories. This gives a problem with rounding, assume CW has production multiplier 1.25. 2 factories in india times 1.25 leaves 2.5 BP >>3BP 2 factories in Canada times 1.25 leaves 2.5 BP >>3 BP So four factories gives 6BP? or do they produce 5BP? is it in india or Canada that you get 3BP's? This is important when it comes to lendlease of BP's to for example FF or Russia from Indian/Canadian/Australian factories, to reduce need of convoys. Basically, A. Each resource you transport to a factory produces one production point. You then total up, and apply the production multiple to arrive at your BPs.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Rules Clarification List (2/14/2007 3:27:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jimm quote: ORIGINAL: c92nichj Where is Build points produced? and can be lendleased from. I see two options: A) Production points are produced at the factory but then all PP are summed up and a production multiplier is applied to the total, all BP's arrive in the Capital. B) BP's appear at the factories. This gives a problem with rounding, assume CW has production multiplier 1.25. 2 factories in india times 1.25 leaves 2.5 BP >>3BP 2 factories in Canada times 1.25 leaves 2.5 BP >>3 BP So four factories gives 6BP? or do they produce 5BP? is it in india or Canada that you get 3BP's? This is important when it comes to lendlease of BP's to for example FF or Russia from Indian/Canadian/Australian factories, to reduce need of convoys. Basically, A. Each resource you transport to a factory produces one production point. You then total up, and apply the production multiple to arrive at your BPs. I agree.

Froonp -> RE: Rules Clarification List (2/14/2007 9:49:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jimm quote: ORIGINAL: c92nichj Where is Build points produced? and can be lendleased from. I see two options: A) Production points are produced at the factory but then all PP are summed up and a production multiplier is applied to the total, all BP's arrive in the Capital. B) BP's appear at the factories. This gives a problem with rounding, assume CW has production multiplier 1.25. 2 factories in india times 1.25 leaves 2.5 BP >>3BP 2 factories in Canada times 1.25 leaves 2.5 BP >>3 BP So four factories gives 6BP? or do they produce 5BP? is it in india or Canada that you get 3BP's? This is important when it comes to lendlease of BP's to for example FF or Russia from Indian/Canadian/Australian factories, to reduce need of convoys. Basically, A. Each resource you transport to a factory produces one production point. You then total up, and apply the production multiple to arrive at your BPs. I agree with Jimm here too. About Lend Lease, I think that in your example, the CW can choose to lend 3 BP from his 2 factories of India (with his PM of 1.25, and also to lend 3 BP from his 2 factories of Canada. Let's say he had a total of 22 PP produced by all his factories, what does matter is that the total of his produced BP is 28 (22 x 1.25 = 27.5). That mean that he will be left with 22 BP for his own production. But, if the CW was reduced to India & Canada, and only had those 4 factories, his total production would be 5 BP and he could only lend 5 BP, and in this case, he would only be able to lend 3 BP from one of those countries, and 2 BP from the other, and it would be his choice to decide which one lends 3 BP.

c92nichj -> RE: Rules Clarification List (2/14/2007 6:51:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: ORIGINAL: Jimm quote: ORIGINAL: c92nichj Where is Build points produced? and can be lendleased from. I see two options: A) Production points are produced at the factory but then all PP are summed up and a production multiplier is applied to the total, all BP's arrive in the Capital. B) BP's appear at the factories. This gives a problem with rounding, assume CW has production multiplier 1.25. 2 factories in india times 1.25 leaves 2.5 BP >>3BP 2 factories in Canada times 1.25 leaves 2.5 BP >>3 BP So four factories gives 6BP? or do they produce 5BP? is it in india or Canada that you get 3BP's? This is important when it comes to lendlease of BP's to for example FF or Russia from Indian/Canadian/Australian factories, to reduce need of convoys. Basically, A. Each resource you transport to a factory produces one production point. You then total up, and apply the production multiple to arrive at your BPs. I agree with Jimm here too. About Lend Lease, I think that in your example, the CW can choose to lend 3 BP from his 2 factories of India (with his PM of 1.25, and also to lend 3 BP from his 2 factories of Canada. Let's say he had a total of 22 PP produced by all his factories, what does matter is that the total of his produced BP is 28 (22 x 1.25 = 27.5). That mean that he will be left with 22 BP for his own production. But, if the CW was reduced to India & Canada, and only had those 4 factories, his total production would be 5 BP and he could only lend 5 BP, and in this case, he would only be able to lend 3 BP from one of those countries, and 2 BP from the other, and it would be his choice to decide which one lends 3 BP. I don't think this is how it works in the old CWIF, where all lendlease have to originate from London in the CW case. There is nothing in the rules that state that buildpoints appear at factories or from where you have to ship lendlease. For instance you do not need to ship build points from say Manchuria to build units in japan, the production points are just added up and multiplied to get buildpoints to spend.

coregames -> RE: Rules Clarification List (2/15/2007 2:51:46 AM)
This may sound silly, but someone in our current game is under the impression that, in a naval combat with only planes involved, an air-to-air combat can still occur. I tried to tell him that without ships to target, there can be no bombing mission to escort. The rules are a little ambiguous here, but unless I have been playing WiF wrong for the last 16 years, air-to-air combat can only occur when the bombers have a target. According to 11.5.7: 'Determine the type of naval combat you will fight this round. A naval air combat involves each side’s aircraft fighting each other, then attacking the opposing ships or SUBs.'. This does not say, '...attacking the opposing ships or SUBs if there are any', but my friend was very upset when I tried to explain this semantic point. This is probably just me wasting everyone's time, but a clarification would be helpful for his sake, as well as mine. Thanks :)

Ullern -> RE: Rules Clarification List (2/15/2007 3:07:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: coregames This may sound silly, but someone in our current game is under the impression that, in a naval combat with only planes involved, an air-to-air combat can still occur. I tried to tell him that without ships to target, there can be no bombing mission to escort. The rules are a little ambiguous here, but unless I have been playing WiF wrong for the last 16 years, air-to-air combat can only occur when the bombers have a target. According to 11.5.7: 'Determine the type of naval combat you will fight this round. A naval air combat involves each side’s aircraft fighting each other, then attacking the opposing ships or SUBs.'. This does not say, '...attacking the opposing ships or SUBs if there are any', but my friend was very upset when I tried to explain this semantic point. This is probably just me wasting everyone's time, but a clarification would be helpful for his sake, as well as mine. Thanks :) oohh. You put a lot of weight in here with 16 years. I was 14 with my first game, that would be 1990, so soon 17 years then. (Yes I actually match you.) And we've always allowed it! ullern

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Rules Clarification List (2/15/2007 4:39:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: coregames This may sound silly, but someone in our current game is under the impression that, in a naval combat with only planes involved, an air-to-air combat can still occur. I tried to tell him that without ships to target, there can be no bombing mission to escort. The rules are a little ambiguous here, but unless I have been playing WiF wrong for the last 16 years, air-to-air combat can only occur when the bombers have a target. According to 11.5.7: 'Determine the type of naval combat you will fight this round. A naval air combat involves each side’s aircraft fighting each other, then attacking the opposing ships or SUBs.'. This does not say, '...attacking the opposing ships or SUBs if there are any', but my friend was very upset when I tried to explain this semantic point. This is probably just me wasting everyone's time, but a clarification would be helpful for his sake, as well as mine. Thanks :) I agree with you that if there are no ships in the naval combat, then there is no naval combat. The key word here is 'naval', with a clear implication of there being a navy present. If there are ships in the sea area but they are not included as part of the combat (i.e., in a sea section not included), then they are not fighting and there is no reason for the air planes to be flying. More or less the same thing you said.

lomyrin -> RE: Rules Clarification List (2/15/2007 6:55:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: coregames This may sound silly, but someone in our current game is under the impression that, in a naval combat with only planes involved, an air-to-air combat can still occur. I tried to tell him that without ships to target, there can be no bombing mission to escort. The rules are a little ambiguous here, but unless I have been playing WiF wrong for the last 16 years, air-to-air combat can only occur when the bombers have a target. According to 11.5.7: 'Determine the type of naval combat you will fight this round. A naval air combat involves each side’s aircraft fighting each other, then attacking the opposing ships or SUBs.'. This does not say, '...attacking the opposing ships or SUBs if there are any', but my friend was very upset when I tried to explain this semantic point. This is probably just me wasting everyone's time, but a clarification would be helpful for his sake, as well as mine. Thanks :) I agree with you that if there are no ships in the naval combat, then there is no naval combat. The key word here is 'naval', with a clear implication of there being a navy present. If there are ships in the sea area but they are not included as part of the combat (i.e., in a sea section not included), then they are not fighting and there is no reason for the air planes to be flying. More or less the same thing you said. It is quite possible for the Allies to leave planes at sea at an end of turn and for the Axis to fly planes of theirs to that sea area during a combined or naval action the next turn providing the weather allows flights. This can be true even when there are no ships in that sea area. These actions could be just to have control of a sea area, very important for intercept purposes as an example. The two side having planes in the sea area during one side's combined or naval action allows the active player to search and for the inactive player to initiate a search if the active player added planes to the area in this impulse. Intercept flights can then be performed by both sides and a search will result in an air to air battle if they are found. This is true regardless of any ships in the area or not. As long as there are fighters present a battle will be fought. If the only planes present are bombers there will not be a fight. Checking with CWiF this also holds true in that game program. Lars

Froonp -> RE: Rules Clarification List (2/15/2007 7:34:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: coregames This may sound silly, but someone in our current game is under the impression that, in a naval combat with only planes involved, an air-to-air combat can still occur. I tried to tell him that without ships to target, there can be no bombing mission to escort. The rules are a little ambiguous here, but unless I have been playing WiF wrong for the last 16 years, air-to-air combat can only occur when the bombers have a target. According to 11.5.7: 'Determine the type of naval combat you will fight this round. A naval air combat involves each side’s aircraft fighting each other, then attacking the opposing ships or SUBs.'. This does not say, '...attacking the opposing ships or SUBs if there are any', but my friend was very upset when I tried to explain this semantic point. Whatever the counters present, any type of naval combat can still occur, provided a side pays the surprise points necessary to choose it. i.e. there can be a sub combat chosen without convoys, an air combat chosen without planes, etc... Sure, this kind of choice leads to "no combat" i nreality, and a new search roll. If there are only planes, why would an air to air combat not occur ? Planes just fight, and there is nothing to bomb. Both sides patrols just fight each other.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.078125