RE: US entry question (Full Version)

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



Message


Orm -> RE: US entry question (8/4/2009 9:56:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Changing the game isn't necessary. What is necessary is receiving clarifications on the following:

1. Should the Netherlands minors follow the disposition of which one became the Dutch home country (meaning one roll, not two, under Admin Groups).
2. If the Dutch home country became France does it follow that it would be Vichy or Free French upon Vichyfication? If Vichy, players could guarantee a Vichy NEI. If FF, players could guarantee a FF NEI. That is; along with the assumption the Dutch minors follow the government-in-exile and don't roll separately.
3. Does a neutral Vichy NEI give 2 oil to the CW because of the FAQ question Micheljq quoted in post #73 and/or because the Netherlands became neutral again?
4. Is there any possibility that a Vichy NEI would ignore the Oil Embargo?

IMO RAW already answers #1 and #4 both as 'No' although it may not have been written anticipating this development. IMO #2 and #3 need clarification, so why not go for all four.


3) No. Once Netherlands enters war it is no longer neutral and then the trade agreement with CW is cancelled. There is no mention in the rules that Netherlands are forced into a new trade agreement if they are once again neutral. Note that the rule say that the trade agreement continue untill the the "event" that is specified below.

Cut from.
5.1 Trade agreements
Trade agreements are agreements automatically in place between countries at the start of each game. They continue until either country involved in the trade agreement is completely conquered or as specified below.
Netherlands
A neutral Netherlands must supply the CW with all its remaining oil.

4) Harry has already answered this question in FAQ.
Q5.1-1 5.1 Are Trade Agreements cancelled upon
(a) Incomplete Conquest?
(b) Complete Conquest?
(c) Vichyfication?
A: (a) No
(b) yes
(c) no. Date 05/07/2007

EDIT: Note that all the trade agreements for the minor countries are cancelled when the minor in question enters war except the agreement between Japan and Netherlands.




paulderynck -> RE: US entry question (8/4/2009 10:16:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Changing the game isn't necessary. What is necessary is receiving clarifications on the following:

1. Should the Netherlands minors follow the disposition of which one became the Dutch home country (meaning one roll, not two, under Admin Groups).
2. If the Dutch home country became France does it follow that it would be Vichy or Free French upon Vichyfication? If Vichy, players could guarantee a Vichy NEI. If FF, players could guarantee a FF NEI. That is; along with the assumption the Dutch minors follow the government-in-exile and don't roll separately.
3. Does a neutral Vichy NEI give 2 oil to the CW because of the FAQ question Micheljq quoted in post #73 and/or because the Netherlands became neutral again?
4. Is there any possibility that a Vichy NEI would ignore the Oil Embargo?

IMO RAW already answers #1 and #4 both as 'No' although it may not have been written anticipating this development. IMO #2 and #3 need clarification, so why not go for all four.


3) No. Once Netherlands enters war it is no longer neutral and then the trade agreement with CW is cancelled. There is no mention in the rules that Netherlands are forced into a new trade agreement if they are once again neutral. Note that the rule say that the trade agreement continue untill the the "event" that is specified below.

Cut from.
5.1 Trade agreements
Trade agreements are agreements automatically in place between countries at the start of each game. They continue until either country involved in the trade agreement is completely conquered or as specified below.
Netherlands
A neutral Netherlands must supply the CW with all its remaining oil.

4) Harry has already answered this question in FAQ.
Q5.1-1 5.1 Are Trade Agreements cancelled upon
(a) Incomplete Conquest?
(b) Complete Conquest?
(c) Vichyfication?
A: (a) No
(b) yes
(c) no. Date 05/07/2007

EDIT: Note that all the trade agreements for the minor countries are cancelled when the minor in question enters war except the agreement between Japan and Netherlands.

Like Obermeister I hope we see an inclusive answer from Harry. How can we be positive that a neutral Vichy controlling the Netherlands home country would not make the Netherlands neutral again? All RAW says is: "A neutral Netherlands must supply the CW with all its remaining oil." and "Trade agreements... continue until either country involved in the trade agreement is completely conquered or as specified..."

Indeed from the FAQ, if a trade agreement is not cancelled by incomplete conquest or Vichyfication, then doesn't that promote the view that a once again neutral Netherlands must resume sending the oil? I'm not saying it does or does not, I'm saying it's open to question.




Orm -> RE: US entry question (8/4/2009 10:49:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Changing the game isn't necessary. What is necessary is receiving clarifications on the following:

1. Should the Netherlands minors follow the disposition of which one became the Dutch home country (meaning one roll, not two, under Admin Groups).
2. If the Dutch home country became France does it follow that it would be Vichy or Free French upon Vichyfication? If Vichy, players could guarantee a Vichy NEI. If FF, players could guarantee a FF NEI. That is; along with the assumption the Dutch minors follow the government-in-exile and don't roll separately.
3. Does a neutral Vichy NEI give 2 oil to the CW because of the FAQ question Micheljq quoted in post #73 and/or because the Netherlands became neutral again?
4. Is there any possibility that a Vichy NEI would ignore the Oil Embargo?

IMO RAW already answers #1 and #4 both as 'No' although it may not have been written anticipating this development. IMO #2 and #3 need clarification, so why not go for all four.


3) No. Once Netherlands enters war it is no longer neutral and then the trade agreement with CW is cancelled. There is no mention in the rules that Netherlands are forced into a new trade agreement if they are once again neutral. Note that the rule say that the trade agreement continue untill the the "event" that is specified below.

Cut from.
5.1 Trade agreements
Trade agreements are agreements automatically in place between countries at the start of each game. They continue until either country involved in the trade agreement is completely conquered or as specified below.
Netherlands
A neutral Netherlands must supply the CW with all its remaining oil.

4) Harry has already answered this question in FAQ.
Q5.1-1 5.1 Are Trade Agreements cancelled upon
(a) Incomplete Conquest?
(b) Complete Conquest?
(c) Vichyfication?
A: (a) No
(b) yes
(c) no. Date 05/07/2007

EDIT: Note that all the trade agreements for the minor countries are cancelled when the minor in question enters war except the agreement between Japan and Netherlands.

Like Obermeister I hope we see an inclusive answer from Harry. How can we be positive that a neutral Vichy controlling the Netherlands home country would not make the Netherlands neutral again? All RAW says is: "A neutral Netherlands must supply the CW with all its remaining oil." and "Trade agreements... continue until either country involved in the trade agreement is completely conquered or as specified..."

Indeed from the FAQ, if a trade agreement is not cancelled by incomplete conquest or Vichyfication, then doesn't that promote the view that a once again neutral Netherlands must resume sending the oil? I'm not saying it does or does not, I'm saying it's open to question.


I have no trouble with having Harry answer this question. But if he does not...

My point is that the rule says the trade agreement continues untill a specified event happens. After that event has happened the trade agreement is no longer in effect. Then it matters not if Netherlands once more becomes neutral or not. There is no rule for a forced new trade agreement.




Extraneous -> RE: US entry question (8/5/2009 1:37:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

No, this is already covered under Incomplete Conquest: "Remove from the game all the conquered home county’s land and aircraft units that are in the conquered home country. Remove from the game all of its land and aircraft units not on the map."

What you quoted was under the heading "French Units" although it is questionable then why the wording "French controlled" is used. But the only time this would matter is if the Netherlands is DoW'd and conquered in the same turn as France is Vichied. Conquest occurs before Vichy in the Sequence of Play so all the Netherlands units on the spiral and in the French force pool are gone. This would not apply to the NEI Militia if it were sitting on the spiral for next turn however, since NEI is not conquered. The wording you quoted would say move it to Metropolitan Vichy France, but Militia units can only be placed in their named city.


Yes, it is covered under Incomplete Conquest.

If the unit is not in the Netherlands at the time of Incomplete Conquest:

If a unit’s original home country is conquered and not yet liberated, remove it from the game if it is destroyed while out of supply. Roll a die if it is destroyed in supply ~ remove it from the game on a ‘5’ or less; otherwise return it to the force pools.

A primary supply source for a unit is:
• any friendly city in the unit’s unconquered home country; or
• for a Commonwealth unit, any friendly city in another unconquered Commonwealth home country; or
• any friendly city in an unconquered home country of a major power the unit co-operates with (see 18.1).

3. Units from a minor country co-operate with units from its controlling major power or minor country.


And it’s in the CRT too.

S - Remove remaining defending units that could retreat. They arrive as reinforcements in the next game turn. Destroy units that cannot retreat




paulderynck -> RE: US entry question (8/5/2009 4:22:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

Yes, it is covered under Incomplete Conquest.

If the unit is not in the Netherlands at the time of Incomplete Conquest:

If a unit’s original home country is conquered and not yet liberated, remove it from the game if it is destroyed while out of supply. Roll a die if it is destroyed in supply ~ remove it from the game on a ‘5’ or less; otherwise return it to the force pools.

A primary supply source for a unit is:
• any friendly city in the unit’s unconquered home country; or
• for a Commonwealth unit, any friendly city in another unconquered Commonwealth home country; or
• any friendly city in an unconquered home country of a major power the unit co-operates with (see 18.1).

3. Units from a minor country co-operate with units from its controlling major power or minor country.


And it’s in the CRT too.

S - Remove remaining defending units that could retreat. They arrive as reinforcements in the next game turn. Destroy units that cannot retreat


I am sorry. I have no idea what point you are trying to make.




Extraneous -> RE: US entry question (8/5/2009 4:34:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck


quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

Yes, it is covered under Incomplete Conquest.

If the unit is not in the Netherlands at the time of Incomplete Conquest:

If a unit’s original home country is conquered and not yet liberated, remove it from the game if it is destroyed while out of supply. Roll a die if it is destroyed in supply ~ remove it from the game on a ‘5’ or less; otherwise return it to the force pools.

A primary supply source for a unit is:
• any friendly city in the unit’s unconquered home country; or
• for a Commonwealth unit, any friendly city in another unconquered Commonwealth home country; or
• any friendly city in an unconquered home country of a major power the unit co-operates with (see 18.1).

3. Units from a minor country co-operate with units from its controlling major power or minor country.


And it’s in the CRT too.

S - Remove remaining defending units that could retreat. They arrive as reinforcements in the next game turn. Destroy units that cannot retreat


I am sorry. I have no idea what point you are trying to make.



The point I'm making is that there could still be Netherlands units available to be placed in Metropolitan Vichy France even though the Netherlands has been Incompletely Conquered.




paulderynck -> RE: US entry question (8/5/2009 4:58:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck


quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

Yes, it is covered under Incomplete Conquest.

If the unit is not in the Netherlands at the time of Incomplete Conquest:

If a unit’s original home country is conquered and not yet liberated, remove it from the game if it is destroyed while out of supply. Roll a die if it is destroyed in supply ~ remove it from the game on a ‘5’ or less; otherwise return it to the force pools.

A primary supply source for a unit is:
• any friendly city in the unit’s unconquered home country; or
• for a Commonwealth unit, any friendly city in another unconquered Commonwealth home country; or
• any friendly city in an unconquered home country of a major power the unit co-operates with (see 18.1).

3. Units from a minor country co-operate with units from its controlling major power or minor country.


And it’s in the CRT too.

S - Remove remaining defending units that could retreat. They arrive as reinforcements in the next game turn. Destroy units that cannot retreat


I am sorry. I have no idea what point you are trying to make.



The point I'm making is that there could still be Netherlands units available to be placed in Metropolitan Vichy France even though the Netherlands has been Incompletely Conquered.

No. If they were spiralled in the turn of Vichyfication they are removed from the game in the Conquest step. They are gone before Vichy is declared. Same thing if they are in the French force pool. As I mentioned earlier the only unit that is in an oddball state is the NEI Militia and that can only happen if the Netherlands is DoW'd and conquered and Vichy is declared all in the same turn. If that ever happens in one of our games and we can't agree on what to do with the NEI Militia, we'll ask Harry then.

May I ask if you have ever played WiFFE ?




Extraneous -> RE: US entry question (8/5/2009 6:56:46 AM)

"Remove from the game all the conquered home county’s land and aircraft units that are in the conquered home country.

Remove from the game all of its land and aircraft units not on the map."


And what happens if the units were not in the Netherlands?


"All other units remain where they are."


Reinforcement Stage

This is the stage when new units and markers you built in earlier game turns will arrive on the map.


Shattered units arrive as reinforcements the same as a new unit. They would be on the production sprial.





Froonp -> RE: US entry question (8/5/2009 6:58:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous
Remove from the game all of its land and aircraft units not on the map."

Construction circle is "not on the map", this is what Paul is saying IMO.




Extraneous -> RE: US entry question (8/5/2009 7:20:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

May I ask if you have ever played WiFFE ?



Yes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp


quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous
Remove from the game all of its land and aircraft units not on the map."

Construction circle is "not on the map", this is what Paul is saying IMO.


I not disagreeing with that at all.


My point is:

If the units were not in their minor country at the time of Incomplete Conquest and shattered the turn before Vichy France is installed

Or if the minor country is not conqured and its units were in the production circle when Vichy France is installed.


They would be on the production circle to be moved to Metropolitan Vichy France.




Orm -> RE: US entry question (8/5/2009 8:12:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

May I ask if you have ever played WiFFE ?



Yes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp


quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous
Remove from the game all of its land and aircraft units not on the map."

Construction circle is "not on the map", this is what Paul is saying IMO.


I not disagreeing with that at all.


My point is if the units were not in the Netherlands at the time of Incomplete Conquest and shattered the turn before Vichy France is installed.

They would be on the production circle to be moved to Metropolitan Vichy France.



This is solved when one looks on the order things happens. During step E7.1 Conquest the minor is incompletely conquered and the shattered units on the production spiral is removed.

As I understand it the only way Vichy can get a minor country land unit is that it is outside of the minors home country before it is incompletely conquered.

Interesting is that a minor that goes Vichy can have its units Free French.

Cut from: 3.1 Sequence of play (my bolding)
E. END OF TURN STAGE
Both sides perform these steps in this order:
E1 Partisans
E2 US entry
E3 Return to base
E4 Final reorganisation
E5 Production
E6 Intelligence (option 63)
E7 Peace
E7.1 Conquest
E7.2 Allied minor support
E7.3 Mutual peace
E7.4 Vichy declaration
E7.5 Liberation
E7.6 Surrender




micheljq -> RE: US entry question (8/5/2009 2:58:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

My point is that the rule says the trade agreement continues untill a specified event happens. After that event has happened the trade agreement is no longer in effect. Then it matters not if Netherlands once more becomes neutral or not. There is no rule for a forced new trade agreement.


I agree with you, Japan should continue to receive the 2 oil from NEI. It's half the oil that Japan can receive before going to war to USA.

About precedent posts from other people :

- Having USA enter war early because Japan would be forced to DOW France or another major power early to get the NEI oil, is not in the spirit of the game according to me.
- Having Germany or Italy collapse Vichy to help Japan get NEI oil is not logical either and this is a big US entry hit. Normally Axis collapse Vichy after USA entered war or when they want to invade Spain/Gibraltar. That would only advantage the allies, looks gamey to me.
- Having a Japan in 1940-41 not being able to get the 2 NEI oil is a serious matter because it will affect Japan's buildup on the long run. Japan will be much weaker in 1942 against USA and it could run out of oil earlier, not acceptable either and it's a major unbalancing of the game, too easy for USA to chrush Japan (and quite boring). Japan should as well retire his troops from China make peace, send flowers to China and USA, sends excuses to them, scrap the Yamato and Mushashi BBs and make a merchant fleet. [:)]

Edit : There are the Synth oil factories, but Japan has only one available at start, cost 8BP and will produce only from SO40 onward if built on first turn. The other one available in 1941, means it will only produces from 1942 onward. This is great for Japan to build them but that would not replace the 2 NEI oil.




Extraneous -> RE: US entry question (8/5/2009 5:09:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

This is solved when one looks on the order things happens. During step E7.1 Conquest the minor is incompletely conquered and the shattered units on the production spiral is removed.

As I understand it the only way Vichy can get a minor country land unit is that it is outside of the minors home country before it is incompletely conquered.

Interesting is that a minor that goes Vichy can have its units Free French.

Cut from: 3.1 Sequence of play (my bolding)
E. END OF TURN STAGE
Both sides perform these steps in this order:
E1 Partisans
E2 US entry
E3 Return to base
E4 Final reorganisation
E5 Production
E6 Intelligence (option 63)
E7 Peace
E7.1 Conquest
E7.2 Allied minor support
E7.3 Mutual peace
E7.4 Vichy declaration
E7.5 Liberation
E7.6 Surrender




quote:

SITUATION #1:

THE MAY-JUNE TURN:

A MINOR COUNTRY IS INCOMPLETELY CONQUERED.

"Remove from the game all the conquered home county’s land and aircraft units that are in the conquered home country.

Remove from the game all of its land and aircraft units not on the map." <= THIS INCLUDES THE PRODUCTION SPRIAL.


And what happens if the units were not in the Incompletely Conquered minor country?


"All other units remain where they are."


THE JULY-AUGUST TURN:

THE MINOR COUNTRY HAS A UNIT SHATTERED THAT WAS OUTSIDE THE CONQUERED HOME COUNTRY AT THE TIME OF INCOMPLETE CONQUEST.

VICHY IS INSTALLED AT THE END THE TURN.

THE SHATTERED MINOR COUNTRY UNIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A REINFORCEMENT DURRING THE REINFORCEMENT STAGE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER TURN.

INSTEAD IT IS MOVED TO METROPOLITAN VICHY FRANCE WHEN VICHY IS INSTALLED.




quote:

SITUATION #2:

A DIFERENT MINOR COUNTRY HAS BEEN DOWed BY GERMANY, IS UNCONQURED, AND IS ALIGNED/CONTROLLED BY FRANCE.

VICHY IS INSTALLED AT THE END THE TURN.

THE MINOR COUNTRY SHOULD HAVE HAD REINFORCEMENTS DURRING THE REINFORCEMENT STAGE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE NEXT TURN.

INSTEAD THEY ARE MOVED TO METROPOLITAN VICHY FRANCE WHEN VICHY IS INSTALLED.







obermeister -> RE: US entry question (8/5/2009 5:57:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: micheljq

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

My point is that the rule says the trade agreement continues untill a specified event happens. After that event has happened the trade agreement is no longer in effect. Then it matters not if Netherlands once more becomes neutral or not. There is no rule for a forced new trade agreement.


I agree with you, Japan should continue to receive the 2 oil from NEI. It's half the oil that Japan can receive before going to war to USA.

About precedent posts from other people :

- Having USA enter war early because Japan would be forced to DOW France or another major power early to get the NEI oil, is not in the spirit of the game according to me.
- Having Germany or Italy collapse Vichy to help Japan get NEI oil is not logical either and this is a big US entry hit. Normally Axis collapse Vichy after USA entered war or when they want to invade Spain/Gibraltar. That would only advantage the allies, looks gamey to me.
- Having a Japan in 1940-41 not being able to get the 2 NEI oil is a serious matter because it will affect Japan's buildup on the long run. Japan will be much weaker in 1942 against USA and it could run out of oil earlier, not acceptable either and it's a major unbalancing of the game, too easy for USA to chrush Japan (and quite boring). Japan should as well retire his troops from China make peace, send flowers to China and USA, sends excuses to them, scrap the Yamato and Mushashi BBs and make a merchant fleet. [:)]

Edit : There are the Synth oil factories, but Japan has only one available at start, cost 8BP and will produce only from SO40 onward if built on first turn. The other one available in 1941, means it will only produces from 1942 onward. This is great for Japan to build them but that would not replace the 2 NEI oil.



Well, the chances of the US getting off the oil embargo in 1940 is pretty low, unless they've been really lucky on chit draws and the axis has been especially aggressive. Once the oil embargo hits the table it's still pretty likely that Japan will go to war with the US within a few turns, regardless of this Vichy NEI gambit. I agree that this trick may "not be in the spirit of the game", but that probably goes for the "no USA in Europe" gambit too. I feel however, that it's up to the designer to patch these issues if they agree that they are "not in the spirit of the game". Right now there is nothing in the rules that says the oil embargo is inneffective vs. a vichy NEI, or anything that allows Japan to occupy a Vichy NEI. So the only way out of this is to collapse Vichy (and pay USE hit) and Japan DCW france (and pay USE hit). I agree this is goofy, but not nearly as much so as the no USA in Europe strategy. Plus it's not something the allies can really plan on from the get-go.




micheljq -> RE: US entry question (8/5/2009 6:18:45 PM)

I am not sure about the comparison with the no USA gambit strategy, it's something done on purpose by the allies, I have no issue with that.

I was not speaking about the USA oil embargo either, I have no issue with this. If they have the US entry level to do it, fine with them.

It was something about France or CW aligning Netherlands and people claims about having NEI deny the 2 oil it sends to Japan.

Edit: or maybe I did misread, would not be the first time. [sm=innocent0009.gif]




lavisj -> RE: US entry question (8/5/2009 7:39:49 PM)

The one thing not to do with the NEI though is what happened in our last local game.
An agreement was made between Germany and Japan not to DoW the Netherlands until Japan was ready to attack so that it would benefit from a surprise impulse on it while still empty, and also to deny the 10CP and the TRS to the CW through 1940 and 1941.
So they attacked Netherlands in ND41. The problem is that Japan had attacked Russia in MJ and taken Vladivostock and was therefore at peace with Russia with a neutrality pact un place.
So Netherland go aligned to USSR and Japan was deprived of its oil for good.

Jerome




obermeister -> RE: US entry question (8/5/2009 7:43:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lavisj

The one thing not to do with the NEI though is what happened in our last local game.
An agreement was made between Germany and Japan not to DoW the Netherlands until Japan was ready to attack so that it would benefit from a surprise impulse on it while still empty, and also to deny the 10CP and the TRS to the CW through 1940 and 1941.
So they attacked Netherlands in ND41. The problem is that Japan had attacked Russia in MJ and taken Vladivostock and was therefore at peace with Russia with a neutrality pact un place.
So Netherland go aligned to USSR and Japan was deprived of its oil for good.

Jerome



Ooooh! That's dirty pool! I like it!




obermeister -> RE: US entry question (8/5/2009 7:48:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: micheljq

I am not sure about the comparison with the no USA gambit strategy, it's something done on purpose by the allies, I have no issue with that.

I was not speaking about the USA oil embargo either, I have no issue with this. If they have the US entry level to do it, fine with them.

It was something about France or CW aligning Netherlands and people claims about having NEI deny the 2 oil it sends to Japan.

Edit: or maybe I did misread, would not be the first time. [sm=innocent0009.gif]


There has been some talk about Japan being denined pre-embargo from getting NEI oil. But the trade agreement rules seem to rule this out - although it took several posts for that conclusion to be reached. Japan should get NEI oil until war or embargo.

The only issue left has to do with Vichy NEI: embargoes, and Japan being able to get into NEI when it's vichy.




sajbalk -> RE: US entry question (8/5/2009 8:00:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: obermeister


quote:

ORIGINAL: micheljq

I am not sure about the comparison with the no USA gambit strategy, it's something done on purpose by the allies, I have no issue with that.

I was not speaking about the USA oil embargo either, I have no issue with this. If they have the US entry level to do it, fine with them.

It was something about France or CW aligning Netherlands and people claims about having NEI deny the 2 oil it sends to Japan.

Edit: or maybe I did misread, would not be the first time. [sm=innocent0009.gif]


There has been some talk about Japan being denined pre-embargo from getting NEI oil. But the trade agreement rules seem to rule this out - although it took several posts for that conclusion to be reached. Japan should get NEI oil until war or embargo.

The only issue left has to do with Vichy NEI: embargoes, and Japan being able to get into NEI when it's vichy.


There are, I think, a few more: US entry option CW reinforces NEI ... what if it is Vichy?
US oil embargo applicable to Vichy NEI? To active Vichy NEI? To hostile Vichy NEI?





paulderynck -> RE: US entry question (8/5/2009 8:06:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lavisj

The one thing not to do with the NEI though is what happened in our last local game.
An agreement was made between Germany and Japan not to DoW the Netherlands until Japan was ready to attack so that it would benefit from a surprise impulse on it while still empty, and also to deny the 10CP and the TRS to the CW through 1940 and 1941.
So they attacked Netherlands in ND41. The problem is that Japan had attacked Russia in MJ and taken Vladivostock and was therefore at peace with Russia with a neutrality pact un place.
So Netherland go aligned to USSR and Japan was deprived of its oil for good.

Jerome

Beautiful! Kudos to the Allied players. Umm, assuming Russia was at war with Germany because otherwise, the only active Allied country would be the CW and no one else could align the Netherlands.




paulderynck -> RE: US entry question (8/5/2009 8:34:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: obermeister


quote:

ORIGINAL: micheljq

I am not sure about the comparison with the no USA gambit strategy, it's something done on purpose by the allies, I have no issue with that.

I was not speaking about the USA oil embargo either, I have no issue with this. If they have the US entry level to do it, fine with them.

It was something about France or CW aligning Netherlands and people claims about having NEI deny the 2 oil it sends to Japan.

Edit: or maybe I did misread, would not be the first time. [sm=innocent0009.gif]



There has been some talk about Japan being denined pre-embargo from getting NEI oil. But the trade agreement rules seem to rule this out - although it took several posts for that conclusion to be reached. Japan should get NEI oil until war or embargo.

The only issue left has to do with Vichy NEI: embargoes, and Japan being able to get into NEI when it's vichy.


Issue 1: Vichyfication process - is it by minor country with 2 rolls for two Admin Groups or by where the Dutch home country (gov't-in-exile) is located and the Dutch minors will follow? If not the latter then NEI and Dutch Guyana might be split between Vichy and FF.

Issue 2: Vichyfication process - if by Dutch home country location, what happens if the Allies just choose France as the new Dutch Home country? Does it follow that it would go Vichy? - why not FF? the real Dutch kept fighting. Either way it means the Allied side is guaranteed of an outcome if they choose France as the new Dutch Home country when the Netherlands is incompletely conquered.

Issue 3: Trade Agreements - If there is a neutral Vichy NEI, does it keep 2 oil for itself or must it send 2 oil to the CW per the Trade Agreement that says a neutral Netherlands sends the rest of the NEI oil to the CW? That agreement does not have a "continues until" clause (Edit:except that it continues until either the Netherlands or the CW are completely conquered). The oil to Japan does have a "continues until" clause.

Issue 4: Should there be a modification to the rule that says the Oil Embargo cuts off the oil to Japan no matter what? That is RAW but...

Issue 5: Should there be a modification to the rule that says Japan can do nothing about a Vichy NEI unless it is collapsed? That is RAW but...

Issue 6: Given a Vichy NEI, how does US Entry Option 43 operate?

I don't think current RAW provides answers to Issues 1, 2 and 3 and if they are answered, then the impact of Issues 4, 5 and 6 can be examined.





sajbalk -> RE: US entry question (8/5/2009 9:08:35 PM)


[/quote]

Issue 1: Vichyfication process - is it by minor country with 2 rolls for two Admin Groups or by where the Dutch home country (gov't-in-exile) is located and the Dutch minors will follow? If not the latter then NEI and Dutch Guyana might be split between Vichy and FF.


Issue 2: Vichyfication process - if by Dutch home country location, what happens if the Allies just choose France as the new Dutch Home country? Does it follow that it would go Vichy? - why not FF? the real Dutch kept fighting. Either way it means the Allied side is guaranteed of an outcome if they choose France as the new Dutch Home country when the Netherlands is incompletely conquered.

Issue 3: Trade Agreements - If there is a neutral Vichy NEI, does it keep 2 oil for itself or must it send 2 oil to the CW per the Trade Agreement that says a neutral Netherlands sends the rest of the NEI oil to the CW? That agreement does not have a "continues until" clause (Edit:except that it continues until either the Netherlands or the CW are completely conquered). The oil to Japan does have a "continues until" clause.

Issue 4: Should there be a modification to the rule that says the Oil Embargo cuts off the oil to Japan no matter what? That is RAW but...

Issue 5: Should there be a modification to the rule that says Japan can do nothing about a Vichy NEI unless it is collapsed? That is RAW but...

Issue 6: Given a Vichy NEI, how does US Entry Option 43 operate?

I don't think current RAW provides answers to Issues 1, 2 and 3 and if they are answered, then the impact of Issues 4, 5 and 6 can be examined.


[/quote]

That encompasses things. Fixes are, to me, to delete Vichy NEI from any oil embargo and reinforcement for USE AND/OR to add USE option of Japan occupies Vichy NEI, for, say, 18.






obermeister -> RE: US entry question (8/5/2009 9:32:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sajbalk
That encompasses things. Fixes are, to me, to delete Vichy NEI from any oil embargo and reinforcement for USE AND/OR to add USE option of Japan occupies Vichy NEI, for, say, 18.


Note: There was something in an optional rule from Leaders in Flames (I think) that allowed Japan to occupy NEI given certain conditions. I'm not sure what the entry cost for this action is. See below:

quote:



(3.) Japan occupies New Caledonia or NEI – Japan controls New Caledonia or aligns NEI. This option may only be chosen against the NEI while the NEI is not providing any oil to Japan. This option may only be chosen against New Caledonia if it is controlled by Vichy France and French Indo-China is aligned to Japan. Furthermore, this option may not be chosen if the territory/minor it is targeted against has been guaranteed (US entry option 46).

Japan declares this during any Axis declaration of war step. Each country can be occupied separately. Move any land or air units in New Caledonia and/or NEI to the force pools. Vichy French Naval units rebase to the nearest Vichy port. All hexes in New Caledonia and/or NEI become Japanese controlled immediately.

If playing with Politics in Flames (Option 82), Japan may occupy the NEI only after a US oil embargo.

You may occupy New Caledonia as one US entry action, and the NEI as another, but this requires two rolls.





Froonp -> RE: US entry question (8/5/2009 9:34:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
Issue 1: Vichyfication process - is it by minor country with 2 rolls for two Admin Groups or by where the Dutch home country (gov't-in-exile) is located and the Dutch minors will follow? If not the latter then NEI and Dutch Guyana might be split between Vichy and FF.

Issue 2: Vichyfication process - if by Dutch home country location, what happens if the Allies just choose France as the new Dutch Home country? Does it follow that it would go Vichy? - why not FF? the real Dutch kept fighting. Either way it means the Allied side is guaranteed of an outcome if they choose France as the new Dutch Home country when the Netherlands is incompletely conquered.

Issue 3: Trade Agreements - If there is a neutral Vichy NEI, does it keep 2 oil for itself or must it send 2 oil to the CW per the Trade Agreement that says a neutral Netherlands sends the rest of the NEI oil to the CW? That agreement does not have a "continues until" clause (Edit:except that it continues until either the Netherlands or the CW are completely conquered). The oil to Japan does have a "continues until" clause.

Issue 4: Should there be a modification to the rule that says the Oil Embargo cuts off the oil to Japan no matter what? That is RAW but...

Issue 5: Should there be a modification to the rule that says Japan can do nothing about a Vichy NEI unless it is collapsed? That is RAW but...

Issue 6: Given a Vichy NEI, how does US Entry Option 43 operate?

I don't think current RAW provides answers to Issues 1, 2 and 3 and if they are answered, then the impact of Issues 4, 5 and 6 can be examined.

Thanks for summing that up Paul, I was getting lost in the arguments.
Could you submit this to Harry via the Rules Clarification list please ?

Now, about issue 4 above, I'm sorry I've not fully understood what the problem was. Could you explain it to me ? Why wouldn't the oil embargo cut the oil to Japan ? If NEI are Vichy, that option won't be played sooner than if the NEI are CW controlled, will it ?

About issue 5, this makes sense gamewise and I seem to remember an US Entry Action from Annual 1998 that was to get control of the NEI.
It was : Japan occupies New Caledonia or NEI (may only be chosen after Vichy government have been installed) 15
So why not reinstall it.

There were a handfull of interesting items in this US Entry Action / Option from Annual 1998.

Edit : After seeing obermeister's post, I wanted to add that the Annual 1998 was the one with Leaders in Flames




sajbalk -> RE: US entry question (8/5/2009 9:45:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Issue 4: Should there be a modification to the rule that says the Oil Embargo cuts off the oil to Japan no matter what? That is RAW but...



Now, about issue 4 above, I'm sorry I've not fully understood what the problem was. Could you explain it to me ? Why wouldn't the oil embargo cut the oil to Japan ? If NEI are Vichy, that option won't be played sooner than if the NEI are CW controlled, will it ?

About issue 5, this makes sense gamewise and I seem to remember an US Entry Action from Annual 1998 that was to get control of the NEI.
It was : Japan occupies New Caledonia or NEI (may only be chosen after Vichy government have been installed) 15
So why not reinstall it.



Reinstating the LiF options for Vichy NEI is a great idea, but I think the cost is too low. Japan would do this ASAP to control all 4 oil while avoiding the 1 per turn chit penalty of DOW on Netherlands.

As to issue (4), the issue is whether it should effect a Vichy NEI. How about an active Vichy NEI? How about an active and hostile Vichy NEI?






Froonp -> RE: US entry question (8/5/2009 9:56:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sajbalk
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
Issue 4: Should there be a modification to the rule that says the Oil Embargo cuts off the oil to Japan no matter what? That is RAW but...

Now, about issue 4 above, I'm sorry I've not fully understood what the problem was. Could you explain it to me ? Why wouldn't the oil embargo cut the oil to Japan ? If NEI are Vichy, that option won't be played sooner than if the NEI are CW controlled, will it ?

As to issue (4), the issue is whether it should effect a Vichy NEI. How about an active Vichy NEI? How about an active and hostile Vichy NEI?

Well, I believe that historicaly the USA could have had imposed this oil embargo to the NEI whoever controlled the NEI. After all, they imposed it on the NEI, while the Netherlands were under the German boot, so why would they not have imposed it to Vichy ?

So, from an historical point of view I think that the Oil Embargo is not gamey.




paulderynck -> RE: US entry question (8/5/2009 10:11:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: sajbalk
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
Issue 4: Should there be a modification to the rule that says the Oil Embargo cuts off the oil to Japan no matter what? That is RAW but...

Now, about issue 4 above, I'm sorry I've not fully understood what the problem was. Could you explain it to me ? Why wouldn't the oil embargo cut the oil to Japan ? If NEI are Vichy, that option won't be played sooner than if the NEI are CW controlled, will it ?

As to issue (4), the issue is whether it should effect a Vichy NEI. How about an active Vichy NEI? How about an active and hostile Vichy NEI?

Well, I believe that historicaly the USA could have had imposed this oil embargo to the NEI whoever controlled the NEI. After all, they imposed it on the NEI, while the Netherlands were under the German boot, so why would they not have imposed it to Vichy ?

So, from an historical point of view I think that the Oil Embargo is not gamey.

Steve beat me to it, but just to add -- the current rules do allow an active and hostile Vichy to lend resources. The issue of transitivity for majors and aligned minors enters the picture here. Are those resources controlled by Vichy or the entity of incompletely conquered Netherlands or both? This comes into consideration for Issue 3 as well.

I'm working on something for the clarification list...




obermeister -> RE: US entry question (8/5/2009 10:20:31 PM)

I'm curious about something...what is the clarification list?




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: US entry question (8/5/2009 10:26:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: obermeister

I'm curious about something...what is the clarification list?

~400 Q & A on WIF, with the A provided by Harry Rowland. Patrice and Paul have been heavily involved in that. I think it is available on-line somewhere.




obermeister -> RE: US entry question (8/5/2009 10:41:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: obermeister

I'm curious about something...what is the clarification list?

~400 Q & A on WIF, with the A provided by Harry Rowland. Patrice and Paul have been heavily involved in that. I think it is available on-line somewhere.


Is this "clarification list" also known as the WIF FAQ? I have seen the FAQ.




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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.40625