RE: Rules Clarification List

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Rules Clarification List

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Rules Clarification List

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Rules Clarification List - 11/22/2007 11:29:29 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Here is a question I've never thought of before. I was re-reading the Neutrality Pacts rules (9.5) to make up a fun solitaire game, and I noticed this:

"You may break a neutrality pact, any turn after the calendar year following its signing, provided you have...."

So with the main neutrality pact in the game being signed in August, 1939, does that mean you can't even break it until 1941?
The calendar year following its signing could be 1940. Or you could read it to mean that following it's signing, like the next day
or something I guess, the calendar year is 1939 of course, so on any turn after 1939 you can break it. Holy junior high school
sentence diagramming conundrum!

The calendar year following its signing is 1939. I'm not a native english speaker, and this is the only meaning I see here.

quote:

The part about "Double the defensive value of your units in the calendar year after the neutrality pact was made." pretty
much shows the intent, that you could break it the following calendar year (1940 for the German-Russian pact), or there is no point to the doubling.

That is how we have always played it but I could see someone reading it the other way.

There are always people to read things in the most bizarre way possible. Especially in the WiF FE community.

What they did wrong was to use both 'after' & 'following' which makes it look like you wait two years. Better would have been:
".. any turn after the calendar year in which the pact was signed, provided ...", or
".. any turn in a calendar year following the year in which the pact was signed, provided ..."

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 301

RE: Rules Clarification List - 11/23/2007 4:39:55 PM

brian brian

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

OK so I got everything spread out and dived in to some solitaire Global War WiF. And discovered an odd little situation I had never seen before either. Again I think I know how to work it out, and already did actually, but I'm just wondering how others would read it, and in this case I could see it causing a coding conflict inside a computer program...

Sep/Oct 39 - On Impulse 3, the weather roll is a 9, making impulses advance by 2. On Impulse 7, the Germans overrun all ports in Denmark. 2 Tankers and 3 CP were set up in Greenland. So far, pretty normal. Except the Germans roll a 1 and the turn ends before the CW can move the merchant shipping. Now Denmark is completely conquered. Greenland and Iceland, being territories (i.e. without their own capitals), become neutral. Any remaining naval units are controlled by the controlling major power, the CW in this case, but they are now in a 'neutral' hex. "Any naval units in an enemy controlled hex are now treated as if they are overrun", say the rules. But what do you do with units controlled by a Major Power now in a neutral hex?

Again this is mostly for Steve's benefit in case the programming has checks on friendly units being in hexes not controlled by that side...

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 302

RE: Rules Clarification List - 11/23/2007 4:42:37 PM

brian brian

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

p.s. this can also happen in Crete I think. Basically, somewhat new political entities are created in these cases.

(in reply to brian brian)

Post #: 303

RE: Rules Clarification List - 11/23/2007 7:01:56 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

OK so I got everything spread out and dived in to some solitaire Global War WiF. And discovered an odd little situation I had never seen before either. Again I think I know how to work it out, and already did actually, but I'm just wondering how others would read it, and in this case I could see it causing a coding conflict inside a computer program...

Sep/Oct 39 - On Impulse 3, the weather roll is a 9, making impulses advance by 2. On Impulse 7, the Germans overrun all ports in Denmark. 2 Tankers and 3 CP were set up in Greenland. So far, pretty normal. Except the Germans roll a 1 and the turn ends before the CW can move the merchant shipping. Now Denmark is completely conquered. Greenland and Iceland, being territories (i.e. without their own capitals), become neutral. Any remaining naval units are controlled by the controlling major power, the CW in this case, but they are now in a 'neutral' hex. "Any naval units in an enemy controlled hex are now treated as if they are overrun", say the rules. But what do you do with units controlled by a Major Power now in a neutral hex?

Again this is mostly for Steve's benefit in case the programming has checks on friendly units being in hexes not controlled by that side...

The Conquest 'phase' occurs during the end of turn and within that 'phase' are 'subphases', one of which is to perform forced naval rebases. In this regard it is handled the same way forced movement occurs during the establishment of Vichy. The presence of naval units in neutral ports warrants a forced naval rebase.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to brian brian)

Post #: 304

RE: Rules Clarification List - 11/25/2007 8:03:06 PM

ezzler

Posts: 863
Joined: 7/4/2004
Status: offline

I can't find the original thread on the problems of CV aircraft being too large for thier carriers and the rule on scrapping air units. Also I can't seem to find the aircraft scrap rules on ADG.
I may have remembered incorrectly but if an Aircraft is destroyed and the owner wishes to scrap this a/c , the owner has to scrap ALL of the same type.
EG a spit 1 is destroyed . to scrap it both Spitfire 1 counters need to be scrapped?
Can anyone help me on this rule..

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 305

RE: Rules Clarification List - 11/25/2007 8:14:47 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ezz

I can't find the original thread on the problems of CV aircraft� being too large for thier carriers and the rule on scrapping air units. Also I can't seem to find the aircraft scrap rules on ADG.
I may have remembered incorrectly but if an Aircraft is destroyed and the owner wishes to scrap this a/c , the owner has to scrap ALL of the same type.
EG a spit 1 is destroyed . to scrap it both Spitfire 1 counters need to be scrapped?
Can anyone help me on this rule..

This (scrap all of the same type) is a ghost of WiF past and this rule does not exist any more in Final Edition.

(in reply to ezzler)

Post #: 306

RE: Rules Clarification List - 11/26/2007 12:31:26 AM

ezzler

Posts: 863
Joined: 7/4/2004
Status: offline

That's good news.
Has the CV problem also been resolved Froonp ?

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 307

RE: Rules Clarification List - 11/26/2007 12:42:13 AM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ezz

That's good news.
Has the CV problem also been resolved Froonp ?

What is the "CV problem" ?

(in reply to ezzler)

Post #: 308

RE: Rules Clarification List - 11/26/2007 1:35:09 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: ezz

That's good news.
Has the CV problem also been resolved Froonp ?

What is the "CV problem" ?

As I recall this has to do with randomly drawing carrier air units and then not having enough that are small enough to fit on the given carriers. For example, drawing a 3 and two 2's carrier air units to fit on three carriers of size 2.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 309

RE: Rules Clarification List - 11/26/2007 2:41:04 AM

brian brian

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

This is a common question. You have to keep some of the CV planes you _could_ scrap, and then you should draw enough that fit on your CVs. It's a tricky balance. The best example is the CW at start...it helps to remember that they might not have enough pilots to staff all their CVs until 1940 possibly, and a few of the planes change classes then. But there is still only one Ark Royal...gets even trickier if that gets sunk. It is important for the CW to build out their CV plane pool by Nov/Dec at the latest, the new CV planes each year take a while to trickle down to the Courageous and Illustrious class CVs.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 310

RE: Rules Clarification List - 11/26/2007 3:08:48 AM

ezzler

Posts: 863
Joined: 7/4/2004
Status: offline

Yes exactly this. Rather than having to build the entire forcepool couldn't the 'size class' of some units be changed. Sorry i do not have specific examples , I just remember many times planes built for carriers that can't fit on the decks , obsolete aircraft in production just because the new ones are 'too good' to use.

(in reply to brian brian)

Post #: 311

RE: Rules Clarification List - 11/26/2007 10:44:40 AM

bredsjomagnus

Posts: 141
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Sweden
Status: offline

Yes. It is kind of strange that for exampel CW spends money and resources on stuff they can�t use. It wouldn�t happen in real life. This is IMHO a annoying bug in WiF.

/Magnus

(in reply to ezzler)

Post #: 312

RE: Rules Clarification List - 11/26/2007 11:19:06 AM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

So, this "CV problem" now that I have understood what it was, that you perceive as a problem is still as is in the WiF FE game and in MWiF.

I for one don't perceive that as a big problem, only a harder / finer management.
I play the CW a lot, and even if I may curse my bad luck when I draw too much class 3 or 4 carrier planes, I live with it. There are also a lot of Class 1 carrier planes, that you can scrap and should not (I only scrap those with a 1 or 0 factor), so that you can keep your class 2 carriers occupied.

(in reply to bredsjomagnus)

Post #: 313

RE: Rules Clarification List - 11/26/2007 6:28:03 PM

lomyrin

Posts: 3741
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline

With the optional 2 CVP's on a carrier it makes even more sense to not overscrap class 1 CVP's. Two class 1 CVP on a Class 2 Carrier makes good use of them.

Lars

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 314

RE: Rules Clarification List - 11/26/2007 10:14:44 PM

ezzler

Posts: 863
Joined: 7/4/2004
Status: offline

I accept that there may be ways to play around a flawed rule. However wouldn't it make more sense to correct it rather than have a recurring 'bug report' once the game is released.

i would suggest asking for examples of house rules out there that get round this issue and see what comes up. This problem does seem specific to CW players so it might be possible to look at the CVs and CVPs and make a few counter changes.

(in reply to lomyrin)

Post #: 315

RE: Rules Clarification List - 11/27/2007 2:10:00 AM

brian brian

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

It happens to the Germans too...

one converse of how the cv planes work is the countries that build new CVs that are bigger classes than they start with (Blue - CW, Purple - Japan, Green - Germany) could end up with brand new CVs with no planes to put on them...

err, cutting-edge new plane designs that is.

the trick really is to get your CV plane orders in before Jan/Feb when the new ones roll out

< Message edited by brian brian -- 11/27/2007 2:11:23 AM >

(in reply to ezzler)

Post #: 316

RE: Rules Clarification List - 11/27/2007 8:23:52 AM

paulderynck

Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

It would not be a bug unless the inability to place the CVPs caused the program to crash. If you draw oversize planes you must put them in the reserve pool and/or set them up in a city so that in the reinforcement step of Sep/Oct 39, they can be removed to the reserve pool. The set-up does not require them to be on board a CV.

(in reply to ezzler)

Post #: 317

RE: Rules Clarification List - 11/29/2007 11:13:56 PM

ezzler

Posts: 863
Joined: 7/4/2004
Status: offline

I meant it would appear to new players as a bug .. ' My cvp do not fit on my carriers'
Actually it is absurd when you think of it ..

(in reply to paulderynck)

Post #: 318

RE: Rules Clarification List - 11/30/2007 3:39:42 AM

Dave3L

Posts: 39
Joined: 7/17/2007
Status: offline

I always thought of CVPs as just more than a set number of planes, but as a doctrine for use of the planes you had as well. So while the Ark Royal doesn't change size, developing tactical doctrines allow for her to pack a bigger Sunday Punch in the same space.

(in reply to ezzler)

Post #: 319

RE: Rules Clarification List - 11/30/2007 4:57:52 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ezz

I meant it would appear to new players as a bug .. ' My cvp do not fit on my carriers'
Actually it is absurd when you think of it ..

I have this feeling of deja vu, ... perhaps we discussed this a year or so ago?

I agree that getting carrier air units that are too big doesn't make a lot of sense (if any). If you draw some that are small than the carriers, well, I can accept that a lot of mistakes were made by the planners early in the war. But not having enough carrier air units to put at least one on each carrier, ... that doesn't seem right.

Especially since this only happens when playing with carrier air units. Without that optional rule, all the carriers perform at maximum effectiveness.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to ezzler)

Post #: 320

RE: Rules Clarification List - 11/30/2007 11:01:44 AM

bredsjomagnus

Posts: 141
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Sweden
Status: offline

Are there any house rules that can be used (as an option mayby) in the computer game? I would certainly like one in the board game.

/Magnus

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 321

RE: Rules Clarification List - 11/30/2007 5:31:42 PM

composer99

Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline

ADG should really just change the CW cvp counters so they fit better in 40-41. Now that I think of it, I'm surprised they didn't when they made all the other changes to the counter set earlier this year.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to bredsjomagnus)

Post #: 322

RE: Rules Clarification List - 12/1/2007 2:19:03 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

This is an informational note to let you know that the clarification progress has reached the 50% mark this last week, as Harry was sent the 188th question of our 367 questions long list.
So far he answered 219 (some were answered in the 96-99), and 135 are case closed (37%). 77 of them are "Read the ****ing Manual" questions, but are still included nethertheless.

There is an work in progress PDF document that shows the questions and the answers in a text format (our file is an Excel Database with lots of fields), that you can read at http://pagesperso-orange.fr/froon/WiF/WiFFEruleFAQ.zip.

PLEASE DO NOT REPOST THIS PDF ANYWHERE, and be WARRY of questions that have an old answer and were not submitted officialy to Harry with our work. Some of them are blatantly wrong (they are mentionned in the foreword of the PDF). Questions submitted & answered by Harry are from the first one to Q199. the next 50 or so were submitted this week to him.

I sincerely hope this becoming an official FAQ document available officially at ADG's website someday, afterall, all questions were submitted to Harry personaly, and he reviewed them, answered, sometime even discussed the issue with us, so there's nothing more official.

(in reply to composer99)

Post #: 323

RE: Rules Clarification List - 12/2/2007 8:24:22 PM

Jimm

Posts: 607
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: York, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

It happens to the Germans too...

one converse of how the cv planes work is the countries that build new CVs that are bigger classes than they start with (Blue - CW, Purple - Japan, Green - Germany) could end up with brand new CVs with no planes to put on them...

err, cutting-edge new plane designs that is.

the trick really is to get your CV plane orders in before Jan/Feb when the new ones roll out

Yes it has always seemed a litte bit cruel to allow a certain amount of counter-factual game exploration without really allowing the aspirant German Admiral the chance to build out a half-decent carrier force because they simply cant build enough yellow/2 factor cvps and its far too late before the green carriers arrive.

But then you might say that no sane military inductrial complex in Germany would permit a mass naval building programme over and above building tanks and guns- especially with any war with Russia in the offing.

(in reply to brian brian)

Post #: 324

RE: Rules Clarification List - 12/3/2007 5:00:36 PM

mlees

Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline

Froonp. I get an error clicking on your link. Do you need to be a registered?

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 325

RE: Rules Clarification List - 12/3/2007 5:23:00 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

Froonp. I get an error clicking on your link. Do you need to be a registered?

No, but there is no dot at the end of the link.

http://pagesperso-orange.fr/froon/WiF/WiFFEruleFAQ.zip

(in reply to mlees)

Post #: 326

RE: Rules Clarification List - 12/23/2007 2:53:44 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

This is a new informational note to let you know that the rule clarification progress has advanced today, as Harry was sent the 247th question (67%) of our 370 questions long list (6th batch).
So far he has answered 256 (69%) (some were answered in the 1996-1999), and 178 are case closed (48%).

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 327

RE: Rules Clarification List - 12/23/2007 8:23:46 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

This is a new informational note to let you know that the rule clarification progress has advanced today, as Harry was sent the 247th question (67%) of our 370 questions long list (6th batch).
So far he has answered 256 (69%) (some were answered in the 1996-1999), and 178 are case closed (48%).

Patrice,

Could you please send a copy of the list, with answers, to me?

---------------

I want the RAC document to be up-to-date when I finish it in the next couple of weeks. Most likely I will append the clarifications to rules they clarify, rather than rewrite the rules themselves.

The primary reason RAC is getting such high priority from me is that the people developing Test Scripts have been asking for it. They want to have the precise program requirements, so they can define what needs to be tested.

Once I get RAC completed I'll be asking for volunteers to read through it to make sure I haven't made any major errors in conversion from RAW.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 328

RE: Rules Clarification List - 12/23/2007 8:56:03 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

This is a new informational note to let you know that the rule clarification progress has advanced today, as Harry was sent the 247th question (67%) of our 370 questions long list (6th batch).
So far he has answered 256 (69%) (some were answered in the 1996-1999), and 178 are case closed (48%).

Patrice,

Could you please send a copy of the list, with answers, to me?

Sent.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 329

RE: Rules Clarification List - 12/28/2007 4:26:19 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

Another informational note to let you know that the rule clarification progress has advanced today, as Harry was sent the 301st question (82%) of our 369 questions long list (7th batch).
So far he has answered 294 questions (80%) (some were answered in the 1996-1999), and 235 are case closed (64%).

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 330