Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:


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

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

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

Regards,
Paul

Hi Steve,

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

quote:

I am not sure what your question is. Rather than have me guess at what you are referring to (and maybe be wrong), could you clarify?

_____________________________

Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Both night combat (RAW 14.2.3) and twin engine fighters (RAW 14.3.2) may cause the results of air-to-air combat to be "one less than normal".

We have had discussions in the past in this thread as to whether that also applies to the result for the pilot. Today I am looking at the code that handles this and I am not sure what we decided, or whether a consensus was reached. I would like to code this once and for all and never think about it again.

There seem to me to be two choices when the result of the air-to-air combat is "one less than normal":
1 - take the result for the pilot from the 'normal' result.
2 - take the result for the pilot from the cell within the air-to-air combat results table for the "one less than normal" result. This means moving through the A-2-A column and finding the closest cell with the lower result.

I am voting for the 1st choice. Other opinions?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Both night combat (RAW 14.2.3) and twin engine fighters (RAW 14.3.2) may cause the results of air-to-air combat to be "one less than normal".

We have had discussions in the past in this thread as to whether that also applies to the result for the pilot. Today I am looking at the code that handles this and I am not sure what we decided, or whether a consensus was reached. I would like to code this once and for all and never think about it again.

There seem to me to be two choices when the result of the air-to-air combat is "one less than normal":
1 - take the result for the pilot from the 'normal' result.
2 - take the result for the pilot from the cell within the air-to-air combat results table for the "one less than normal" result. This means moving through the A-2-A column and finding the closest cell with the lower result.

I am voting for the 1st choice. Other opinions?

This was submitted to Harry by the rule clarifying task force, as Q373 :
**********************************************
Q373> When using the Twin-Engined Fighter (or Night Fighter) optional rule, which answer is true?
(a) The lettered result is downgraded, and colors for pilot losses stay the same (they just may become non-applicable when a kill turns into an abort).
(b) The lettered result and colors for pilot losses are downgraded.

Answer> (a). Date 18/01/2008
**********************************************

Which seems to be the same as what you chose.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Both night combat (RAW 14.2.3) and twin engine fighters (RAW 14.3.2) may cause the results of air-to-air combat to be "one less than normal".

We have had discussions in the past in this thread as to whether that also applies to the result for the pilot. Today I am looking at the code that handles this and I am not sure what we decided, or whether a consensus was reached. I would like to code this once and for all and never think about it again.

There seem to me to be two choices when the result of the air-to-air combat is "one less than normal":
1 - take the result for the pilot from the 'normal' result.
2 - take the result for the pilot from the cell within the air-to-air combat results table for the "one less than normal" result. This means moving through the A-2-A column and finding the closest cell with the lower result.

I am voting for the 1st choice. Other opinions?

This was submitted to Harry by the rule clarifying task force, as Q373 :
**********************************************
Q373> When using the Twin-Engined Fighter (or Night Fighter) optional rule, which answer is true?
(a) The lettered result is downgraded, and colors for pilot losses stay the same (they just may become non-applicable when a kill turns into an abort).
(b) The lettered result and colors for pilot losses are downgraded.

Answer> (a). Date 18/01/2008
**********************************************

Which seems to be the same as what you chose.

No, choice (a) is different.

Thanks, I'll code it that way. What I need to add is a check for if an AX/DX becomes an AA. In that case the pilot always lives - unless it was a flying bomb with a black death's head. There's a reason my code for the air-to-air combat has grown from 22 pages to 52 pages over the last 10 days.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

The code as it exists now, (from CWIF - soon to be changed) leaves the original pilot result untouched. So if modifying the combat result changes an AX to an AA, the pilot could still die based on the original AX.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

The code as it exists now, (from CWIF - soon to be changed) leaves the original pilot result untouched. So if modifying the combat result changes an AX to an AA, the pilot could still die based on the original AX.

So this is OK then, except for pilots killed based on the original AX.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
For example, the decisions about scrapping units destroyed in air-to-air combat is made after all the air-to-air combats have been fought. There might be a half dozen or more air-to-air combats, and the program keeps track of all the air units (and their cargo) that have been shot down. Once all the combats have been completely resolved, the program make a digression from the sequence of play asking each player who has a newly destroyed unit whether he wants to scrap it or not.

quote:

Now technically, WIF FE wants that decision make immediately following the DX or AX result. That requires a lot of stoppages in the SOP while everyone waits for the decision to be made by the individual who owns the unit. My change gathers those decisions all together and processes them as a group. From a programming point of view, this is more efficient, and I think it expedites play as well. I do not think this change has any material effect of the game. In fact, since the decision to scrap is really a production issue in simulation terms, delaying these decisions so they can all be done at the same time seems more realistic. I would even consider delaying them until the production phase at the end of the turn, when other decisions about scrapping units are made - but I will not do that since it would be a major change from WIF FE.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I think you did well.
This changes nothing to the game, and speeds it up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

Wouldn't it be easier to make the scrap decisions in the end of turn bookkeeping, just prior to production?  That way you could take care of it all at once and without additional game play interruptions.

I think the benefit vastely outweighs the loss (in terms of changing the sequence of play) as it would very, very rarely make a difference in terms of the owner deciding to keep the unit instead of scrapping it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

Wouldn't it be easier to make the scrap decisions in the end of turn bookkeeping, just prior to production?  That way you could take care of it all at once and without additional game play interruptions.

I think the benefit vastely outweighs the loss (in terms of changing the sequence of play) as it would very, very rarely make a difference in terms of the owner deciding to keep the unit instead of scrapping it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

I think the main purpose for it in RAW is the 'no memory' ideal.  That is by making the decision at the moment the unit is lost you don't have to keep all your current turn's losses in a separate pile for a later decision prior to builds.  With a computer, that's not an issue.  Maybe you could ask Harry? 

I mean really, how often are additional losses later in the turn going to make someone decide to change his mind about scrapping a unit?  To be honest I can't think of it ever happening.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
"getting the WIF rules defined is like nailing jello to a wall."

To paraphrase one of the guys from my chorus.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
"getting the WIF rules defined is like nailing jello to a wall."

To paraphrase one of the guys from my chorus.

He plays WiF ?
This said, I would also have said that in the 1992-2000 period, but since then the rules have quite stabilized, and the latest set of rules was left untouched since August 2004, and I would not say that anymore. One and a Half a page of errata in the latest Annual, after 4 years is very small to me.

quote:

In general, can a carrier air unit, while aboard a carrier, fly all fighter missions except naval air?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Norman42

quote:

In general, can a carrier air unit, while aboard a carrier, fly all fighter missions except naval air?

Yes, if:

- the weather in both the seazone, and the target hex allows such a mission,
- air mission limits allow,
- the cvp has the range to reach the target hex in question,
- and has not been previously used/aborted

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

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


I, and the group that I played with, have always let the ATR and cargo that was aborted over its destination hex land there but both the ATR and the Cargo would be disrupted. We have never had it suffer a second air/air combat over the same hex.

The ATR with a Para onboard could be returned to its source hex even if the weather there was bad.

In the CV air case, yes, those planes, if not disrupted, can fly fighter and support missions provided their range is sufficient to reach the desired hex observing halving of range where appropriate.

Lars

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

As far as I know, any time a plane is returning to base after a mission, it may land in any hex in which it can stack, whether it is carrying cargo or not. The weather requirement for cargo matters only for the target hex of the mission.

Also, if I recall correctly, if an ATR is aborted during combat or picks up a unit at the target hex (rather than dropping one off), the unit gets disorganized as well when it returns to base with the ATR.

Also, an aircraft aborted in combat is never put through a second round of fighting in the same a2a combat, no matter where it lands.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

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


I, and the group that I played with, have always let the ATR and cargo that was aborted over its destination hex land there but both the ATR and the Cargo would be disrupted. We have never had it suffer a second air/air combat over the same hex.

The ATR with a Para onboard could be returned to its source hex even if the weather there was bad.

In the CV air case, yes, those planes, if not disrupted, can fly fighter and support missions provided their range is sufficient to reach the desired hex observing halving of range where appropriate.

Lars

Good. That seems best to me too. I do need to write special code for these events though [not the Carrier air unit stuff though].