Slitherine

quote:

And while I am posing puzzling questions, is a carrier air unit, aboard a carrier, permitted to fly escort duty for a strategic bombing mission (being flown by a land based bomber), assuming the target hex is within range? Can it fly as an interceptor? In general, can a carrier air unit, while aboard a carrier, fly all fighter missions except naval air?

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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: Froonp

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].

Maybe we can add this to the list of questions for Harry ? As a sequel to the Qustion about the ATRs that sprang up this discussion ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Yes, please. You might include my entire post, except for the bit about the carrier air units.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I am reading and commenting the Overrun code (from CWIF) and I have found a couple of things that do not look quite right. So let me see if I understand this correctly. I believe the following to be true:

Consider a stack of units (OS) capable of overrunning a weak defending infantry corps (W), and assume that all the numerous conditions for the overrun have been met. For clarity, by weak I mean that W is both disorganized and non-elite.

Case I - W is out of supply before OS moves.

OS starts in hex A, adjacent to W (in hex D) but can not overrun by moving directly from A to D because there is an intervening fort hexside. However, by moving laterally to hex B, OS can then overrun D because no fort hexside separates B and D.

I believe this move, from A to B to D is permitted because the exit from the enemy ZOC just entered (hex B) into hex D is an overrun.

quote:

Case II - W is out of supply before OS moves.

Same as case I but there is a fort hexside between B and D also.

OS wants to, but is not permitted to, move from A to B to C (circling around hex D) to perform an overrun from C to D - the hexside from C to D does not contain a fort.

I believe the move, from B to c is not permitted because the exit from the enemy ZOC just entered (hex B) into hex C is not an overrun.

quote:

Case III - W is in supply before OS moves, but only through the empty hex C.

Same as case I but there are no fort hexsides anywhere.

OS can not overrun W by moving from A to D, because D is still in supply and therefore at full strength. However, by moving to hex B, OS exerts a ZOC into hex C, thereby putting W out of supply and reducing its combat factors to 1. OS then overruns W by moving from B to D.

quote:

Case IV - W is out of supply before OS moves, but only because OS exerts a ZOC into hex E (directly opposite hex C). Hex E is controlled by W's major power.

Same as case I.

Now when OS moves to B (to get around the fort between A and D), W can trace supply through E, since OS not longer exerts a ZOC into that hex. Therefore OS can not overrun by moving A to B to D, because W is at full strength.

quote:

=====
The point of this exercise to make sure I understand perfectly when supply should be traced for deciding whether an overrun is permitted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

The key reference to understand the below is :

************************************
2.4.1 When to check supply
You need to check the supply status of a unit before it moves, flies, sails or reorganises units.
You also need to check the supply status of land units immediately before you resolve an overrun (both sides), during combat declaration (attacking units) and at the moment of combat (both sides).

and

11.11.1 How to move land units
A unit must always end its move when it enters an enemy ZOC (exception: it can continue moving if it then overruns a land unit in the next hex ~ see 11.11.6). You can move a unit which starts its move in an enemy ZOC directly into another enemy ZOC (even a ZOC of the same unit).
************************************

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I am reading and commenting the Overrun code (from CWIF) and I have found a couple of things that do not look quite right. So let me see if I understand this correctly. I believe the following to be true:

Consider a stack of units (OS) capable of overrunning a weak defending infantry corps (W), and assume that all the numerous conditions for the overrun have been met. For clarity, by weak I mean that W is both disorganized and non-elite.

Case I - W is out of supply before OS moves.

OS starts in hex A, adjacent to W (in hex D) but can not overrun by moving directly from A to D because there is an intervening fort hexside. However, by moving laterally to hex B, OS can then overrun D because no fort hexside separates B and D.

I believe this move, from A to B to D is permitted because the exit from the enemy ZOC just entered (hex B) into hex D is an overrun.

If I understood correctly, B is also in W's ZoC.
I agree. OS can only move once they have entered W's ZoC, by overruning, what they do by entering D.

quote:

Case II - W is out of supply before OS moves.

Same as case I but there is a fort hexside between B and D also.

OS wants to, but is not permitted to, move from A to B to C (circling around hex D) to perform an overrun from C to D - the hexside from C to D does not contain a fort.

I believe the move, from B to c is not permitted because the exit from the enemy ZOC just entered (hex B) into hex C is not an overrun.

I agree.
After having entered B, OS can only continue moving by Overruning, which it does not by entering C.

quote:

Case III - W is in supply before OS moves, but only through the empty hex C.

Same as case I but there are no fort hexsides anywhere.

OS can not overrun W by moving from A to D, because D is still in supply and therefore at full strength. However, by moving to hex B, OS exerts a ZOC into hex C, thereby putting W out of supply and reducing its combat factors to 1. OS then overruns W by moving from B to D.

quote:


I agree. The rules say that supply is checked before each move, before each combat and before each overrun. Note that OS must still be in supply in B too to do the overrun.

Case IV - W is out of supply before OS moves, but only because OS exerts a ZOC into hex E (directly opposite hex C). Hex E is controlled by W's major power.

Same as case I.

Now when OS moves to B (to get around the fort between A and D), W can trace supply through E, since OS not longer exerts a ZOC into that hex. Therefore OS can not overrun by moving A to B to D, because W is at full strength.

quote:


Right, because the rules say that supply is checked before each move, before each combat and before each overrun. .

=====
The point of this exercise to make sure I understand perfectly when supply should be traced for deciding whether an overrun is permitted.

I think you have it.

Here is a diagram I made showing your 4 cases (I hope).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I have one more detail that I want to confirm. When moving a stack of units for overrun, the cost for the stack to enter each hex is whatever the cost is for the unit that uses the most movement points.

quote:

So, for simplicity's sake, if the stack does not start in an enemy ZOC can charges forward, seeking to overrun a unit, each hex it enters costs the number of movement points required to move the 'slowest' unit into the hex.

My concern is an armor unit, stacked with a leg infantry trying to move into a forest and then, later in the movement, overrun an enemy unit in a clear hex.

The leg infantry might have 4 movement points which is sufficient for it to move/overrun the enemy unit, since the forest hex only costs leg infantry 1 MP. The armor unit has 6 movement points, and though the move through the forest costs it 2 MP, it still can reach the enemy hex for the overrun.

However, since the two units must move as a stack in order to conduct the overrun, then entering the forest hex costs the leg infantry 2 MPs of its available 4 MPs, so it can not reach the enemy unit for the overrun. The same thing comes up when moving through mountains.
=========

quote:

I've another bone to pick about overruns.

The rules make a clear distinction between overrunning air & naval units, alone in a hex, versus when enemy land units are present. Now I have no problem with that, it is very clear cut.

But, supply units make me pause and wonder.

1 - Can a supply unit participate as an attacking unit in an overrun? It might be the only way it could get to the overrun hex (otherwise it would be violating the rules concerning entering and exiting enemy ZOCs. I am assuming yes.

quote:

2 - Does the presence of an enemy supply unit count as a land unit for the purposes of overrun? For instance, this might prevent an out of supply unit from overrunning a hex (because an enemy land unit - the supply unit- is present). The MWIF/CWIF code currently says says: yes, the presence of an enemy supply unit prevents movement into a hex (i.e., overrun) by an out-of-supply land unit, even though the odds would be X:0, or infinite.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Norman42

Patrice's analysis is how I interpret the rules as well.

Regarding the two other details:

-correct, the armor unit would have to conduct the over-run on its own(if it has the factors to do so), since the infantry doesn't have the movement available to continue on in the 'stack'.

-the supply unit is a 0 factor combat unit, so any *allowed* combat or over-run would destroy it, however OOS combat/over-run isn't allowed so the attack on the unit (even though it has 0 factors) is also not allowed.

It was quite common for the Italians to leave their supply unit in Addis Ababa even when they pull out the infantry back to Italy, just to force the Allies to send a supplied force to liberate it, instead of just a territorial capturing it empty on an oos dash.  Whether this has been changed in recent errata I do not know.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Norman42

Patrice's analysis is how I interpret the rules as well.

Regarding the two other details:

-correct, the armor unit would have to conduct the over-run on its own(if it has the factors to do so), since the infantry doesn't have the movement available to continue on in the 'stack'.

-the supply unit is a 0 factor combat unit, so any *allowed* combat or over-run would destroy it, however OOS combat/over-run isn't allowed so the attack on the unit (even though it has 0 factors) is also not allowed.

It was quite common for the Italians to leave their supply unit in Addis Ababa even when they pull out the infantry back to Italy, just to force the Allies to send a supplied force to liberate it, instead of just a territorial capturing it empty on an oos dash.  Whether this has been changed in recent errata I do not know.

Ok.

I just have trouble getting my head around the supply unit being more ferocious than the naval forces aboard ships, or the air support personnel on the ground. Maybe they are all disgruntled lorry drivers armed with tire irons?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I just have trouble getting my head around the supply unit being more ferocious than the naval forces aboard ships, or the air support personnel on the ground. Maybe they are all disgruntled lorry drivers armed with tire irons?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I have one more detail that I want to confirm. When moving a stack of units for overrun, the cost for the stack to enter each hex is whatever the cost is for the unit that uses the most movement points.

I disagree. Each unit spends movement points according to what kind of unit it is, and what type of terrain it enters. An INF and a MECH stacked together advancing to perform an overrun, and entering a forest hex on their way would only spend 1 MP from the INF and 2 MP for the MECH. See "11.11.1 How to move land units".

********************************
11.11.1 How to move land units
(...)
Each unit has its movement points printed on its counter. Each hex it enters will use up 1 or more of those points depending on:
ï which map it is on;
ï what the terrain is in the hex, and sometimes on the hexside it crossed to enter it, (see the terrain effects chart);
ï what the weather is in the hex (see 8.2.5); and
ï whether the unit is motorised or not (see 11.11.2 ~ option 34).
********************************

quote:

So, for simplicity's sake, if the stack does not start in an enemy ZOC can charges forward, seeking to overrun a unit, each hex it enters costs the number of movement points required to move the 'slowest' unit into the hex.

My concern is an armor unit, stacked with a leg infantry trying to move into a forest and then, later in the movement, overrun an enemy unit in a clear hex.

The leg infantry might have 4 movement points which is sufficient for it to move/overrun the enemy unit, since the forest hex only costs leg infantry 1 MP. The armor unit has 6 movement points, and though the move through the forest costs it 2 MP, it still can reach the enemy hex for the overrun.

However, since the two units must move as a stack in order to conduct the overrun, then entering the forest hex costs the leg infantry 2 MPs of its available 4 MPs, so it can not reach the enemy unit for the overrun. The same thing comes up when moving through mountains.
=========

I think that this whole question is based on an error, as there is no "stack movement" that requires an INF to use the MOT movement rates.

quote:

I've another bone to pick about overruns.

The rules make a clear distinction between overrunning air & naval units, alone in a hex, versus when enemy land units are present. Now I have no problem with that, it is very clear cut.

But, supply units make me pause and wonder.

1 - Can a supply unit participate as an attacking unit in an overrun? It might be the only way it could get to the overrun hex (otherwise it would be violating the rules concerning entering and exiting enemy ZOCs. I am assuming yes.

22.4.10 says about Supply Units.
********************************
22.4.10 Supply units (MiF option 6)
(...)
They move like a motorised unit but do not change control of hexes they enter. They have no combat value and cannot attack. They are never affected by any combat result.
********************************
So they can't attack, but overrun is not a land attack (see "11.16 Land combat" that says "Overruns are not land attacks."), so I assume that a supply unit is allowed to be included in a stack of units performing an overrun.

quote:

2 - Does the presence of an enemy supply unit count as a land unit for the purposes of overrun? For instance, this might prevent an out of supply unit from overrunning a hex (because an enemy land unit - the supply unit- is present). The MWIF/CWIF code currently says says: yes, the presence of an enemy supply unit prevents movement into a hex (i.e., overrun) by an out-of-supply land unit, even though the odds would be X:0, or infinite.

Here, 22.4.10 Supply units (MiF option 6) says :
********************************
22.4.10 Supply units (MiF option 6)
(...)
Your land units can enter a hex containing only an enemy supply unit without having to overrun it. You can then either destroy the supply unit or replace it with one of your own (chosen randomly).
********************************
So a supply unit don't count as a land unit for the purposes of overrun, and don't prevent an out of supply unit to overrun an hex. It is merely destroyed or captured.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Silly me. I read the rule section 22.4.10 but for some reason that sentence never penetrated my brain.

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: paulderynck

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

I'm late getting up to date on the posts in this thread, but I see no one else took exception to the bolded word "both" in the above reply. I believe this to be quite wrong. There is no stipulation in RAW that I know of for weather affecting air missions except in the target hex. So the CVs could be in a sea zone experiencing storm or blizzard and the CVPs (or air component if playing without CVPs) could fly all valid air missions into land hexes that are not experiencing that weather.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

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

I'm late getting up to date on the posts in this thread, but I see no one else took exception to the bolded word "both" in the above reply. I believe this to be quite wrong. There is no stipulation in RAW that I know of for weather affecting air missions except in the target hex. So the CVs could be in a sea zone experiencing storm or blizzard and the CVPs (or air component if playing without CVPs) could fly all valid air missions into land hexes that are not experiencing that weather.

Paul is right. The weather in the sea zone is irrelevant for a CVP flying an air mission to a land hex.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

Overseas supply and multiple states of war.

A friend asked me about it and I am not sure I got it right.

Example:

Playing with - SiF option 11: (limited overseas supply) You can only trace a supply
path overseas if each sea area you trace it through contains a friendly
convoy, TRS or AMPH.

USSR is at war with Finland (controlled by Germany) and at peace with Germany.

There is an German CP in the Baltic sea.
USSR has an SCS in the Baltic sea.
Finland has an infantry corps on a costal hex without an overland supply path.

It is now my understanding that the USSR SCS is blocking overseas supply since the German CP is not at war with USSR.

quote:

If Germany lands an HQ on the hex with the Finnish corps the HQ would be in supply since the USSR SCS is not an enemy to the German HQ.

quote:

The question is now wether the Finnish corps would be in supply tracing by the German HQ or not,

quote:

My understanding of this is that it is the unit tracing the supply (finnish corp) that determines the overseas supply and not the secondary supply sourse.

So the Finnish unit would be out of supply regardless that the German HQ is in supply.


Cut from raw:
You cannot trace a supply path into a sea area that contains:
• an enemy CV, SCS or aircraft unit with an air-to-sea factor;
• unless it also contains a surface naval unit, or aircraft unit with an
air-to-sea factor, (SiF option 11: convoy, TRS, or AMPH only)
controlled by any major power or minor country at war with that
enemy unit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I think that the Finnish unit, in that case, only trace to the German HQ. The German HQ then trace to Germany. I don't think that the russian SCS blocks the German HQ supply tracing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I think that the Finnish unit, in that case, only trace to the German HQ. The German HQ then trace to Germany. I don't think that the russian SCS blocks the German HQ supply tracing.

Thats how we have played it. Rereading the rules, however, makes my head spin...

Overseas supply paths
Any part of a basic or railway supply path can be traced overseas. You
may only trace supply overseas once for each unit attempting to trace
supply, regardless of how many secondary supply sources are used between
the tracing unit and the primary supply source.

Some more cuts implying that it is the original unit tracing the supply and not the secondary supply source.

"Supply paths
You trace a supply path from a unit to a primary supply source."

"There can be any number of secondary supply sources in this
chain but it must end up at a primary supply source of the unit tracing
the path."

"If the unit can’t trace a supply path directly to a primary supply source,
it can trace it via one or more secondary supply sources instead."

"2.4.2 Tracing supply
To be in supply, a unit must be able to trace a supply path back to a
primary supply source."

And now my head spins so much that I feel dizzy...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

The question that has driven me to spend many hour trying to get the code right is the relationship between Germany and Finland (for example) when the USSR declares war on Finland, but is still at peace with Germany.

As I interpret the rules on this, Finland not aligned to Germany, but Finland is 'controlled' by Germany.

quote:

The rules on co-operation say it exists between a minor country and it's 'controlling major power'.

To interpret German units as co-operating with Finnish units in this situation raises all kinds of difficulties for the programming. Besides the issue above, it appears that Germany could fly CAP over Finnish units, though they would not be permitted to intercept USSR bombing missions - now that is just plain weird.

quote:

I believe the problem arises from the ambiguitiy of the word 'controls', where the authors sometimes want to describe (1) the major power that makes decisions on behalf of an unaligned Finland, and at other times want to describe (2) the major power to which Finland is aligned. Rather than coin a new word, like 'Aligner', or use the cumbersome "major power to which the minor country is aligned", the authors say "controlling major power". Which then has two interpretations.

quote:

correct to say that this is the Finn unit that is tracing supply, all the way, even through the use of the German HQ, and that because of that, it is not in supply because of the Russian ships.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Norman42

quote:

correct to say that this is the Finn unit that is tracing supply, all the way, even through the use of the German HQ, and that because of that, it is not in supply because of the Russian ships.

This is my interpretation as well.  It is a "Finnish" supply line that is being cut, not a "German" one.  The German HQ being part of the supply chain for the Fin supplies is irrelevant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Without re-reading RAW in detail to answer this question, my recollection is that an attacked minor must align with a major power on the opposite side or it surrenders. So about the only time "controlling" comes into things in the sense of making decisions when the object of them is not aligned would be for partisans. Even then you have to include the partisans in your action limits.

Now when you combine this with Multiple States of War, I agree you will get some of the thorniest logic problems in the game, and I don't envy your programming tasks in this regard!

Some crucial points for Multiple States of War:
1. You can attack units with which you are not at war if they are in hexes of a country with which you are at war, but you can't attack units of a country you are at war with if they are in hexes of a country you are not at war with.
2. The controlling major power can ground support (and intercept air missions against) its own (neutral) units against an aggressor, but those units cannot enter hexes that have been taken by the aggressor.
3. The neutral major power could intercept a ground strike on FREX Bucharest if it had its own unit there with a Rumanian but could not intercept a Strategic Bombing attack against Bucharest even though its unit is there and the production goes to the major power, not the minor!
4. Weirdest of all - the ZOCs of the aggressor stop the movement and supply of the minor country units but not the neutral major power units. So you can get situations like Russians running around in the hinterlands of Rumania, but then German and Italian units railing right by them.

We just had a lot of this weirdness come up in Rumania in our present FTF game and if I remember any other weird examples, I'll post them.

Also think about the fact it is possible to have alignments without any basis in historicity, like NEI aligning with France or Bulgaria with China. (Mind you there may be a recent errata saying China cannot align minors, if I'm not mistaken.) I played a game once where Russia DoWed Rumania and it aligned with Italy which itself was neutral.

Yes, sorry, it will be difficult to handle all the permutations. Maybe the fact that they must align helps (as you mentioned you did not think this was the case).