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  15 16 [17] 18 19   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Rules Clarification List - 6/3/2008 12:46:25 AM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
If a paradrop does not have to be capable of landing in a friendly hex in order to paradrop into it, then that presents a loophole where you can paradrop a reinforcement into a hex where you could not otherwise air transport a reinforcement.

Paradrops can't be made into friendly hexes. (Edit : See Q082).
Also, 11.15 says
**************************
PARAs are land units but have the additional ability of flying into an enemy hex without having to move by land through the intervening hexes.
**************************

quote:

--
Skipping the air-to-air and anti-air combat in the return-to-base hex because a unit was aborted in the pickup hex has some bad consequences.

An air transport can pick up cargo in a target hex, before the air-to-air and anti-air combat in that hex, and its mission is clearly to transport the cargo to some other (ultimate) destination. It will have to undergo a second round of air-to-air and anti-air combat when it arrives at the ultimate destination hex. However, if it is aborted at the target hex (where it picked up its cargo), it then has an un-bothered landing at the ultimate destination. The result is that you hope to be aborted at the pickup hex because you then know that both the ATR and its cargo will land safely in the ultimate destination hex.

Not unbothered. The cargo is disrupted. If the ATR is not aborted, the cargo will be undisrupted. Huge difference.

< Message edited by Froonp -- 6/3/2008 12:49:13 AM >

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 481
RE: Rules Clarification List - 6/3/2008 1:10:12 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
If a paradrop does not have to be capable of landing in a friendly hex in order to paradrop into it, then that presents a loophole where you can paradrop a reinforcement into a hex where you could not otherwise air transport a reinforcement.

Paradrops can't be made into friendly hexes. (Edit : See Q082).
Also, 11.15 says
**************************
PARAs are land units but have the additional ability of flying into an enemy hex without having to move by land through the intervening hexes.
**************************

quote:

--
Skipping the air-to-air and anti-air combat in the return-to-base hex because a unit was aborted in the pickup hex has some bad consequences.

An air transport can pick up cargo in a target hex, before the air-to-air and anti-air combat in that hex, and its mission is clearly to transport the cargo to some other (ultimate) destination. It will have to undergo a second round of air-to-air and anti-air combat when it arrives at the ultimate destination hex. However, if it is aborted at the target hex (where it picked up its cargo), it then has an un-bothered landing at the ultimate destination. The result is that you hope to be aborted at the pickup hex because you then know that both the ATR and its cargo will land safely in the ultimate destination hex.

Not unbothered. The cargo is disrupted. If the ATR is not aborted, the cargo will be undisrupted. Huge difference.

Not that huge if being disorganized means you do not have to undergo a -6 air-to-air combat while carrying an elite infantry corps.

This is not that far-fetched a possibility. I could see Germany trying to pick up a good infantry corps from France and fly it to Italy for an emergency defense of, say, an unoccupied Rome. If it is aborted in France, the troops get to land in Rome ignoring ferocious Allied air cover over Rome. If not aborted, Germany flies the unit to, say, Genoa where the Allied have no opposing fighters. Then the unit can walk to Rome in the next impulse. The difference being that aborting in France, puts the unit safely in Rome immediately (disruption is not that big a deal if the unit is in supply and doesn't expect to attack or go anywhere).

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 482
RE: Rules Clarification List - 6/3/2008 1:59:03 AM   
lomyrin


Posts: 3741
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline
Paradrops as far as I know are only possible into an enemy hex whether with or without an actual enemy unit in the hex. There is no loophole regarding any friendly hex.

Lars

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 483
RE: Rules Clarification List - 6/3/2008 2:25:42 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

Paradrops as far as I know are only possible into an enemy hex whether with or without an actual enemy unit in the hex. There is no loophole regarding any friendly hex.

Lars

Good. That is also what Patrice said. I am very happy to simply prohibit paradrops into friendly hexes.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to lomyrin)
Post #: 484
RE: Rules Clarification List - 6/3/2008 4:49:11 AM   
Zorachus99


Posts: 1066
Joined: 9/15/2000
From: Palo Alto, CA
Status: offline
A bit late, but regarding CAP; I have absolutely flown CAP during air transport phase.  The great disadvantage of using CAP as facedown rebases is that

(1) it costs oil
(2) aircraft is disorganized

In practice I almost never do it.

In the psychological warfare realm, I have absolutely made an opponent burn CAP, and not fly missions myself, quickly giving myself an advantage in immediate available aircraft  - even to the effect of losing air superiority over a key attack.  Aircraft are neither easily replaced or easily moved in-theater.  I occasionally choose to gain air-superiority in a later impulses if I see the opponent overcommit in defense during summer.

_____________________________

Most men can survive adversity, the true test of a man's character is power. -Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 485
RE: Rules Clarification List - 6/3/2008 8:55:52 AM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
This is not that far-fetched a possibility. I could see Germany trying to pick up a good infantry corps from France and fly it to Italy for an emergency defense of, say, an unoccupied Rome. If it is aborted in France, the troops get to land in Rome ignoring ferocious Allied air cover over Rome. If not aborted, Germany flies the unit to, say, Genoa where the Allied have no opposing fighters. Then the unit can walk to Rome in the next impulse. The difference being that aborting in France, puts the unit safely in Rome immediately (disruption is not that big a deal if the unit is in supply and doesn't expect to attack or go anywhere).

In that case, they'd better make a rail move and reorg the rail moved unit with the ATR.

Besides, ATR don't transport INF corps, only large ATR can, and the Germans large ATR are either short ranged (6) or obliged to stay, pickup up and load on coasts. Also, large ATR when loading their full load have half their range (well, not exactly, hexes cost them 2 MP instead of 1), so the example of the German picking an INF in France and unloading it in Italy is real best served by a rail move + reorg and quite far fetched indeed IMO .

Being disrupted is a huge disadvantage if you are trying to plug a unit in a hole that the enemy threats, as the future attack already starts with a +2 (2d10), and this unit is now immobile. Moreover, the ATR landing in the exposed hex is now at risk of being overruned by this attack too, so the move is really risky IMO, and I'd better use other ways as the defender to solidify my hole.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 486
RE: Rules Clarification List - 6/3/2008 10:41:18 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
I am back to worrying about air units based on carriers at sea flying air missions against land hexes: port attacks, strategic bombing, carpet bombing, etc.

I can not find anything in the rules that prevents a carrier air unit from flying one of these missions (if the land hex is experiencing fine weather), even if the carrier is in a sea area experiencing Blizzard. Is that correct? The weather in the sea area is totally irrelevant?

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 487
RE: Rules Clarification List - 6/3/2008 10:46:28 PM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I am back to worrying about air units based on carriers at sea flying air missions against land hexes: port attacks, strategic bombing, carpet bombing, etc.

I can not find anything in the rules that prevents a carrier air unit from flying one of these missions (if the land hex is experiencing fine weather), even if the carrier is in a sea area experiencing Blizzard. Is that correct? The weather in the sea area is totally irrelevant?

Yes, totaly correct.
The weather in the sea area totaly irrelevant.
Only the weather in the target hex counts.

For example :
South China Sea Sea Area --> North Monsoon Weather Zone.
Java --> South Monsoon Weather Zone.

Carrier in the South China Sea can bombard Batavia, on Java, when the weather is Storm in the North Monsoon Weather Zone, provided the weather on the South Monsoon Weather Zone allows air missions (not only Fine, Rain & Snow also allow air missions).

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 488
RE: Rules Clarification List - 6/3/2008 11:11:48 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I am back to worrying about air units based on carriers at sea flying air missions against land hexes: port attacks, strategic bombing, carpet bombing, etc.

I can not find anything in the rules that prevents a carrier air unit from flying one of these missions (if the land hex is experiencing fine weather), even if the carrier is in a sea area experiencing Blizzard. Is that correct? The weather in the sea area is totally irrelevant?

Yes, totaly correct.
The weather in the sea area totaly irrelevant.
Only the weather in the target hex counts.

For example :
South China Sea Sea Area --> North Monsoon Weather Zone.
Java --> South Monsoon Weather Zone.

Carrier in the South China Sea can bombard Batavia, on Java, when the weather is Storm in the North Monsoon Weather Zone, provided the weather on the South Monsoon Weather Zone allows air missions (not only Fine, Rain & Snow also allow air missions).


Ok, although I have trouble visualizing how they recover the air units when they return to the carriers during a blizzard.

==
Here is a harder question.

CW carriers in the North Sea can fly strategic bombing missions against Hamburg, because that hex is adjacent to the North Sea - by definition in the map data.

Lille and Brussels are not adjacent to the North Sea. Assuming Lille is owned by Germany, and Germany is using the red factory there [the graphic should have smoke for the factory - but that is besides the point], we have been saying the air units aboard CW carriers in the North Sea could fly strategic bombing missions against Lille. How do we measure the range? If using the optional rule for Carrier Planes, I can take the range of the air unit and find the closest all-sea hex in the North Sea to Lille. There are several 2 hexes away. So, if the range of the carrier based air unit is 2 or more, it can fly the mission.

But what if Carrier Planes are not being used? What is the range of the air units aboard the carrier?

There appear to be several possible solutions:
1 - zero: when not playing with Carrier Planes, then flying air missions to land hexes not adjacent to the sea area the carrier occupies is prohibited.
2 - the range of the carrier (yuck!).
3 - an arbitrary range for all carriers (yuck!).
4 - a range based on the carriers Class # (and who will figure that out?.

Clearly my preference is #1.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Shannon V. OKeets -- 6/3/2008 11:16:36 PM >


_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 489
RE: Rules Clarification List - 6/3/2008 11:30:35 PM   
paulderynck


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
But what if Carrier Planes are not being used? What is the range of the air units aboard the carrier?

There appear to be several possible solutions:
1 - zero: when not playing with Carrier Planes, then flying air missions to land hexes not adjacent to the sea area the carrier occupies is prohibited.
2 - the range of the carrier (yuck!).
3 - an arbitrary range for all carriers (yuck!).
4 - a range based on the carriers Class # (and who will figure that out?.

Clearly my preference is #1.


It is the CV air component except Japanese are doubled. See 14.4.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 490
RE: Rules Clarification List - 6/3/2008 11:34:13 PM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Ok, although I have trouble visualizing how they recover the air units when they return to the carriers during a blizzard.

When a vast part of the land adjacent to a stormy sea area is under a non storm weather, we can WiFZen that the weather in that (small) part of the Sea Area is non storm. This part of the Sea Area is not large enough to be representative of the whole Sea Area for things that happens at sea, but for things that happen on the shore, it is representative.

quote:

==
Here is a harder question.

CW carriers in the North Sea can fly strategic bombing missions against Hamburg, because that hex is adjacent to the North Sea - by definition in the map data.

Lille and Brussels are not adjacent to the North Sea. Assuming Lille is owned by Germany, and Germany is using the red factory there [the graphic should have smoke for the factory - but that is besides the point], we have been saying the air units aboard CW carriers in the North Sea could fly strategic bombing missions against Lille. How do we measure the range? If using the optional rule for Carrier Planes, I can take the range of the air unit and find the closest all-sea hex in the North Sea to Lille. There are several 2 hexes away. So, if the range of the carrier based air unit is 2 or more, it can fly the mission.

But what if Carrier Planes are not being used? What is the range of the air units aboard the carrier?

There appear to be several possible solutions:
1 - zero: when not playing with Carrier Planes, then flying air missions to land hexes not adjacent to the sea area the carrier occupies is prohibited.
2 - the range of the carrier (yuck!).
3 - an arbitrary range for all carriers (yuck!).
4 - a range based on the carriers Class # (and who will figure that out?.

Clearly my preference is #1.




No need to guess, this is covered by RAW.

RAW says :
***********************************************
14.4 CV units
(...)
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.
***********************************************
(bold added by me)

< Message edited by Froonp -- 6/3/2008 11:36:23 PM >

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 491
RE: Rules Clarification List - 6/3/2008 11:39:20 PM   
paulderynck


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Skipping the air-to-air and anti-air combat in the return-to-base hex because a unit was aborted in the pickup hex has some bad consequences.

An air transport can pick up cargo in a target hex, before the air-to-air and anti-air combat in that hex, and its mission is clearly to transport the cargo to some other (ultimate) destination. It will have to undergo a second round of air-to-air and anti-air combat when it arrives at the ultimate destination hex. However, if it is aborted at the target hex (where it picked up its cargo), it then has an un-bothered landing at the ultimate destination. The result is that you hope to be aborted at the pickup hex because you then know that both the ATR and its cargo will land safely in the ultimate destination hex.


While what you say is true, it is how the game is played. Think of it more from the chess-like perspective. My opponent flies an ATR to a target hex. Is it wise for me to intercept him there? What is he trying to accomplish? How far ahead can I anticipate his move? Crap, should I have CAPed that hex when I had the chance?

Another tactic with ATRs often seen is to offer your opponent the CAP opportunity and let him do it, and then fly with cargo to a target hex way in your interior regions, but just far enough so that the RTB hex is where you really want the cargo. If the opponent has no fighters within intercept range, he is powerless to stop the mission because you cannot CAP against ATR RTBs, per the Air Transport sequence of play.



(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 492
RE: Rules Clarification List - 6/3/2008 11:43:01 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Ok, although I have trouble visualizing how they recover the air units when they return to the carriers during a blizzard.

When a vast part of the land adjacent to a stormy sea area is under a non storm weather, we can WiFZen that the weather in that (small) part of the Sea Area is non storm. This part of the Sea Area is not large enough to be representative of the whole Sea Area for things that happens at sea, but for things that happen on the shore, it is representative.

quote:

==
Here is a harder question.

CW carriers in the North Sea can fly strategic bombing missions against Hamburg, because that hex is adjacent to the North Sea - by definition in the map data.

Lille and Brussels are not adjacent to the North Sea. Assuming Lille is owned by Germany, and Germany is using the red factory there [the graphic should have smoke for the factory - but that is besides the point], we have been saying the air units aboard CW carriers in the North Sea could fly strategic bombing missions against Lille. How do we measure the range? If using the optional rule for Carrier Planes, I can take the range of the air unit and find the closest all-sea hex in the North Sea to Lille. There are several 2 hexes away. So, if the range of the carrier based air unit is 2 or more, it can fly the mission.

But what if Carrier Planes are not being used? What is the range of the air units aboard the carrier?

There appear to be several possible solutions:
1 - zero: when not playing with Carrier Planes, then flying air missions to land hexes not adjacent to the sea area the carrier occupies is prohibited.
2 - the range of the carrier (yuck!).
3 - an arbitrary range for all carriers (yuck!).
4 - a range based on the carriers Class # (and who will figure that out?.

Clearly my preference is #1.




No need to guess, this is covered by RAW.

RAW says :
***********************************************
14.4 CV units
(...)
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.
***********************************************
(bold added by me)

Thanks. My perfect recall of all the rules failed again.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 493
RE: Rules Clarification List - 6/3/2008 11:46:17 PM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
Another tactic with ATRs often seen is to offer your opponent the CAP opportunity and let him do it, and then fly with cargo to a target hex way in your interior regions, but just far enough so that the RTB hex is where you really want the cargo. If the opponent has no fighters within intercept range, he is powerless to stop the mission because you cannot CAP against ATR RTBs, per the Air Transport sequence of play.

Shame on you Paul, this is gamey .
Looks like Harry should add a new step 9 in the sequence of 11.12, so that CAP can be flown.
Or he can also rule that CAP stay in the air until the very end of the air mission, and only rebase after all the other air units have rebased.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 494
RE: Rules Clarification List - 6/3/2008 11:56:05 PM   
paulderynck


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
Another tactic with ATRs often seen is to offer your opponent the CAP opportunity and let him do it, and then fly with cargo to a target hex way in your interior regions, but just far enough so that the RTB hex is where you really want the cargo. If the opponent has no fighters within intercept range, he is powerless to stop the mission because you cannot CAP against ATR RTBs, per the Air Transport sequence of play.

Shame on you Paul, this is gamey .
Looks like Harry should add a new step 9 in the sequence of 11.12, so that CAP can be flown.
Or he can also rule that CAP stay in the air until the very end of the air mission, and only rebase after all the other air units have rebased.

Truthfully, I've always wondered why the CAP had to return in Step 9 (I think), but "the rules is the rules" and my job is to exploit them to your detriment.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 495
RE: Rules Clarification List - 6/4/2008 12:05:39 AM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
Truthfully, I've always wondered why the CAP had to return in Step 9 (I think), but "the rules is the rules" and my job is to exploit them to your detriment.

Mind you, I disagree.
When I see an exploit in the rule, I prefer to have the exploit solved by a rule correction (or a house rule or a gentlemen's agreement), as I hate exploit, and the group I play with is rather in this state of mind. But I like you anyway Paul .

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 496
RE: Rules Clarification List - 6/4/2008 1:05:42 AM   
Norman42


Posts: 244
Joined: 2/9/2008
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

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


Oh, err. I was sure this had been errata'd at some point, but now that I search for the ruling I cannot find it.

It does seem rather silly that a carrier can launch a full air strike in the middle of a blizzard, fly them 1000 miles to the coastal target, fly back 1000 miles and land safely...when they aren't allowed to send the same planes 2 miles away to engage in naval air warfare.

Are you positive about the above Patrice?

The rule I'm referring to is 8.2.3 "Halve the naval, tactical and strategic bombing factors of aircraft (including carrier planes) in a sea area, or attacking a hex, in rain or snow."

The above rule implies weather in the sea area DOES effect a carrier aircraft flying a mission to a land hex, since the tac/str factors are never used at sea, only if they launch to land targets, and by the following logic, are excluded from any mission other then rebase while in blizzard sea zones (also in 8.2.3).




< Message edited by Norman42 -- 6/4/2008 1:13:46 AM >


_____________________________

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

C.L.Norman

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 497
RE: Rules Clarification List - 6/4/2008 1:14:56 AM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Norman42
Oh, err. I was sure this had been errata'd at some point, but now that I search for the ruling I cannot find it.

It does seem rather silly that a carrier can launch a full air strike in the middle of a blizzard, fly them 1000 miles to the coastal target, fly back 1000 miles and land safely...when they aren't allowed to send the same planes 2 miles away to engage in naval air warfare.

Are you positive about the above Patrice?

Absolutely sure.
See WiFZen in post #491.

(in reply to Norman42)
Post #: 498
RE: Rules Clarification List - 6/4/2008 1:17:37 AM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Norman42
The rule I'm referring to is 8.2.3 "Halve the naval, tactical and strategic bombing factors of aircraft (including carrier planes) in a sea area, or attacking a hex, in rain or snow."

The above rule implies weather in the sea area DOES effect a carrier aircraft flying a mission to a land hex, since the tac/str factors are never used at sea, only if they launch to land targets, and by the following logic, are excluded from any mission other then rebase while in blizzard sea zones (also in 8.2.3).

Problem is that the CVP that does an air mission over a land hex is not doing an air mission in the sea area any more, it is in the target hex, and only the target hex counts.

Same is true for normal air units starting from an hex under storm, and doing a mission in the next weather zone, and returning to base to their storm hex.

(in reply to Norman42)
Post #: 499
RE: Rules Clarification List - 6/4/2008 1:26:44 AM   
Norman42


Posts: 244
Joined: 2/9/2008
From: Canada
Status: offline


So, what is the purpose of the rule phrase "Halve the naval, tactical and strategic bombing factors of aircraft (including carrier planes) in a sea area" if sea area weather is irrelevant?

Sea areas and carrier planes are specifically included when also referring to land based attacks (you never use str factors at sea). By the above rule it seems clear that you halve the factors of the aircraft on carriers at sea during inclement weather, regardless of where/what they attack.

This only makes sense, launching an airstrike in snow is going to be difficult.

I agree about the land based hex flying out of storm and into clear, that is allowed, but this specific rule seems to say the weather at sea is also a factor in mission values.

_____________________________

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

C.L.Norman

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 500
RE: Rules Clarification List - 6/4/2008 1:59:33 AM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Norman42
So, what is the purpose of the rule phrase "Halve the naval, tactical and strategic bombing factors of aircraft (including carrier planes) in a sea area" if sea area weather is irrelevant?

Sea areas and carrier planes are specifically included when also referring to land based attacks (you never use str factors at sea). By the above rule it seems clear that you halve the factors of the aircraft on carriers at sea during inclement weather, regardless of where/what they attack.

This only makes sense, launching an airstrike in snow is going to be difficult.

I agree about the land based hex flying out of storm and into clear, that is allowed, but this specific rule seems to say the weather at sea is also a factor in mission values.

I think that all factors are mentionned to keep the sentence short, because anyway it says just after what you quoted that you are affected by the target hex when attacking an hex. Carrier planes doing Ground Strike, Ground Support or Strat or Carpet are affected by the target hex, as other air units. Following your logic, CVP could attack a coastal hex that is under storm if their sea area is under only rain.

If you were right, it would be written plainly, not simply alluded to. It is not alluded to that air missions under storm are impossible, both at sea and at land for example.

Notice also that this is the same for shore bombardment. I think that the WiF Zen is the same.

I do not dispute the fact that air operations in bad weather at sea are not possible, I say that the weather in the fringes of a sea areas whose adjacent land is under another weather is different, allowing air missions.

(in reply to Norman42)
Post #: 501
RE: Rules Clarification List - 6/4/2008 2:54:03 AM   
Sewerlobster


Posts: 330
Joined: 5/7/2007
From: Reading, Pa. USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I think that all factors are mentionned to keep the sentence short, because anyway it says just after what you quoted that you are affected by the target hex when attacking an hex. Carrier planes doing Ground Strike, Ground Support or Strat or Carpet are affected by the target hex, as other air units. Following your logic, CVP could attack a coastal hex that is under storm if their sea area is under only rain.

If you were right, it would be written plainly, not simply alluded to. It is not alluded to that air missions under storm are impossible, both at sea and at land for example.

Notice also that this is the same for shore bombardment. I think that the WiF Zen is the same.

I do not dispute the fact that air operations in bad weather at sea are not possible, I say that the weather in the fringes of a sea areas whose adjacent land is under another weather is different, allowing air missions.


For what it's worth, we always played as Patrice says. It's noteworthy that regular land based aircraft also are not affected by the weather at their base. They too can take off in a blizzard and fly to a clear weather hex and return to the blinding snow. We simply presumed this to be an abstraction of the "fringes" mentioned above.

As an aside, will aircraft flying an extended range mission be displayed sideways? 14.1.1


_____________________________

Why choose the lesser evil: Vote Cthulhu.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 502
RE: Rules Clarification List - 6/4/2008 4:20:35 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I think that all factors are mentionned to keep the sentence short, because anyway it says just after what you quoted that you are affected by the target hex when attacking an hex. Carrier planes doing Ground Strike, Ground Support or Strat or Carpet are affected by the target hex, as other air units. Following your logic, CVP could attack a coastal hex that is under storm if their sea area is under only rain.

If you were right, it would be written plainly, not simply alluded to. It is not alluded to that air missions under storm are impossible, both at sea and at land for example.

Notice also that this is the same for shore bombardment. I think that the WiF Zen is the same.

I do not dispute the fact that air operations in bad weather at sea are not possible, I say that the weather in the fringes of a sea areas whose adjacent land is under another weather is different, allowing air missions.


For what it's worth, we always played as Patrice says. It's noteworthy that regular land based aircraft also are not affected by the weather at their base. They too can take off in a blizzard and fly to a clear weather hex and return to the blinding snow. We simply presumed this to be an abstraction of the "fringes" mentioned above.

As an aside, will aircraft flying an extended range mission be displayed sideways? 14.1.1


No.

But the unit data panel will contain the note "Flying Extended".

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Sewerlobster)
Post #: 503
RE: Rules Clarification List - 6/4/2008 8:20:21 AM   
paulderynck


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

ORIGINAL: Norman42

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

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


Oh, err. I was sure this had been errata'd at some point, but now that I search for the ruling I cannot find it.

It does seem rather silly that a carrier can launch a full air strike in the middle of a blizzard, fly them 1000 miles to the coastal target, fly back 1000 miles and land safely...when they aren't allowed to send the same planes 2 miles away to engage in naval air warfare.

Are you positive about the above Patrice?

The rule I'm referring to is 8.2.3 "Halve the naval, tactical and strategic bombing factors of aircraft (including carrier planes) in a sea area, or attacking a hex, in rain or snow."

The above rule implies weather in the sea area DOES effect a carrier aircraft flying a mission to a land hex, since the tac/str factors are never used at sea, only if they launch to land targets, and by the following logic, are excluded from any mission other then rebase while in blizzard sea zones (also in 8.2.3).





Not at all, the type of combat is appropriate to whether it is a hex or a sea zone. The word naval applies to combat in the sea zone and the words tactical and strategic bombing apply to hexes. This is simply saying in one sentence what the weather effects chart says. Also, if it was trying to say something special about carrier planes wouldn't the words "in a sea area" be inside the parentheses along with the CVPs? Indeed the parenthesized portion is intended to expand upon the word aircraft and (like most parenthesized items) the sentence can be read effectively without that part.

< Message edited by paulderynck -- 6/4/2008 8:30:05 AM >

(in reply to Norman42)
Post #: 504
RE: Rules Clarification List - 6/4/2008 8:46:46 AM   
paulderynck


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
Truthfully, I've always wondered why the CAP had to return in Step 9 (I think), but "the rules is the rules" and my job is to exploit them to your detriment.

Mind you, I disagree.
When I see an exploit in the rule, I prefer to have the exploit solved by a rule correction (or a house rule or a gentlemen's agreement), as I hate exploit, and the group I play with is rather in this state of mind. But I like you anyway Paul .


Then you will need a great deal of House Rules. There are about 30 items on the list of "cheesy, gamey, exploitive", etc. You may recall on the Rules Discussion List, I had said I would compile this list and eventually it could be developed into a sort of "WiF Primer for Newbies", so they could be educated to be watchful for them rather than be victimized. There are a few like the "No USA vs. Japan Gambit" that ought to be discussed and eliminated in a gentlemen's agreement prior to starting a game, but those are extreme cases and this little ATR tactic is very minor in comparison.

Of course if a group wanted to agree on everything on the list it is doable - just time consuming. I still plan on completing it, I've just been busy with another hobby project lately.

However, an exploit that is there in the rules for all to use and coded into MWiF because MWiF follows the rules - will be very hard to eliminate.



(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 505
RE: Rules Clarification List - 6/17/2008 2:10:51 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
Here I am again with another picky little question about the rules.

For artillery units that are bombarding an adjacent hex as part of a ground strike, does the weather in the bombarding unit's hex matter? It is clear to me that the mission can not be performed against a hex that is experiencing Storm or Blizzard, but it is unclear to me if the artillery can perform this mission if it, itself, is in a hex experiencing storm or blizzard.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 506
RE: Rules Clarification List - 6/17/2008 2:52:08 AM   
Orm


Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here I am again with another picky little question about the rules.

For artillery units that are bombarding an adjacent hex as part of a ground strike, does the weather in the bombarding unit's hex matter? It is clear to me that the mission can not be performed against a hex that is experiencing Storm or Blizzard, but it is unclear to me if the artillery can perform this mission if it, itself, is in a hex experiencing storm or blizzard.



You treat the bombarding artillery as you would a AC giving air support to that hex so the hex the ART is in has no effect.

From RAW
"Its factors are affected by terrain and weather exactly like an aircraft’s tactical factors."

Since only the hex affecting AC is the target hex it is the same for ART.

So, yes, it can bombard from a hex in storm or blizzard but not into.

-Orm

< Message edited by Orm -- 6/17/2008 2:55:58 AM >

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 507
RE: Rules Clarification List - 6/17/2008 3:47:52 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here I am again with another picky little question about the rules.

For artillery units that are bombarding an adjacent hex as part of a ground strike, does the weather in the bombarding unit's hex matter? It is clear to me that the mission can not be performed against a hex that is experiencing Storm or Blizzard, but it is unclear to me if the artillery can perform this mission if it, itself, is in a hex experiencing storm or blizzard.



You treat the bombarding artillery as you would a AC giving air support to that hex so the hex the ART is in has no effect.

From RAW
"Its factors are affected by terrain and weather exactly like an aircraft’s tactical factors."

Since only the hex affecting AC is the target hex it is the same for ART.

So, yes, it can bombard from a hex in storm or blizzard but not into.

-Orm

Thanks.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 508
RE: Rules Clarification List - 7/3/2008 9:45:19 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
All right, here I am, back again with an arcane rules interpretation.

Why can't the USSR set up units in Egypt (or Malta for that matter) at the start of Decline and Fall?

1 - The setup instructions say the USSR sets up its units in Europe, which includes North Africa.

2 - Egypt is not a major power's home country, so foreign troop commitment restrictions shouldn't apply.

It is not that I want to set up units there; it is just that I want to know which rule forbids it.

If none can be found, then I will change the setup location for the USSR and limit them to USSR/Baltic States/Finland/ ...

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 509
RE: Rules Clarification List - 7/3/2008 9:59:25 PM   
jesperpehrson


Posts: 1052
Joined: 7/29/2006
Status: offline
Ohh I think I know this one! Malta and Egypt are territoriy and minor country in respective order aligned to CW which does not cooperate with USSR. This means at least you need to have HQs for the foreign troop commitment. As for placing if satisfying the FTC I don´t know, perhaps only permitted set up in places you control or in other countries if you cooperate with them.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 510
Page:   <<   < prev  15 16 [17] 18 19   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Rules Clarification List Page: <<   < prev  15 16 [17] 18 19   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.266