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: Simultaneus Conquest

 
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: Simultaneus Conquest Page: <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Simultaneus Conquest - 8/7/2008 10:10:18 PM   
Orm


Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline
That is the probable solution but I have trouble with the reference that minor countries never conquers anyting, its major power does (unless it is not at war, see 2.5).

I considered that maybe Persian units are not allowed to enter Iraq because it may not be at war with Iraq but the rule is ambiguous to me.

9.7
"The minor country is at war with everyone its controlling major power is at war with, as well as the major powers that declared war on it."

That implies that Iraq is at war with Persia but Persia is not at war with Iraq. I suppose that is the solution.

-Orm

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 541
RE: Simultaneus Conquest - 8/7/2008 10:21:15 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

That is the probable solution but I have trouble with the reference that minor countries never conquers anyting, its major power does (unless it is not at war, see 2.5).

I considered that maybe Persian units are not allowed to enter Iraq because it may not be at war with Iraq but the rule is ambiguous to me.

9.7
"The minor country is at war with everyone its controlling major power is at war with, as well as the major powers that declared war on it."

That implies that Iraq is at war with Persia but Persia is not at war with Iraq. I suppose that is the solution.

-Orm

If A is at war with B, then B is at war with A. I don't think B gets much choice if A's controlling major power declares war on it.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 542
RE: Simultaneus Conquest - 8/8/2008 4:06:25 AM   
paulderynck


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

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

In a recent discussion with a friend we had some trouble with simultaneus conquest.

Example 1.
USSR declares war on Persia. Germany gets control of Persia. Germany and CW is at war. Iraq is a CW minor. USSR units move into Tehran. The Persian cav moves into Baghdad. In the conquest step Persia is conquered by USSR and Iraq is conquered by Germany (since the hexes in Iraq is converted to German control).

Now to the tricky example.

Example 2.
USSR declares war on Persia. Germany gets control of Persia. Iraq is a USSR minor. Germany and USSR are NOT at war. Iraq moves it cav into Tehran and reverts it to USSR control. Persia moves it cav into Baghdad. The hexes stays Persian since Germany is not at war with Iraq(USSR). In the conquest step USSR is in control of Tehran and conquers Persia. Persia is in control of Baghdad. What happens to Iraq?

I am not comfortable with what comes to my mind. Persia conquers Iraq. Germany conquers Iraq. Iraq stays a USSR minor.



RAW7 AUG04
13.7.1 Conquest
You can only conquer a home country or territory if you are at war with the major power or minor country that controls it.
All conquest in a turn occurs simultaneously.
Minor countries never conquer anything. The home country or territory is instead conquered by the minor’s controlling major power (unless it is not at war, see 2.5).
2.5 Control
However, hexes taken from an enemy major power (or its controlled minors) are controlled by the major power taking them regardless of whether those hexes are taken by units of the major power or its controlled minors, unless the major powers are not at war with each other (in which case the hexes are controlled by the minor country taking them).


-Orm

Sorry, but this seems preety easy to me, unless I am missing something.

In your given scenario, a Persian unit can never conquer Iraq since Germany is not at war with the USSR (and hence Germany is not at war with Iraq). An Iraqi unit can conquer Persia, since the USSR is at war with Persia.

Persia cannot conquer Iraq because it must already have been conquered by Russia. Persia cannot liberate Iraq for two reasons:
1. It gets conquered before the Liberation step.
2. It is not a Major Power.

So in the conquest step Persia is completely conquered. 13.7 in talking about a completely conquered power states "Each hex it controls in a territory or home country controlled by another major power or minor country reverts to the control of that other major power or minor country."

So Russia keeps control of Iraq.

< Message edited by paulderynck -- 8/8/2008 5:03:20 AM >


_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 543
RE: Simultaneus Conquest - 8/8/2008 4:33:13 AM   
paulderynck


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

< Message edited by paulderynck -- 8/8/2008 5:01:39 AM >


_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 544
RE: Simultaneus Conquest - 8/8/2008 5:11:45 AM   
paulderynck


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

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

RAW7 AUG04
13.7.1 Conquest
You can only conquer a home country or territory if you are at war with the major power or minor country that controls it.
All conquest in a turn occurs simultaneously.
Minor countries never conquer anything. The home country or territory is instead conquered by the minor’s controlling major power (unless it is not at war, see 2.5).
2.5 Control
However, hexes taken from an enemy major power (or its controlled minors) are controlled by the major power taking them regardless of whether those hexes are taken by units of the major power or its controlled minors, unless the major powers are not at war with each other (in which case the hexes are controlled by the minor country taking them).

-Orm

Sorry, but this seems preety easy to me, unless I am missing something.

In your given scenario, a Persian unit can never conquer Iraq since Germany is not at war with the USSR (and hence Germany is not at war with Iraq). An Iraqi unit can conquer Persia, since the USSR is at war with Persia.

Minor countries can control hexes in other minor countries per the quotes from RAW provided. But "Minor countries never conquer anything".

< Message edited by paulderynck -- 8/8/2008 5:18:33 AM >


_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 545
RE: Simultaneus Conquest - 8/8/2008 12:00:21 PM   
oscar72se

 

Posts: 100
Joined: 8/28/2006
From: Gothenburg Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
Minor countries can control hexes in other minor countries per the quotes from RAW provided. But "Minor countries never conquer anything".

Just to clarify, this means that a minor country can never expand beyond it´s initial borders. All conquests made by a minor country would fall into the controlling MPs´hands.

Regards,
Oscar

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 546
rebasing and naval transport - 8/10/2008 11:45:37 PM   
coregames


Posts: 470
Joined: 8/12/2004
Status: offline
This may sound silly, but can a faceup TRS (or SCS) at sea, voluntarily return to base as a naval move, and on its way, move into a port, pick a unit up (DIV in the case of SCS), and move out, then into a destination port with the unit? The rules don't seem to prohibit it, but this has never occured to us.

_____________________________

"The creative combination lays bare the presumption of a lie." -- Lasker

Keith Henderson

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 547
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/10/2008 11:54:17 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: coregames

This may sound silly, but can a faceup TRS (or SCS) at sea, voluntarily return to base as a naval move, and on its way, move into a port, pick a unit up (DIV in the case of SCS), and move out, then into a destination port with the unit? The rules don't seem to prohibit it, but this has never occured to us.

Yes.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to coregames)
Post #: 548
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/11/2008 5:54:35 AM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1665
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline
The cargo would arrive face down though.

_____________________________

"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 549
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/11/2008 6:20:22 AM   
paulderynck


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

The cargo would arrive face down though.

And it can be done in the final return to base step or on a voluntary or even a forced abort from combat - unless RAC is different.

(Yes I know... wow, that's really gamey!)

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Taxman66)
Post #: 550
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/23/2008 8:57:00 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
One of the US Entry options is to occupy Greenland and Iceland. With the MWIF map, the Faeroes Islands are left in limbo by this rule.

The Faeroes do not appear on the WIF FE paper maps, so there is no mention of them in the rules. However, they are similar to Greenland and Iceland, being owned by Denmark at the beginning of the war, and becoming neutral once Denmark is conquered.

Here is how the beginning of the Brute Force scenario looks currently, with the US controlling Iceland and the Faeroes being neutral (no flags).

Should the Faeroes also be given to the US when Greenland and Iceland are?




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 551
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/23/2008 9:36:55 PM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

One of the US Entry options is to occupy Greenland and Iceland. With the MWIF map, the Faeroes Islands are left in limbo by this rule.

The Faeroes do not appear on the WIF FE paper maps, so there is no mention of them in the rules. However, they are similar to Greenland and Iceland, being owned by Denmark at the beginning of the war, and becoming neutral once Denmark is conquered.

Here is how the beginning of the Brute Force scenario looks currently, with the US controlling Iceland and the Faeroes being neutral (no flags).

Should the Faeroes also be given to the US when Greenland and Iceland are?


The Faeroes were controlled by Denmark during WW2, as Wikipedia can confirms :

************************************
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faroe_Islands :

They have been an autonomous province of the Kingdom of Denmark since 1948, making it a member of the Rigsfællesskab. The Faroese have, over the years, taken control of most matters except defence (though they have a native coast guard), foreign affairs and the legal system. These three areas are the responsibility of Denmark.

The Faroes have close traditional ties to Iceland, Shetland, Orkney, the Outer Hebrides and Greenland. The archipelago was politically detached from Norway in 1814. The Faroes are represented in the Nordic Council as a part of the Danish delegation.
************************************

However,

Iceland occupation by the United States during WW2 is mentionned in the history of Iceland (here for example : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland where it says "In 1941, responsibility for the occupation was taken over by the United States Army. Allied occupation of Iceland lasted throughout the war.").

History of Greenland shows a great connection with the USA (without occupation as for Iceland) (See here for example : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland).

The history of the Faeroes Islands (see here for example : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Faroe_Islands) speaks about a British occupation during all WW2, and absolutely no link to the USA.

So I think that the Faeroes should not be given to the US when Greenland and Iceland are.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 552
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/23/2008 9:42:10 PM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Here is how the beginning of the Brute Force scenario looks currently, with the US controlling Iceland and the Faeroes being neutral (no flags).

The Faeroes being neutral looks OK by WiF FE mechanisms : When Denmark falls, all Territories where no one has influence (units), reverts to neutrality.

But when you look at the history of the Faeroes, you learn that they were occupied by British forces that garrisoned it for fear of the Germans establishing SUB bases here. So maybe the Faeroes should start all scenarios starting after M/A 40 (See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_occupation_of_the_Faroe_Islands_in_World_War_II).

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 553
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/23/2008 10:07:44 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Here is how the beginning of the Brute Force scenario looks currently, with the US controlling Iceland and the Faeroes being neutral (no flags).

The Faeroes being neutral looks OK by WiF FE mechanisms : When Denmark falls, all Territories where no one has influence (units), reverts to neutrality.

But when you look at the history of the Faeroes, you learn that they were occupied by British forces that garrisoned it for fear of the Germans establishing SUB bases here. So maybe the Faeroes should start all scenarios starting after M/A 40 (See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_occupation_of_the_Faroe_Islands_in_World_War_II).

The only problem I have with this is how to implement it - according to the rules.

There is code that makes Greenland, Iceland, and the Faeroes go neutral once Denmark is conquered, but that same code applies to all territories (no capitals present) when their controlling minor country is conquered.

What rule(s) would cover the landing of CW troops on the Faeroes (or Iceland for that matter)? Can major powers that are at war simply 'occupy' neutral territories if the original controlling neutral country has been conquered? Could Germany place units in the Faeroes? Do either of these require invasions? How about needing a DOW?

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 554
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/23/2008 10:25:24 PM   
lomyrin


Posts: 3741
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline
IN CWiF, Denmark aligned with the CW and subsequently conquered by Germany, Greenalnd, Iceland and the Faroes all become CW controlled.

The US entry action for occupying Iceland and Greenland then makes those US controlled but the Faroes remain under CW control.

Lars


(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 555
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/23/2008 11:09:47 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

IN CWiF, Denmark aligned with the CW and subsequently conquered by Germany, Greenalnd, Iceland and the Faroes all become CW controlled.

The US entry action for occupying Iceland and Greenland then makes those US controlled but the Faroes remain under CW control.

Lars



Sounds right. Thanks.

I'll see if I can insert the code to effect all that for the scenarios that start after Denmark was conquered.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to lomyrin)
Post #: 556
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/23/2008 11:16:07 PM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
The only problem I have with this is how to implement it - according to the rules.

There is code that makes Greenland, Iceland, and the Faeroes go neutral once Denmark is conquered, but that same code applies to all territories (no capitals present) when their controlling minor country is conquered.

What rule(s) would cover the landing of CW troops on the Faeroes (or Iceland for that matter)?

Let's just have the Faeroes CW controlled at the start of any scenario that start after M/A 40.

Otherwise, the status of the Faeores in the other scenarios will have to follow RAW, that is become neutral if there is no foreign presence in the Faeroes. Not that it really matters, because once Neutral, the CW can DoW the Faeroes to land there, and conquer it, and the case is closed.

quote:

Can major powers that are at war simply 'occupy' neutral territories if the original controlling neutral country has been conquered?

No. RAW covers that, let's not change that.

quote:

Could Germany place units in the Faeroes? Do either of these require invasions? How about needing a DOW?

While the Danemark neutral, they have to DoW the Denmark and invade.
While the Danemark is CW aligned and not yet conquered, they have to invade.
While the Danemark is CW aligned and conquered, they have to DoW and then invade.


< Message edited by Froonp -- 8/23/2008 11:17:04 PM >

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 557
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/24/2008 6:21:55 AM   
paulderynck


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

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
The only problem I have with this is how to implement it - according to the rules.

There is code that makes Greenland, Iceland, and the Faeroes go neutral once Denmark is conquered, but that same code applies to all territories (no capitals present) when their controlling minor country is conquered.

What rule(s) would cover the landing of CW troops on the Faeroes (or Iceland for that matter)?

Let's just have the Faeroes CW controlled at the start of any scenario that start after M/A 40.

Otherwise, the status of the Faeores in the other scenarios will have to follow RAW, that is become neutral if there is no foreign presence in the Faeroes. Not that it really matters, because once Neutral, the CW can DoW the Faeroes to land there, and conquer it, and the case is closed.

I agree this is the way to do it but the one problem you have is U.S.Entry. FREX Denmark is conquered and the turn ends. The Faroes per RAW go neutral but also per RAW they are treated as a minor country for a DoW. Since the Faroes were added to the game I'd suggest adding to the "Occupy Iceland/Greenland" option, that at the same time, the CW can occupy the Faroes.

< Message edited by paulderynck -- 8/24/2008 6:27:09 AM >


_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 558
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/24/2008 6:38:37 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
The only problem I have with this is how to implement it - according to the rules.

There is code that makes Greenland, Iceland, and the Faeroes go neutral once Denmark is conquered, but that same code applies to all territories (no capitals present) when their controlling minor country is conquered.

What rule(s) would cover the landing of CW troops on the Faeroes (or Iceland for that matter)?

Let's just have the Faeroes CW controlled at the start of any scenario that start after M/A 40.

Otherwise, the status of the Faeores in the other scenarios will have to follow RAW, that is become neutral if there is no foreign presence in the Faeroes. Not that it really matters, because once Neutral, the CW can DoW the Faeroes to land there, and conquer it, and the case is closed.

I agree this is the way to do it but the one problem you have is U.S.Entry. FREX Denmark is conquered and the turn ends. The Faroes per RAW go neutral but also per RAW they are treated as a minor country for a DoW. Since the Faroes were added to the game I'd suggest adding to the "Occupy Iceland/Greenland" option, that at the same time, the CW can occupy the Faroes.

That's unattractive because the CW will want to occupy the Faeroes long before the US can/wants to choose the US Entry option for Greenland/Iceland. Also, the rules indicate that the CW and Germany might have units in Iceland/Greenland when the US chooses that US entry option.

In terms of US Entry, is DOW a territory the same as DOW a minor country?

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 559
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/24/2008 6:48:46 AM   
paulderynck


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

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

In terms of US Entry, is DOW a territory the same as DOW a minor country?

It is for territories that lapse into neutrality. I forget if there are any territories initially that are not owned by somebody - I don't think there are. But if you are asking the cost, it is -5 for the CW/France and +3 for Germany/Italy.

< Message edited by paulderynck -- 8/24/2008 7:03:15 AM >


_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 560
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/24/2008 6:56:52 AM   
paulderynck


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
That's unattractive because the CW will want to occupy the Faeroes long before the US can/wants to choose the US Entry option for Greenland/Iceland. Also, the rules indicate that the CW and Germany might have units in Iceland/Greenland when the US chooses that US entry option.


Then maybe along with introducing the problematical islands you'll have to introduce a rule that they are automatically controlled by whoever Denmark aligns with and remain so, even if unoccupied when Denmark is conquered.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 561
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/24/2008 10:42:29 AM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

In terms of US Entry, is DOW a territory the same as DOW a minor country?

It is for territories that lapse into neutrality. I forget if there are any territories initially that are not owned by somebody - I don't think there are. But if you are asking the cost, it is -5 for the CW/France and +3 for Germany/Italy.

This cost is for Minor Countries.
There is no cost for Territories.
But the rule for Conquest says that :
"Each remaining territory and conquered home country it controls becomes controlled by the major power with the greatest influence in that country or territory (see incomplete conquest above). If no-one has any influence there, that territory or home country becomes neutral. Each neutral territory may subsequently be declared war on as if it were a minor country."

The CW can send something there before the end of the turn in which the Denmark is invaded, and they will have the Faeroes. This is what the British did IRL. The Germans invaded Denmark on the 9 April, and the British occupied the Faeroes on the 12 April. Pretty quick reaction.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 562
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/24/2008 10:45:00 AM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: paulderynck


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
That's unattractive because the CW will want to occupy the Faeroes long before the US can/wants to choose the US Entry option for Greenland/Iceland. Also, the rules indicate that the CW and Germany might have units in Iceland/Greenland when the US chooses that US entry option.


Then maybe along with introducing the problematical islands you'll have to introduce a rule that they are automatically controlled by whoever Denmark aligns with and remain so, even if unoccupied when Denmark is conquered.

This is looks good from a historical point of view.
The British did not send a DIV scaled unit there, they send 250 Royal Marines. So an auto occupation looks good, but, hey, that's something more to add to the programmation of the game.

Also, if we do that, what about other similar cases ? Isn't it the door openned to plenty of special control rules ?

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 563
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/24/2008 3:25:37 PM   
Norman42


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

quote:

The CW can send something there before the end of the turn in which the Denmark is invaded, and they will have the Faeroes. This is what the British did IRL. The Germans invaded Denmark on the 9 April, and the British occupied the Faeroes on the 12 April. Pretty quick reaction.


I think RAW and this statement cover the situation fairly well.

It goes neutral if no troops are there during conquest; if troops are there it reverts to their control. If you want to take it after conquest, you DOW and suffer the consequences. USE Occupy Iceland option has no bearing on the Faeroes, as was historical.

So if UK wants to hold them, they either land troops before Denmark falls, or they DOW it later. Likewise for Germany.


_____________________________

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

C.L.Norman

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 564
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/24/2008 6:30:36 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Norman42


quote:

The CW can send something there before the end of the turn in which the Denmark is invaded, and they will have the Faeroes. This is what the British did IRL. The Germans invaded Denmark on the 9 April, and the British occupied the Faeroes on the 12 April. Pretty quick reaction.


I think RAW and this statement cover the situation fairly well.

It goes neutral if no troops are there during conquest; if troops are there it reverts to their control. If you want to take it after conquest, you DOW and suffer the consequences. USE Occupy Iceland option has no bearing on the Faeroes, as was historical.

So if UK wants to hold them, they either land troops before Denmark falls, or they DOW it later. Likewise for Germany.


I like this because it is clean. Of course I still have questions:

1 - Does it have to be a land unit, or could placing a naval unit or air unit qualify as 'troops'? Does a convoy qualify?
2 - Does the same thing apply to Iceland and Greenland?
3 - Does the same thing apply to other minor countries and the territories they control?

The general rule I see here is:
a - If minor country MI is aligned to major power MA, then MA can station units in MI's territories (as per standard rules).
b - Should MI be conquered, then MI's previously held territories become neutral (as per the rule that was quoted from RAW), unless there are units present from MA or EN (the other side - any enemy country).
c - If there are troops present, then the territory does not become neutral but remains controlled by the occupying force(s).
d - If there are units from both sides present, then the control of hexes remains unchanged, with MA controlling any that previously had been controlled by MI.

This does not require a lot of coding since most of these conditional statements are already in place. It is just the line of code that says the territories become neutral that would need to be expanded (c & d above).

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Norman42)
Post #: 565
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/24/2008 6:51:26 PM   
Orm


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

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I like this because it is clean. Of course I still have questions:

1 - Does it have to be a land unit, or could placing a naval unit or air unit qualify as 'troops'? Does a convoy qualify?
2 - Does the same thing apply to Iceland and Greenland?
3 - Does the same thing apply to other minor countries and the territories they control?

The general rule I see here is:
a - If minor country MI is aligned to major power MA, then MA can station units in MI's territories (as per standard rules).
b - Should MI be conquered, then MI's previously held territories become neutral (as per the rule that was quoted from RAW), unless there are units present from MA or EN (the other side - any enemy country).
c - If there are troops present, then the territory does not become neutral but remains controlled by the occupying force(s).
d - If there are units from both sides present, then the control of hexes remains unchanged, with MA controlling any that previously had been controlled by MI.

This does not require a lot of coding since most of these conditional statements are already in place. It is just the line of code that says the territories become neutral that would need to be expanded (c & d above).


1) It would have to be a unit with a garrison value (Land or AC).
2) Yes.
3) Yes.

I cut out the rules that apply.

From: 13.7.1 Conquest

Complete conquest
Each remaining territory and conquered home country it controls becomes controlled by the major power with the greatest influence in that country or territory (see incomplete conquest above). If no-one has any influence there, that territory or home country becomes neutral. Each neutral territory may subsequently be declared war on as if it were a minor country.

Use this priority to determine who has the greatest influence:
1. Whoever controls most factories in the home country (with the capital counting as an additional 3 factories for this calculation).
2. Whoever has the highest garrison value (see 13.1) in the home country.
3. Whoever occupied the home country’s last factory or capital city.


< Message edited by Orm -- 8/24/2008 6:52:54 PM >

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 566
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/24/2008 6:59:38 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I like this because it is clean. Of course I still have questions:

1 - Does it have to be a land unit, or could placing a naval unit or air unit qualify as 'troops'? Does a convoy qualify?
2 - Does the same thing apply to Iceland and Greenland?
3 - Does the same thing apply to other minor countries and the territories they control?

The general rule I see here is:
a - If minor country MI is aligned to major power MA, then MA can station units in MI's territories (as per standard rules).
b - Should MI be conquered, then MI's previously held territories become neutral (as per the rule that was quoted from RAW), unless there are units present from MA or EN (the other side - any enemy country).
c - If there are troops present, then the territory does not become neutral but remains controlled by the occupying force(s).
d - If there are units from both sides present, then the control of hexes remains unchanged, with MA controlling any that previously had been controlled by MI.

This does not require a lot of coding since most of these conditional statements are already in place. It is just the line of code that says the territories become neutral that would need to be expanded (c & d above).


1) It would have to be a unit with a garrison value (Land or AC).
2) Yes.
3) Yes.

I cut out the rules that apply.

From: 13.7.1 Conquest

Complete conquest
Each remaining territory and conquered home country it controls becomes controlled by the major power with the greatest influence in that country or territory (see incomplete conquest above). If no-one has any influence there, that territory or home country becomes neutral. Each neutral territory may subsequently be declared war on as if it were a minor country.

Use this priority to determine who has the greatest influence:
1. Whoever controls most factories in the home country (with the capital counting as an additional 3 factories for this calculation).
2. Whoever has the highest garrison value (see 13.1) in the home country.
3. Whoever occupied the home country’s last factory or capital city.


Oh.

Then perhaps the code for this is already in place. I have to reread it (sometime today). Sorry, but I just can't seem to remember all 260,000 lines of code.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 567
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/24/2008 8:13:10 PM   
lomyrin


Posts: 3741
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline
Per the CWiF code Danish convoys placed in Thorshavn and remaining there after Denmark has been conquered by Germany make the Faroes CW controlled as are the convoys.  CWiF also makes them CW controlled after the Danish conquest if there were no units of any kind there.

Is this intended to simulate that the CW has some undefined small presence in the Islands ?

Lars 

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 568
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/24/2008 8:47:37 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
CWiF doesn't seem to agree with RaW in that case. I think RaW handles it all pretty well and no special exceptions are needed. Any scenario starting after Mar/Apr 40 can have them be CW controlled; any scenario before that and the players can go there if they deem it important.

Is there enough flat ground in the Fareoes to make an airstrip there without some effort (landing an Engineer)? I'm sure there is an airport there today, but was there in WWII? What I'm getting at is maybe they could be mountain hexes to simulate that. Pictures I've seen show mostly rather forbidding Fjords combined with hilly terrain.

(in reply to lomyrin)
Post #: 569
RE: rebasing and naval transport - 8/24/2008 8:49:37 PM   
paulderynck


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

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

Per the CWiF code Danish convoys placed in Thorshavn and remaining there after Denmark has been conquered by Germany make the Faroes CW controlled as are the convoys.  CWiF also makes them CW controlled after the Danish conquest if there were no units of any kind there.

Is this intended to simulate that the CW has some undefined small presence in the Islands ?

Lars 

That may be CWiF but by RAW the convoys have to rebase and flip if they are all that is present when Denmark gets conquered.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to lomyrin)
Post #: 570
Page:   <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Simultaneus Conquest Page: <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   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

2.299