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: Minor country units

 
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: Minor country units Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Minor country units - 2/23/2007 9:42:36 AM   
Frederyck


Posts: 427
Joined: 12/7/2005
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline 		Ok, that seems like a fair ruling. The Minor country's units are removed from the game, but put back according to the normal rules once it is aligned again.

(in reply to Frederyck)
Post #: 91
Eastern Poland - 3/6/2007 3:12:10 PM   
Frederyck


Posts: 427
Joined: 12/7/2005
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline 		After the USSR conquers Eastern Poland, but before Germany and the USSR is at war, is Eastern Poland a part of the Polish Homecountry?

If so, can a partisan appear in Eastern Poland? Eastern Poland is *conquered* by the USSR according the rules (19.5.1 Once you exercise those rights, the part of Poland to the east of the partition line becomes conquered by the Soviets) so even though the partisan is nominally on the same side as the USSR, couldn't it form there?

If a partisan can't appear in Eastern Poland, can it move there after it has appeared and thereby be out of reach for the German forces?


(in reply to Frederyck)
Post #: 92
RE: Eastern Poland - 3/7/2007 12:22:44 AM   
Mziln


Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline 		Partisan availability and their starting location can be found on the main menu bar dropdowns.

(in reply to Frederyck)
Post #: 93
RE: Eastern Poland - 3/7/2007 2:07:57 AM   
trees

 

Posts: 175
Joined: 5/28/2006
Status: offline 		we experimented with PARTisans for Russian controlled East Poland via House Rules. We figured, if Russia walked in to the place with only an Artillery division, it sure would be perilous to be part of that division. (In real life they went in with plenty of troops). But in WiF we found it rather pointless...there are no resources to block, PARTisans at that time are too weak to attack anything, and it really gets puzzling what to do with the PARTisan once Germany and Russia do go to war. Eventually we junked the whole idea. I had never noticed the 'conquered' distinction and how that might interact with the Rules as Written for Partisans.

(in reply to Mziln)
Post #: 94
RE: Eastern Poland - 3/7/2007 9:14:21 AM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Frederyck

After the USSR conquers Eastern Poland, but before Germany and the USSR is at war, is Eastern Poland a part of the Polish Homecountry?

If so, can a partisan appear in Eastern Poland? Eastern Poland is *conquered* by the USSR according the rules (19.5.1 Once you exercise those rights, the part of Poland to the east of the partition line becomes conquered by the Soviets) so even though the partisan is nominally on the same side as the USSR, couldn't it form there?

If a partisan can't appear in Eastern Poland, can it move there after it has appeared and thereby be out of reach for the German forces?

I say this is a good question, for which I have no immediate answer.
I could live with all answers, but definitely would like for the designer to have his say on this one.
I put this in the list of questions.

(in reply to Frederyck)
Post #: 95
RE: Eastern Poland - 3/7/2007 11:03:21 AM   
Frederyck


Posts: 427
Joined: 12/7/2005
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: trees

we experimented with PARTisans for Russian controlled East Poland via House Rules. We figured, if Russia walked in to the place with only an Artillery division, it sure would be perilous to be part of that division. (In real life they went in with plenty of troops). But in WiF we found it rather pointless...there are no resources to block, PARTisans at that time are too weak to attack anything, and it really gets puzzling what to do with the PARTisan once Germany and Russia do go to war. Eventually we junked the whole idea. I had never noticed the 'conquered' distinction and how that might interact with the Rules as Written for Partisans.


The one thing I have thought of is that you might be able to use a partisan stationed in Eastern Poland as a road block for the German advancement when they decide to attack the USSR. Think about it, even though the partisan has no ZoC other than in the hex it is in, if placed three hexes East of Brest-Litovsk, in the middle of Pripet, the Germans must commit at least some resources to kill it - because you really don't want to leave the partisan behind you unattended because come winter, it might start doing stuff...

(in reply to trees)
Post #: 96
RE: Rules Clarification List - 3/8/2007 12:06:11 AM   
coregames


Posts: 470
Joined: 8/12/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
There will be A2A in a sea area as long as one side has FTR.


My apologies Patrice.. I found the implication in the rules that you are correct: 11.5.7 under the choice

You can choose a combat type that won’t produce a combat. For example, you can choose a naval air combat (priority 2 above) even if you only have an FTR and your opponent has no aircraft present. You might do this to prevent an unfavourable combat type occurring.


This implies clearly that FTR can only avoid combat if there are no opposing aircraft present. It strikes me as contrary to the rest of the air system, but it's a game, and the rules are what matter, not opinions.

< Message edited by coregames -- 3/8/2007 12:26:24 AM >

_____________________________

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

Keith Henderson

(in reply to coregames)
Post #: 97
RE: Rules Clarification List - 3/8/2007 12:53:56 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline 		No need to apologize, this game is complicated, and we all are mistaken at one moment or another.

But thanks for adding this tibdit that may help others understand this as well as us now.

(in reply to coregames)
Post #: 98
RE: Eastern Poland - 3/8/2007 1:13:32 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline 		I'll try a shot at clearing this up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frederyck

After the USSR conquers Eastern Poland, but before Germany and the USSR is at war, is Eastern Poland a part of the Polish Homecountry?

Nothing indicates the contrary in the rule.
19.5.1 even says that Eastern Poland is conquered by Russia.

******************************
19.5.1 Eastern Poland
(...)
Once you exercise those rights, the part of Poland to the east of the partition line becomes conquered by the Soviets.
******************************

quote:

If so, can a partisan appear in Eastern Poland? Eastern Poland is *conquered* by the USSR according the rules (19.5.1 Once you exercise those rights, the part of Poland to the east of the partition line becomes conquered by the Soviets) so even though the partisan is nominally on the same side as the USSR, couldn't it form there?

Well, technically, Poland is conquered by Germany, so the Partisan if it appear, is controlled by the CW.
Even if Eastern Poland is conquered by Russia, Poland itself is conquered by Germany. Eastern Poland is a subdivision of Poland, and is part of Poland from what 19.5.1 does not say.
So, I'd say that a PART appearing in Poland can be placed in either place of Poland.
But remember, it is a CW controlled unit, and it does only cooperate with Polish units, so placing it there can have bad consequences for Russia, when Russia will want to have its troops either garrison the border, or move from it, or elsewhere, as the CW is not renowed for his plentiful number of land movements.

quote:

If a partisan can't appear in Eastern Poland, can it move there after it has appeared and thereby be out of reach for the German forces?

I think that nothing in the rule prevent this.

From a logical point of view, I do not see what would prevent Polish rebels to form up in either part of Poland, and why not go in the Russian controlled part of it to fight another day. But I might be wrong, especially because I'd rather see the Russians slaughtering those rebels, and those rebels fighting the russians, rather than take shelter there.


This said, I'd also like to point out that, without betraying any secret (I hope), there were recent discussions at ADG about having Eastern Poland made part of the Russian Home Country, as Bessarabia is made too, when the Russians take control of it.

So, whatever the demonstration I might have done here by going with a rule-wise analysis, it may be wrong because the intend of ADG here might simply be that Eastern Poland is no more part of Poland (from a PART appearing point of view), and they forgot to specify this status in 19.5.1.


Conclusion is : We should ask Harry

I've added this to the list of questions we have for ADG.


< Message edited by Froonp -- 3/8/2007 1:29:55 AM >

(in reply to Frederyck)
Post #: 99
RE: Eastern Poland - 3/8/2007 10:05:29 AM   
Frederyck


Posts: 427
Joined: 12/7/2005
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

This said, I'd also like to point out that, without betraying any secret (I hope), there were recent discussions at ADG about having Eastern Poland made part of the Russian Home Country, as Bessarabia is made too, when the Russians take control of it.


Having scanned through the unfinished rules for WiF Master Edition, I noticed that Eastern Poland is part of the USSR Homecountry in that version of the game.

But as I said - having a PART inside the Pripet Marshes would (I think) mostly be beneficial for the USSR. It is probably way better anyway than having it in Western Poland where it undoubtedly will be exterminated first thing by the Germans and thus most likely serve no purpose at all. (Unless of course the German units in Poland are really badly placed.)

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 100
RE: Eastern Poland - 3/8/2007 10:32:19 AM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Frederyck
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

This said, I'd also like to point out that, without betraying any secret (I hope), there were recent discussions at ADG about having Eastern Poland made part of the Russian Home Country, as Bessarabia is made too, when the Russians take control of it.


Having scanned through the unfinished rules for WiF Master Edition, I noticed that Eastern Poland is part of the USSR Homecountry in that version of the game.

But as I said - having a PART inside the Pripet Marshes would (I think) mostly be beneficial for the USSR. It is probably way better anyway than having it in Western Poland where it undoubtedly will be exterminated first thing by the Germans and thus most likely serve no purpose at all. (Unless of course the German units in Poland are really badly placed.)


I agree, and this Polish Partisan taking shelter in the Pripets amongst enemies Russian units who take care for it, seems awfully wrong to me.

(in reply to Frederyck)
Post #: 101
RE: Eastern Poland - 3/8/2007 10:58:01 AM   
Frederyck


Posts: 427
Joined: 12/7/2005
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I agree, and this Polish Partisan taking shelter in the Pripets amongst enemies Russian units who take care for it, seems awfully wrong to me.


It certainly doesn't rhyme with reason. An alternative (apart from declaring Eastern Poland part of the USSR Homecountry) would be to say that Eastern Poland is to be trreated like a Territory conquered by the USSR. The downside of this is that a notional unit in Eastern Poland would be Russian, and thus more likely out of supply. This will make PARA-dropping behind enemy lines in the south of Eastern Poland much easier.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 102
RE: Rules Clarification List - 3/26/2007 3:06:27 PM   
ptey

 

Posts: 41
Joined: 9/25/2006
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Status: offline 		Question about lendlease from an isolated factory.

In a game im currently engaged in, the following situation has occured. France only create one production point in Metz which are isolated (which becomes one BP). However Bordeaux is still France controlled. Now, is it possible to lend lease the one BP France creates to CW, by convoying it to England from Bordeaux? It seems perfectly possible by the rules, but appear alittle strange and may open up for more serious lend-leasing weirdness.

Thanks

(in reply to pak19652002)
Post #: 103
RE: Rules Clarification List - 3/26/2007 4:43:47 PM   
Frederyck


Posts: 427
Joined: 12/7/2005
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline 		I would say that is legal. A build point doesn't "appear" in the factory that produced it (and often early in the game, one factory doesn't even produce a whole BP by itself). This rule "problem" is apparant for every Commonwealth player that for example only manages to produce in Australia and in the UK, but gets to build a unit in India that turn even though all production there has been stopped by Japanese intervention. The same issue can occur in China if Japan has wedged itself between the northern and southern production areas. All Chinese build points are still tallied and bought for together.

(in reply to ptey)
Post #: 104
RE: Rules Clarification List - 3/26/2007 6:09:45 PM   
Mziln


Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline
quote:

Original: Ptay

France can only create one production point in Metz that is isolated (which becomes one BP). However Bordeaux is still French controlled. Now, is it possible to lend lease the one BP France creates to CW, by convoying it to England from Bordeaux? It seems perfectly possible by the rules, but appears a little strange and may open up for more serious lend-leasing weirdness.


The answer is: No, not if Metz is completely isolated. Build points are created in the factorys that produced them.

Then the build points have to be transported to Bordeaux and then to Britain to be used as lend lease to the CW.

MWiF takes care of this paperwork for you. And you do not have to create build points in Metz if you think the Axis may capture the city.


13.6.4 Lend lease

Transport

During the production step, you transport the promised build points to any city or major port in the recipient’s home country (Britain’s in the case of the Commonwealth). You do this in exactly the same way as you transport resources (see 13.6.1), except that you can also transport an additional 2 build points to the capital and 1 to each other city and major port cumulative, each turn (e.g. you could transport 6 build points to London each turn; 2 for being the capital, 3 for the factories and 1 for the major port in the hex). Promised build points that can’t be transported are lost.


13.6.1 Resources

Transporting resources by rail

You transport a resource to a factory in the production step by railing it from its hex to a usable factory. It must move along railway lines (roads count as railways for this purpose). It can also cross a straits hexside from one railway hex to another. Each resource cannot cross more than 1 straits hexsides.

This move does not count as a rail move and the resource does not have to start its move at a station.

The move can only pass through:
• hexes you control;
• hexes in neutral minor countries; and
• hexes controlled by another major power, but only if it allows you.

< Message edited by Mziln -- 3/26/2007 6:46:59 PM >

(in reply to Frederyck)
Post #: 105
RE: Rules Clarification List - 3/26/2007 6:47:50 PM   
ptey

 

Posts: 41
Joined: 9/25/2006
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Status: offline 		The argument used in the discussion was, that when production points become build points, they no longer have a preset geographical place of origin. Thus you can transport it from any port, even though that port cannot trace a route to a used factory.
I dont like it, but im not sure if it really is against the rules quoted by Mziln.

(in reply to Mziln)
Post #: 106
RE: Rules Clarification List - 3/26/2007 9:02:18 PM   
Frederyck


Posts: 427
Joined: 12/7/2005
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln
The answer is: No, not if Metz is completely isolated. Build points are created in the factorys that produced them.


I don't agree with that - the rules do not state where build points appear. They do however, state explicitly where production points come from:

13.6
"Each factory that receives a resource makes one production point. You multiply this by your production multiple to give you build points. Build points are what you spend to buy new units."

Production points are not build points, t hough.

When production points are converted to build points, they are done so in a batch regardless of where the production originated. As in the examples I gave above: where a build point appears is not important for how you use it. An isolated production point built by the Communist Chinese in the north is still added to the Chinese total of production points when calculating build points, even if all land connections to Nationalists have been cut off.

A final example is that if the French used the build points on their own, a resulting unit built could appear in Bordeaux according to the rules.

(in reply to Mziln)
Post #: 107
RE: Rules Clarification List - 3/26/2007 10:25:05 PM   
Mziln


Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline 		The issue is can build points from an isolated city (Metz) be used to satisfy lend lease requirements.

No they cannot otherwise why have rules to move build points under 13.6.4 Lend Lease?

13.6.4 Lend Lease comes before 13.6.5 Building Units. 

You could only use Metz to satisfy lend lease knowing the CW would would not receive the build points and the Build Points could not be used because...

Transport

During the production step, you transport the promised build points to any city or major port in the recipient’s home country (Britain’s in the case of the Commonwealth). You do this in exactly the same way as you transport resources (see 13.6.1), except that you can also transport an additional 2 build points to the capital and 1 to each other city and major port cumulative, each turn (e.g. you could transport 6 build points to London each turn; 2 for being the capital, 3 for the factories and 1 for the major port in the hex). Promised build points that can’t be transported are lost.

< Message edited by Mziln -- 3/27/2007 4:00:33 AM >

(in reply to Frederyck)
Post #: 108
RE: Rules Clarification List - 3/26/2007 11:15:10 PM   
Frederyck


Posts: 427
Joined: 12/7/2005
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline 		I think the sentence you bold faced mostly concerns disrupted CONV-lines. If the CONV-line between CW and France in this case has been compromised, France can't use the BP for itself instead.

When the rule references transporting BPs in the same way as resources, it makes no mention of where a BP originates. A resource originates on the map. A BP originates virtually.

Take this example:

Say that a country has two resources and two factories, isolated from each other. (Ie one resource and one factory connected in one place, and the other resource and the other factory connected in another). If the country in question has a modified production multiplier of 0.25, they will get one (1) complete Build Point anyway. If this BP has been lend leased away, from where could it be transported, the first or the second factory? Granted, the example has a factory at both choices, but I think the principle is the same - production points originate at factories, which is why it is production points you bomb strategically, but build points are just in-game representations of potential until put into use or on the map.

In the same way; how can a besieged "hero city" like Leningrad receive reinforcements, if all USSR production takes place beyond the Urals?

(in reply to Mziln)
Post #: 109
RE: Rules Clarification List - 3/27/2007 3:57:08 AM   
Mziln


Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline 		We are talking about 13.6.4 Lend lease a phase that occurs before 13.6.5 Building Units. Where the end product is a build point being sent to another Power.

Please note in 13.6.4 Lend lease/Transportation "You do this in exactly the same way as you transport resources (see 13.6.1)".

13.6.1 Resources includes:

Transporting resources by rail.

Transporting resources by sea
If you can’t rail a resource to a usable factory, you may be able to rail it to a port and then ship it overseas through a chain of sea areas, each containing convoy points. If that chain of sea areas extends to a port, you may then be able to rail the resource from that port to a usable factory.

Search and seizure (this is the only section that mentions build points).


What part of "exactly" do you disagree with?


As I see it, after lend lease, durring "13.6.5 Building Units" all the other build points are lumped together and units are built.

< Message edited by Mziln -- 3/27/2007 4:30:08 AM >

(in reply to Frederyck)
Post #: 110
RE: Rules Clarification List - 3/27/2007 4:50:16 AM   
paulderynck


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

ORIGINAL: Mziln

We are talking about 13.6.4 Lend lease a phase that occurs before 13.6.5 Building Units. Where the end product is a build point being sent to another Power.

Please note in 13.6.4 Lend lease/Transportation "You do this in exactly the same way as you transport resources (see 13.6.1)".

13.6.1 Resources includes:

Transporting resources by rail.

Transporting resources by sea
If you can’t rail a resource to a usable factory, you may be able to rail it to a port and then ship it overseas through a chain of sea areas, each containing convoy points. If that chain of sea areas extends to a port, you may then be able to rail the resource from that port to a usable factory.

Search and seizure (this is the only section that mentions build points).


What part of "exactly" do you disagree with?


As I see it, after lend lease, durring "13.6.5 Building Units" all the other build points are lumped together and units are built.

The "exactly" part cannot be applied to the origin point of the BP. In WIFFE, that origin point is undefined, as Frederyck has elegantly elucidated in his post.

I'm in agreement with Frederyck.

(in reply to Mziln)
Post #: 111
RE: Rules Clarification List - 3/27/2007 8:35:10 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline 		Well, I must admit that I tend to agree with Frederyck (his pictures staring at me this way, I'm forced to agree with him ) WiF FE wise, but I also think that MWiF may be able to define the origin point of BP, given the process power of the computer, and disallow the lending of surrounded BP.

In the example that Frederik exposed (post #109), with 0.25 BP produced at each factory, totaling 0.5 BP and rounded to 1 BP, I would say that the computer can choose to have this BP generated in the most advantageous place that the country needs to fulthfil his lend lease engagements.

In the end, I trust in Steve judgement here to either decide to define the origin of BP, or not, in MWiF.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 112
RE: Rules Clarification List - 3/27/2007 6:26:28 PM   
Mziln


Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline 		So there's your answer Patrice says he sides with Frederik. 

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 113
RE: Rules Clarification List - 3/27/2007 6:43:11 PM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Mziln

So there's your answer Patrice says he sides with Frederik. 

Humm, well, I sided with everyone indeed, as I'm saying that while WiF FE might work that way, MWiF might work as you described.

In fact, I've not answered before to this thread because I had no opinion on how this worked in WiF FE, as we play between gentlemen normaly, and would prefer an agreement that a surrounded BP cannot be lent rather than an imprecise RAW that says nothing.

(in reply to Mziln)
Post #: 114
RE: Rules Clarification List - 3/27/2007 8:03:57 PM   
ptey

 

Posts: 41
Joined: 9/25/2006
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Status: offline 		Since nothing presented here really seemed decisive, I decided to write and ask a-d-g. Here's the reply i got:

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

--->>> No. The CW gets nothing, France cannot use the promised build points
for own purposes because of the trade agreement.

Reason: The transportation of build points follows the same rule as for
resources. The source of the French build point is Metz, which is isolated.
So, there is no connection to a CW controlled factory. See chapter 13.6.4
Transport.

You talked about a pool of build points. This is only important for the
calculation (own total after reduction by a trade agreement), not for the
transport of them.

Servus!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ruediger Rinscheidt
<rex@gdg.de>
German Design Group
<www.gdg.de>
----------------------------------------------------------------
- on behalf of ADG -
Australian Design Group
<www.a-d-g.com.au>
----------------------------------------------------------------

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 115
RE: Rules Clarification List - 3/27/2007 8:37:30 PM   
Frederyck


Posts: 427
Joined: 12/7/2005
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline 		Interesting, and I accept this ruling as it certainly makes sense if you always treat the BPs as literal objects in the game. The game doesn't always treat them like that mechanics-wise, as I've shown, but there you have it.


(in reply to ptey)
Post #: 116
RE: Rules Clarification List - 3/28/2007 6:26:52 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline 		Shocking at first and then interesting to see the reply came from Ruediger, whose reputation has been impugned on the Yahoo group - mind you, I have no axe to grind with him.

Does this mean he will be the final arbiter on all the rules clarifications that arise via this thread?

I find the ruling odd in light of some further complexities that could arise, like fractional BPs, and other strange combinations of lent vs. surrounded stuff, but I can live with it for FtF play.

I hope it is not programmatically difficult to cover all the permutations and combinations. Clearly totaling PPs and multiplying by the PM and saying the BPs exist anywhere and everywhere in the country - would be easier to program without potential bugs arising due to some unthought-of situation.

(in reply to Frederyck)
Post #: 117
RE: Rules Clarification List - 3/28/2007 8:42:17 AM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Shocking at first and then interesting to see the reply came from Ruediger, whose reputation has been impugned on the Yahoo group - mind you, I have no axe to grind with him.

Does this mean he will be the final arbiter on all the rules clarifications that arise via this thread?

I don't think so.
The final arbiter is Harry, even if I know that Harry asks Ruediger before answering .

quote:

I find the ruling odd in light of some further complexities that could arise, like fractional BPs, and other strange combinations of lent vs. surrounded stuff, but I can live with it for FtF play.

Same

quote:

I hope it is not programmatically difficult to cover all the permutations and combinations. Clearly totaling PPs and multiplying by the PM and saying the BPs exist anywhere and everywhere in the country - would be easier to program without potential bugs arising due to some unthought-of situation.

I think that it is already programmed that way, from the CWiF days, but in fact I do not know .

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 118
RE: Rules Clarification List - 3/28/2007 8:54:20 AM   
Frederyck


Posts: 427
Joined: 12/7/2005
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline 		Here's Harry's short and rather funny response to this very conundrum:

"Gidday Carl-Niclas,

the reasoning is that build points being directly generated from production points are wifzen physically located at the factories.

Regards
Harry Rowland
ADG"

Ie, basically: don't worry about the very specialized examples I cooked up.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 119
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/1/2007 2:26:48 AM   
coregames


Posts: 470
Joined: 8/12/2004
Status: offline 		I have never run Spain as the Allies. We were thinking about aligning them with the CW, but to allow them to take mostly land actions, we are going to align with the Free French.

If France establishes Spain as their new home country, does that make the Spanish units Free French while their country is a major power home country?

_____________________________

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

Keith Henderson

(in reply to Frederyck)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Minor country units Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   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

4.000