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  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/26/2007 7:15:20 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline 		Neutral countries cannot get partisans. I'm at work so I don't have RAW in front of me to cite, but it's in there somewhere.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 181
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/26/2007 7:40:37 PM   
Mziln


Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline 		Since I have shown you that Eastern Poland is a territory (per the RaW). And Poland not Eastern Poland is where Polish partisans are placed.

Any questions on placement of partisans would be in the conquered minor power of Poland and not the conquered territory of Eastern Poland. 

Enter is not the same as placed. To enter a hex you have to move. Placement requires no movement points.

Even if you use placed as entered the partisans would be "moved" to the nearest friendly hex not in the common border.

“The controlling major power can place a partisan unit in any enemy controlled hex in its country that is not in an enemy ZOC. If there are no such hexes, put the partisan back into the force pool”.

“After you enter into a neutrality pact with a major power, units controlled by other major powers on your side cannot enter hexes that are part of your common border with that major power if they are at war with that other major power. If they are in the common border already, move them immediately to the nearest friendly hex not in the common border in which they can legally stack”.

In this case the conquered minor power of Poland.

(in reply to oscar72se)
Post #: 182
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/26/2007 7:46:04 PM   
Mziln


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

ORIGINAL: composer99

Neutral countries cannot get partisans. I'm at work so I don't have RAW in front of me to cite, but it's in there somewhere.


13.1 Partisans (option 46)

Getting partisans

Paragraph 2

Each of those countries named on the chart on a green background is eligible if it has been conquered or if any of its hexes contains an enemy unit. Note: “France” means Occupied France after a Vichy government has been installed (see 17.1).

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 183
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/26/2007 9:48:12 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99
Neutral countries cannot get partisans. I'm at work so I don't have RAW in front of me to cite, but it's in there somewhere.


13.1 Partisans (option 46)

Getting partisans

Paragraph 2

Each of those countries named on the chart on a green background is eligible if it has been conquered or if any of its hexes contains an enemy unit. Note: “France” means Occupied France after a Vichy government has been installed (see 17.1).


Perhaps I was not clear enough, for which I apologize. The post to which I was replying was this one:

quote:

I have a question regarding partisans. Sometimes when we have played, the roll for partisans have been a '10' while the Netherlands are neutral. Does this mean that a partisan should be set up in NEI(which is a red country)? If yes, who controls the partisan? We have had quite a few discussions on this topic and house-ruled that no partisan should be set in a country that no major power controls. The problem, as I see it, is that no major power is eligble to control the partisan. We would greatly appreciate your views on this topic since we find that RaW under these circumstances is very fuzzy...


As I said, I do not have the RAW on hand at the moment, but I am quite certain that under RAW no partisans can appear in neutral countries, whatever their status on the partisan table. If someone else doesn't come up with the citation, I will when I get home.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Mziln)
Post #: 184
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/26/2007 10:26:10 PM   
Mziln


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

ORIGINAL: composer99

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99
Neutral countries cannot get partisans. I'm at work so I don't have RAW in front of me to cite, but it's in there somewhere.


13.1 Partisans (option 46)

Getting partisans

Paragraph 2

Each of those countries named on the chart on a green background is eligible if it has been conquered or if any of its hexes contains an enemy unit. Note: “France” means Occupied France after a Vichy government has been installed (see 17.1).


Perhaps I was not clear enough, for which I apologize. The post to which I was replying was this one:

quote:

I have a question regarding partisans. Sometimes when we have played, the roll for partisans have been a '10' while the Netherlands are neutral. Does this mean that a partisan should be set up in NEI(which is a red country)? If yes, who controls the partisan? We have had quite a few discussions on this topic and house-ruled that no partisan should be set in a country that no major power controls. The problem, as I see it, is that no major power is eligble to control the partisan. We would greatly appreciate your views on this topic since we find that RaW under these circumstances is very fuzzy...


As I said, I do not have the RAW on hand at the moment, but I am quite certain that under RAW no partisans can appear in neutral countries, whatever their status on the partisan table. If someone else doesn't come up with the citation, I will when I get home.


Neutral countries have not been conquered nor do they usually have any hexes containing enemy units.


(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 185
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/26/2007 10:38:40 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline 		Yes, but I was thinking of something a little more explicit and also covers the case of red countries on the partisan table.

In any case, Mziln's citing is enough to go on for your purposes, oscar.

< Message edited by composer99 -- 4/26/2007 10:41:58 PM >

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Mziln)
Post #: 186
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/27/2007 6:56:28 AM   
composer99


Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline 		Vis-à-vis partisans in NEI while the Netherlands is still neutral, the passage from RAW that I wanted to cite is as follows:

13.1 Partisans (Option 46)
quote:

[...] Each country named in bold italics on a red background is eligible [to receive partisans] if it is controlled by any active major power.


So, in the situation you describe, oscar, since NEI is not controlled by an active major power while the Netherlands is neutral, it is not eligible to get partisans.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 187
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/27/2007 10:40:19 AM   
oscar72se

 

Posts: 100
Joined: 8/28/2006
From: Gothenburg Sweden
Status: offline 		Thanks for the answer guys. I can't believe that our entire group of 9 people missed that paragraph! But since we ruled NEI not to be eligble for a PART I am happy anyways.

So, let's say that Germany declared war on the Netherlands, the turn ends and a PART pops up in NEI. According to RaW the red PART is at war with the controller, in this case CW which in turn would mean that Germany controlls the PART. So, if the german player places the partisan in let's say Batavia or some oil resource, does the PART eliminate the notional unit in case that Japan wishes to invade that particular hex? Does a red PART in this way cooporate with a major power at war with the country that the PART is in?

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 188
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/27/2007 10:59:11 AM   
Frederyck


Posts: 427
Joined: 12/7/2005
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline 		"13.1 Partisans
Partisan effects
Partisans only co-operate with other units from their own country"

So no, the partisan in question would only co-operate with NEI-troops. But this in itself is problematic, though, as NEI-troops are controlled by the Commonwealth and the Partisan is controlled by Germany. Interesting.

If Japan wishes to invade a Partisan-occupied Batavia, they would have to fight both the notional and the Partisan. The same actually goes for the very unlikely scenario that Germany would invade Batavia.

(in reply to oscar72se)
Post #: 189
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/27/2007 12:05:20 PM   
oscar72se

 

Posts: 100
Joined: 8/28/2006
From: Gothenburg Sweden
Status: offline 		To summarize the example above.

A PART is created in NEI, after GE DoW on Netherlands but  before JA DoW on Netherlands. Japan DoWs Netherlands and the following situation arises:
- The PART is controlled by Germany
- It cooperates with CW
- It is at war with Japan (since PARTs are always at war with the conquering MP)

Looks like these PARTs are pretty confused

(in reply to Frederyck)
Post #: 190
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/27/2007 1:22:02 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

ORIGINAL: Frederyck
"13.1 Partisans
Partisan effects
Partisans only co-operate with other units from their own country"

So no, the partisan in question would only co-operate with NEI-troops. But this in itself is problematic, though, as NEI-troops are controlled by the Commonwealth and the Partisan is controlled by Germany. Interesting.

If Japan wishes to invade a Partisan-occupied Batavia, they would have to fight both the notional and the Partisan. The same actually goes for the very unlikely scenario that Germany would invade Batavia.

The more common example is the Indian partisans controlled by the Axis. But all the Red partisan countries are like this. They do not like whoever controls the country. As soon as control of the country changes (e.g., it is conquered), the partisans switch sides - or at least that is my understanding of RAW.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Frederyck)
Post #: 191
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/27/2007 1:43:34 PM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: oscar72se

Thanks for the answer guys. I can't believe that our entire group of 9 people missed that paragraph! But since we ruled NEI not to be eligble for a PART I am happy anyways.

So, let's say that Germany declared war on the Netherlands, the turn ends and a PART pops up in NEI. According to RaW the red PART is at war with the controller, in this case CW which in turn would mean that Germany controlls the PART. So, if the german player places the partisan in let's say Batavia or some oil resource, does the PART eliminate the notional unit in case that Japan wishes to invade that particular hex? Does a red PART in this way cooporate with a major power at war with the country that the PART is in?

If Japan wants to invade the NEI, that means that Japan is at war with the NEI (or the CW if the NEI are aligned to the CW).
This, in turn, means that the PART in the NEI are controlled by the Japanese (from the moment that the Japanese are at war with the NEI).

*****************************
13.1 Partisans
(...)
Controlling partisans
(...)
Partisans in ‘red’ countries are controlled by the nearest major power currently at war with the major power that controls the country. The nearest is the major power whose capital city is closest to the minor’s capital city.
*****************************

The PART in the NEI, only cooperate with NEI troops, independently on who control them.
*****************************
Partisan effects
(...)
Partisans only co-operate with other units from their own country.
*****************************

(in reply to oscar72se)
Post #: 192
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/27/2007 1:46:16 PM   
Froonp


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

The more common example is the Indian partisans controlled by the Axis. But all the Red partisan countries are like this. They do not like whoever controls the country. As soon as control of the country changes (e.g., it is conquered), the partisans switch sides - or at least that is my understanding of RAW.

This is right :

They switch sides :
**********************************
13.1 Partisans
(...)
Controlling partisans
(...)
Partisans in ‘red’ countries are controlled by the nearest major power currently at war with the major power that controls the country. The nearest is the major power whose capital city is closest to the minor’s capital city.
**********************************

And are not removed from the map at conquest :
**********************************
13.1 Partisans
(...)
Partisan effects
(...)
Partisans are not removed from the map either when their country or their controlling major power has been conquered. Even if their controlling major power has been completely conquered, partisans can still move and fight every turn as if their controlling major power had chosen a land action.
**********************************

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 193
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/27/2007 1:48:39 PM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: oscar72se

To summarize the example above.

A PART is created in NEI, after GE DoW on Netherlands but  before JA DoW on Netherlands. Japan DoWs Netherlands and the following situation arises:
- The PART is controlled by Germany
- It cooperates with CW
- It is at war with Japan (since PARTs are always at war with the conquering MP)

Looks like these PARTs are pretty confused

No confusion.
As soon as Japan is at war with the NEI, the PART leaves German control and goes under Japanese control.

When Japan will have conquered the NEI, the part will switch to CW control, so the Japanese would better have placed the PART in a place where it is not a problem for him.

(in reply to oscar72se)
Post #: 194
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/27/2007 2:19:28 PM   
Frederyck


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

ORIGINAL: Froonp

As soon as Japan is at war with the NEI, the PART leaves German control and goes under Japanese control.


Correct. I forgot about the change in control. But the scenario is still correct - if Japan tries to invade the partisan-filled Batavia, they would have to fight both the notional and the partisan, even though the partisan is controlled by the axis.

And as Steve pointed out, the event that a partisan co-operates with units it is at war with does pop-up at times in India.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 195
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/27/2007 3:21:21 PM   
oscar72se

 

Posts: 100
Joined: 8/28/2006
From: Gothenburg Sweden
Status: offline 		So, red PARTs are essentially anarchists?  I guess that the german player would initially place the PART in a hex that prevents any NEI units from blowing up oil wells. After a JA DoW on Netherlands the PART would propably perform suicide by an assault or start walking towards the japanese 8-3 25th Reserve Corps...

Anyways, I think that the following phrase should be rewritten:
13.1
...
Partisans are always at war with the conquering major power (and it's aligned minors) even if the partisan's controlling major power is not at war with the conquerer
...
 
I think it is a little bit "strange" that the RaW allows a player to control units that he/she formally is at war with. My interpretation of red PARTs is that they represent "freedom-fighters" who wants to overthrow the controller of the country/territory where they reside. Therefore I think that the paragraph above should distinguish between red PARTs and green ones. Just a thought...

(in reply to Frederyck)
Post #: 196
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/27/2007 7:19:13 PM   
Mziln


Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline 		(First a description of what the NEI is)

13.3.2 US entry options

43. CW reinforces the Netherlands East Indies

“The Netherlands East Indies is a minor country consisting of all the 1939 NEI-controlled hexes in the Bay of Bengal, Bismark Sea, East Indian Ocean, South China Sea and Timor Sea. Its capital is Batavia.”

Now lets pour some gasoline on the fire. Here is the scenario:


5.1 Trade agreements

Netherlands

The Netherlands must supply Japan with 2 oil resources a turn. This continues until Japan is at war with either the Netherlands or the Commonwealth, or the US embargoes oil sales to Japan (see 13.3.2, entry option 31).

A neutral Netherlands must supply the CW with all its remaining oil.


Option 31 Oil embargo has not been implemented.



With Germany is controlling the partisans in the NEI.

Would a "red partisan" is in Palembang block only the shipments of oil from the NEI to the CW? 


  
With The CW are controlling the partisans in the NEI. 

Would "red partisans" in Palembang, Balikpapan, and Tarakan block only the shipments of oil from the NEI to Japan?

if 2 oil cannot be shipped to Japan will this also block oil shipments to the CW from the NEI? 



Does China or Japan control partisans in the NEI if the Netherlands is conquered?

“Partisans in ‘red’ countries are controlled by the nearest major power currently at war with the major power that controls the country. The nearest is the major power whose capital city is closest to the minor’s capital city. If no major powers are at war with the controlling major power, then the nearest major power on the other side runs the partisans.”


< Message edited by Mziln -- 4/27/2007 7:57:46 PM >

(in reply to oscar72se)
Post #: 197
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/27/2007 8:41:30 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline 		The choice of phrasing about the NEI oil seems to indicate that 2 oil go to Japan and what ever else remains goes to the CW. If partisans are interfernig with the oil shipments, then the CW suffers - Japan still gets its 2 oil points. I guess the Japanese cried 'dibs' first.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Mziln)
Post #: 198
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/28/2007 1:16:42 AM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

The choice of phrasing about the NEI oil seems to indicate that 2 oil go to Japan and what ever else remains goes to the CW. If partisans are interfernig with the oil shipments, then the CW suffers - Japan still gets its 2 oil points. I guess the Japanese cried 'dibs' first.

This is right.
Japan is served first, CW takes what's left.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 199
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/28/2007 1:18:44 AM   
Froonp


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

Does China or Japan control partisans in the NEI if the Netherlands is conquered?

“Partisans in ‘red’ countries are controlled by the nearest major power currently at war with the major power that controls the country. The nearest is the major power whose capital city is closest to the minor’s capital city. If no major powers are at war with the controlling major power, then the nearest major power on the other side runs the partisans.”

If Japan conquer the NEI, China controls the Partisans, right.

(in reply to Mziln)
Post #: 200
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/28/2007 1:21:09 AM   
trees

 

Posts: 175
Joined: 5/28/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Frederyck


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

As soon as Japan is at war with the NEI, the PART leaves German control and goes under Japanese control.


Correct. I forgot about the change in control. But the scenario is still correct - if Japan tries to invade the partisan-filled Batavia, they would have to fight both the notional and the partisan, even though the partisan is controlled by the axis.

And as Steve pointed out, the event that a partisan co-operates with units it is at war with does pop-up at times in India.


Once Japan controlled the NEI partisans upon DoW, Japan could not enter a hex with an NEI partisan due to cooperation rules. Japan could use a land move to move the Partisan to another hex, at which point the hex would again be controlled by the Allies, and Japan would have to fight the notional there.


(in reply to Frederyck)
Post #: 201
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/28/2007 4:30:14 AM   
Jeff Gilbert

 

Posts: 67
Joined: 10/2/2005
Status: offline 		Twitch, twitch ...

I am going to have to go backand re-read RAW and this entire thread as I am now most confused with the partisan control in this particular example.

Partisans ... "curiouser and curiouser" might be the correct quote.


_____________________________

Jeff Gilbert
US Army [Ret]
Palm Harbor, Florida, USA

(in reply to trees)
Post #: 202
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/28/2007 6:50:20 AM   
paulderynck


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

Since I have shown you that Eastern Poland is a territory (per the RaW). And Poland not Eastern Poland is where Polish partisans are placed.

You are laboring under a serious misconception if you think you have shown anyone this. Quotes from 19.5.1:
- "rights to occupy eastern Poland"
- "by moving a land unit into any hex of eastern Poland"
- "the part of Poland to the east of the partition line becomes conquered by the Soviets"

Yes there is a statement in RAW about geographical entities but I know of no territories in the game that when entered cause:
- internment of their defense forces
- the teleportation of units on the opposite side to other locations
- a different definition of how they are conquered
The creation of East Poland as a territory ought to deserve at least a scant, passing mention in the rules, wouldn't you think?

The problem is RAW has a bunch of specific rules covering East Poland but simply leaves its status undefined when it comes to partisans, and the rules do not prohibit their placement in 11 hexes there (8 if Rumania is Axis-aligned).

I'd be quite happy to learn that Patrice has this on his list for clarification by Harry, as I think that is the only way to resolve the issue.

(in reply to Mziln)
Post #: 203
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/28/2007 7:17:30 AM   
paulderynck


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

ORIGINAL: composer99

Outside of the Pripet Marshes, where would a partisan placed in Eastern Poland actually be safe? And aside from letting one less Russian army stand on the front line, how would it do any good as a speed bump? By 1941 most partisans are still 0-1 factor. Sure, there are plenty of forests and swamps in Eastern Poland, but a single partisan unit will stand no chance against any German army force that wants to take care of them - and since the slow-moving German forces will end their impulse in that area, I don't see how a partisan in Eastern Poland will actually slow the German advance. Either it goes in the clear and dies from the overrun, or it goes in the Carpathians and/or Pripets and either gets screened or gets blown away by slow-moving Germans, or it goes in the forests and gets blown away by slow-moving Germans.

Thank you for recognizing that the partisans can - at present - go there.

The CW would and should place them where they will do the most good to the Allied cause. In such a case, they sit out of the way of the Russians until needed and so they are the safest anti-axis partisans in the world, pre-Barb. The following are possibilites:
- there could be more than one of them
- in forest (and swamp in winter) even a zero, is a potential hex blocker that cannot be overrun
- many have enough movement points to be able to move to somewhere more useful while the Russians withdraw, for example Lvov & Vilna, in which case if it held up the Germans and had zero combat factors, it would even be sweeter!

Who cares if they get blown away as long as they slow down some German units? Aren't free units for this purpose better than 2 BP units? Sure they don't have ZOCs, but in combination with other speed bump garrisons, the overall cost to delay the German advance is lower.

And, if they are to be blown away in East Poland anyway, how much quicker would they uselessly have their existence terminated in western Poland?

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 204
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/28/2007 10:16:04 AM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
I'd be quite happy to learn that Patrice has this on his list for clarification by Harry, as I think that is the only way to resolve the issue.

It is there as Q222

****************************************
After the USSR conquers Eastern Poland, but before Germany and the USSR is at war, is Eastern Poland a part of the Polish Home Country?
If so, can a PART designated for Poland appear in Eastern Poland?
If a PART 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 paulderynck)
Post #: 205
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/28/2007 6:57:04 PM   
Mziln


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

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

Since I have shown you that Eastern Poland is a territory (per the RaW). And Poland not Eastern Poland is where Polish partisans are placed.

You are laboring under a serious misconception if you think you have shown anyone this. Quotes from 19.5.1:
- "rights to occupy eastern Poland"
- "by moving a land unit into any hex of eastern Poland"
- "the part of Poland to the east of the partition line becomes conquered by the Soviets"

Yes there is a statement in RAW about geographical entities but I know of no territories in the game that when entered cause:
- internment of their defense forces
- the teleportation of units on the opposite side to other locations
- a different definition of how they are conquered
The creation of East Poland as a territory ought to deserve at least a scant, passing mention in the rules, wouldn't you think?

The problem is RAW has a bunch of specific rules covering East Poland but simply leaves its status undefined when it comes to partisans, and the rules do not prohibit their placement in 11 hexes there (8 if Rumania is Axis-aligned).

I'd be quite happy to learn that Patrice has this on his list for clarification by Harry, as I think that is the only way to resolve the issue.


I am sorry that you are confused and can’t grasp the concept of special rules. But it doesn’t alter the facts.

No one new what Eastern Poland was Frederyck #165, you #173, and Patrice #174.

Until I found Eastern Poland is a territory (per the RaW):

quote:

13.7.1 Conquest

"You can only conquer a home country or territory".


2.5 Control

Entities

There are 2 geographical entities in the game ~ home countries and territories. Home countries have capital cities, territories do not.

Since Eastern Poland has no capital it cannot be a home country it is therefore a territory.


13.1 Partisans (option 46)

Getting partisans

At the start of this step, roll a die and locate the result on the partisan table. This will specify 8 countries eligible for partisan activity in the turn.

Each of those countries named on the chart on a green background is eligible if it has been conquered or if any of its hexes contains an enemy unit. Note: “France” means Occupied France after a Vichy government has been installed (see 17.1).

Eastern Poland is not on the chart (or listed in the partisan list in the computer game) and therefore partisans cannot be placed there.

The chart doesn't say "Poland and its territories" it just says Poland. Just because the territory of Eastern Poland has Poland in the name doesn’t allow you to put partisans in it.

Aden is a territory of the CW it is not a home country and is not in the table therefore partisans cannot be placed in it. This is exactly like Eastern Poland.


13.1 Partisans (option 46)

Partisans may move anywhere within their home country. They can never leave their home country.



< Message edited by Mziln -- 4/28/2007 7:11:48 PM >

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 206
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/28/2007 10:17:03 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline 		MWIF is mantaining 4 types of "Governed Areas" to accommodate the various rules concerning groups of hexes that are referred to in RAW.

1 - Governed area: which is the simplest form. The other three type are specialized types of governed areas. I chose this phrase and I am still not happy about it - but it was the best I could come up with.
2 - Sub-countries: another awkward choice of words (this time from CWIF), but I have not been able to think of anything better.
3 - Minor countries: as per the use of this word in RAW.
4 - Major powers: as per the use of this word in RAW.

4 - There are 9 major powers, with Vichy considered a major power as far as MWIF is concerned - to handle some of the special Vichy rules that set it apart from other minor countries (e.g., that it can be hostile to other major powers).

3 - Minor countries have a capital to call their own.

2 - Sub-countries cover a multiple of sins. The SS and Siberian units are treated as 'sub-countries' because they use a different coloring sheme for the units. Both Nationalist and Communist China are sub-countries, while China itself is a major power. The Ukraine, Sudetenland, Polish corridor, Finnish borderlands, Bessarabia, Spanish Nationalists, Spanish Republic, and South Dobruja are other examples of sub-countries. Some of these are included in this category because of how their units are displayed on the screen (colors) and others because borders are drawn on the map for them (Sudetenland). Most of them are in this grouping because there are special rules in RAW to deal with the collection of hexes that make up a section of a larger political entity (major power or minor country usually).

Easterm Poland is a sub-country of Poland as far as MWIF is concerned. It requires a border to be drawn differentiating it from the rest of Poland. And similar to Transylvania, South Dobruja, Finnish Borderlands, and Bessarabia, ownership of the area changes due to political decisions by the players, rather than through the normal conquest rules.

1 - There are 99 Governed areas in MWIF and they include all the territories. I am loathe to rename the variable to simply Territories, becasue internally the program treats all the other 3 types as special cases of Governed Areas and I do not want to get confused thinking of minor countries as a special type of 'territory'.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Mziln)
Post #: 207
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/29/2007 12:24:14 AM   
Frederyck


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

ORIGINAL: Mziln

No one new what Eastern Poland was Frederyck #165, you #173, and Patrice #174.

Until I found Eastern Poland is a territory (per the RaW):


I hope you are only implying that Eastern Poland is a Territory *after* the USSR claims it. Before this happens there is only a single nation - Poland, with a capital. The construction of Eastern Poland was something invented for the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact.

And I think I agree with you, which is why I posed this very question in post 92, albeit asking the other way round (whether Eastern Poland was part of the Polish home country).

(in reply to Mziln)
Post #: 208
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/29/2007 12:58:04 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline 		A new question concerning setup.

In Lebensraum the Nationalist Chinese are suppose to set up 5 miliita units. Now there are only 5 militia units in the Nationalist counter mix so I guess that means all of them. However, 3 of them are from cities that start the scenario controlled by the Japanese. So, do the Nationalist Chinese get to set up the Peking militia, or do they only set up 2 militia units. This also comes up in Global War too.

If the Chinese get all 5 militia units to start, then note that if the militia from Peking is destroyed it cannot be rebuilt until the Chinese regain control of Peking.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Frederyck)
Post #: 209
RE: Rules Clarification List - 4/29/2007 1:20:04 AM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

A new question concerning setup.

In Lebensraum the Nationalist Chinese are suppose to set up 5 miliita units. Now there are only 5 militia units in the Nationalist counter mix so I guess that means all of them. However, 3 of them are from cities that start the scenario controlled by the Japanese. So, do the Nationalist Chinese get to set up the Peking militia, or do they only set up 2 militia units. This also comes up in Global War too.

If the Chinese get all 5 militia units to start, then note that if the militia from Peking is destroyed it cannot be rebuilt until the Chinese regain control of Peking.

They setup the militia, even for cities they do not control.
As you said, if those MIL die, they cannot be rebuilt (hence the comment of a contributor on the China strategy thread, to have them defending in a place where you can avoid loosing it).

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 210
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Rules Clarification List Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   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

3.125