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  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Rules Clarification List - 7/10/2007 4:28:14 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

ORIGINAL: Mziln
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I have been reading the code for ATRs vis-a-vis optional rules (part of my quest to determine which optioanl rules have been coded, document them, and build a list of optional rules yet to be coded).

Currently the code interprets the deselection of Bombers-as-ATRs (i.e., the option is not in effect) to eliminate the No Para symbols from all ATRs. The result is that all ATRs can perform paradrops when the Bombers-as-ATRs option is turned off.

This doesn't seem correct to me. Your opinion and/or advice?


I think the selected option you are talking about is:

Units other than ATR’s can Air Transport and Paradrop, and some ATR’s cannot paradrop.


Please note by selecting this option "some ATR’s cannot paradrop" comes into effect.

Deselection would mean all ATR's (and only ATR's) can perform Air re-supply, Air transport, and Paradrop missions.

Where do you see this in the rules? The copy I am looking at has Option 35 described in section 11.15 as:
Any aircraft with a white range circle can fly a paradrop mission, even it if is not an ATR. However, aircraft can't fly a paradrop mission if they have a 'no-paradrop' symbol.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Mziln)
Post #: 241
RE: Rules Clarification List - 7/10/2007 6:40:55 AM   
Mziln


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

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I have been reading the code for ATRs vis-a-vis optional rules (part of my quest to determine which optioanl rules have been coded, document them, and build a list of optional rules yet to be coded).

Currently the code interprets the deselection of Bombers-as-ATRs (i.e., the option is not in effect) to eliminate the No Para symbols from all ATRs. The result is that all ATRs can perform paradrops when the Bombers-as-ATRs option is turned off.

This doesn't seem correct to me. Your opinion and/or advice?


I think the selected option you are talking about is:

Units other than ATR’s can Air Transport and Paradrop, and some ATR’s cannot paradrop.


Please note by selecting this option "some ATR’s cannot paradrop" comes into effect.

Deselection would mean all ATR's (and only ATR's) can perform Air re-supply, Air transport, and Paradrop missions.

Where do you see this in the rules? The copy I am looking at has Option 35 described in section 11.15 as:
Any aircraft with a white range circle can fly a paradrop mission, even it if is not an ATR. However, aircraft can't fly a paradrop mission if they have a 'no-paradrop' symbol.


You mentioned no options (but I looked up ATR's and Option 35 &36).

You did mention "determine which optioanl rules have been coded, document them, and build a list of optional rules yet to be coded". This means you are looking for diferences between the RaW, CWiF, and MWiF.


In CWiF The option discription appears at the bottom of the main window when you hold your cursor over the option.

So on the Select Options window, Air Rules page...

Bombers & no paradrop ATR's.
Description: "Units other than ATR’s can Air Transport and Paradrop, and some ATR’s cannot paradrop".


This is the only Air Rule option that meets your specifications.

The next option on the Select Options window, Air Rules page deals with Large ATR's Option 36.

Large ATR's
Description: Some ATR's are large, allowing them to transport and air supply more units

< Message edited by Mziln -- 7/10/2007 6:42:30 AM >

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 242
RE: Rules Clarification List - 7/10/2007 2:17:28 PM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I have been reading the code for ATRs vis-a-vis optional rules (part of my quest to determine which optioanl rules have been coded, document them, and build a list of optional rules yet to be coded).

Currently the code interprets the deselection of Bombers-as-ATRs (i.e., the option is not in effect) to eliminate the No Para symbols from all ATRs. The result is that all ATRs can perform paradrops when the Bombers-as-ATRs option is turned off.

This doesn't seem correct to me. Your opinion and/or advice?

It is wrong to me too.
I think this must be an error and it should be changed.

For reference, the option is :
***************************************
11.12 Air transport
(...)
Option 35: Any aircraft with a white range circle can fly an air transport mission, even if it is not an ATR.
***************************************

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 243
RE: Rules Clarification List - 7/10/2007 4:02:30 PM   
Mziln


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

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I have been reading the code for ATRs vis-a-vis optional rules (part of my quest to determine which optioanl rules have been coded, document them, and build a list of optional rules yet to be coded).

Currently the code interprets the deselection of Bombers-as-ATRs (i.e., the option is not in effect) to eliminate the No Para symbols from all ATRs. The result is that all ATRs can perform paradrops when the Bombers-as-ATRs option is turned off.

This doesn't seem correct to me. Your opinion and/or advice?

It is wrong to me too.
I think this must be an error and it should be changed.

For reference, the option is :
***************************************
11.12 Air transport
(...)
Option 35: Any aircraft with a white range circle can fly an air transport mission, even if it is not an ATR.
***************************************



Don't leave off the rest of Option 35.

11.18.1 Air supply

Option 35: Any aircraft with a white range circle can fly an air supply mission, even if it is not an ATR.

11.15 Paradrops

Option 35: Any aircraft with a white range circle can fly a paradrop mission, even if it is not an ATR. However, aircraft can’t fly a paradrop mission if they have a ‘no-paradrop’ symbol:

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 244
RE: Rules Clarification List - 7/10/2007 6:11:56 PM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Mziln
Don't leave off the rest of Option 35.

11.18.1 Air supply

Option 35: Any aircraft with a white range circle can fly an air supply mission, even if it is not an ATR.

11.15 Paradrops

Option 35: Any aircraft with a white range circle can fly a paradrop mission, even if it is not an ATR. However, aircraft can’t fly a paradrop mission if they have a ‘no-paradrop’ symbol:

Good catch, I slept around it.
Would you mean that if Option 35 is not in play, they the NO-PARADROP symbols are not used ???
I would have thought that the last part of Option 35 you quoted above (However, ...) would stand even if Option 35 was not used.

It looks like it is right, to ignore the NO-PARADROP symbol if Option 35 is not selected.

(in reply to Mziln)
Post #: 245
RE: Rules Clarification List - 7/10/2007 6:59:25 PM   
lomyrin


Posts: 3741
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln
Don't leave off the rest of Option 35.

11.18.1 Air supply

Option 35: Any aircraft with a white range circle can fly an air supply mission, even if it is not an ATR.

11.15 Paradrops

Option 35: Any aircraft with a white range circle can fly a paradrop mission, even if it is not an ATR. However, aircraft can’t fly a paradrop mission if they have a ‘no-paradrop’ symbol:

Good catch, I slept around it.
Would you mean that if Option 35 is not in play, they the NO-PARADROP symbols are not used ???
I would have thought that the last part of Option 35 you quoted above (However, ...) would stand even if Option 35 was not used.

It looks like it is right, to ignore the NO-PARADROP symbol if Option 35 is not selected.


I would read the option's reference to the no-paradrop symbol merely as qualifying information in that any white range circle plane can fly paradrops while still adhering to the rule for no-paradrop missions for some of those white circled range planes.

Then it follows that the symbol is not overridden and is always in effect regardless of option 35.

Lars

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 246
RE: Rules Clarification List - 7/10/2007 7:06:18 PM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: lomyrin
I would read the option's reference to the no-paradrop symbol merely as qualifying information in that any white range circle plane can fly paradrops while still adhering to the rule for no-paradrop missions for some of those white circled range planes.

Then it follows that the symbol is not overridden and is always in effect regardless of option 35.

Lars

I would too, but the NO-PARADROP symbol is described nowhere else in the rulebook, this is the only reference to it.
Kind of the Red Tactical factor that is useless unless you play with Tank Buster Option.

(in reply to lomyrin)
Post #: 247
RE: Rules Clarification List - 7/10/2007 7:56:40 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline 		I'd add, as an excuse for my ignorance in this subject , that as I always play with Option 35, I never wondered for a case that existed only if you did not play with it .

Pretty much selfish behavior .

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 248
RE: Rules Clarification List - 7/10/2007 8:26:37 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline 		Thanks for the commentary on this. Chris (CWIF) clearly interpretted the No Para symbol as in effect only if option 35 is being used. And I can leave the code that way, simply rewriting the description of what happens when the optional rule is chosen/not chosen.

Or I could rewrite the code (trivial change - 1 minute) so the No Para symbol is in effect at all times. And make that clear in the documentation too.

So, do we have a consensus here? What do other forum readers think?

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 249
RE: Rules Clarification List - 7/10/2007 8:43:18 PM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Thanks for the commentary on this. Chris (CWIF) clearly interpretted the No Para symbol as in effect only if option 35 is being used. And I can leave the code that way, simply rewriting the description of what happens when the optional rule is chosen/not chosen.

Or I could rewrite the code (trivial change - 1 minute) so the No Para symbol is in effect at all times. And make that clear in the documentation too.

So, do we have a consensus here? What do other forum readers think?

I can ask to the rule clarification group too if needed.

Edit : Well, I have asked. I also asked the WiF Discussion list.

< Message edited by Froonp -- 7/10/2007 10:22:16 PM >

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 250
RE: Rules Clarification List - 7/10/2007 9:03:52 PM   
ajds

 

Posts: 44
Joined: 11/1/2006
From: Apple Valley, California USA
Status: offline 		The "no para" flag should always be in effect on specified counters, it is a counter ability limit, not an optional rule. In other words, an entity has an ATR counter with the no para symbol in its force pool - that counter should never be able to perform the paradrop mission, no matter what optional rules are in play.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 251
RE: Rules Clarification List - 7/10/2007 11:41:16 PM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I can ask to the rule clarification group too if needed.

Edit : Well, I have asked. I also asked the WiF Discussion list.

I asked the list, and got a couple of answers.
I asked this :

quote:

There is a question that pops up on the MWiF Forum :
This is about Option 35, when it is NOT used, and about the no-paradrop
symbol.

The reading of the below is interpreted as meaning that if you don't use
Option 35, then the no-paradrop symbols are ignored.


11.12 Air Transport, says :
***************************
Option 35: Any aircraft with a white range circle can fly an air transport
mission, even if it is not an ATR.

***************************

11.15 Paradrop, says :
***************************
Option 35: Any aircraft with a white range circle can fly a paradrop
mission, even if it is not an ATR. However, aircraft can't fly a paradrop
mission if they have a 'no-paradrop' symbol:
***************************

11.18.1 Air Sypply, says :
***************************
Option 35: Any aircraft with a white range circle can fly an air supply
mission, even if it is not an ATR.

***************************

And nothing else in the rulebook about the no-paradrop symbol.

What is your opinion about that ?


I got 2 answers so far :
From Hubert -- IA211@yahoo.fr :
******************************************************
in the paradrop section there are:
PARAs can only fly a paradrop mission if they start the mission in supply and stacked with an ATR.

So, IMHO, if not playing with option 35, any ATR can make a paradrop mission regardless of the no-paradrop symbol whereas any plane with a white range circle cannot, regardless of the no paradrop symbol.
It is IMO like the boat plane which are considered as normal planes if you do not play the option, loosing their special bonus (overstacking in coastal hex) and limits (can only stack in coastal hex)
******************************************************

From Bill Popovich -- popo1@optonline.net :
******************************************************
I disagree. the "however" part of the statement enforces the no-para symbol even without the optional white-print rule, IMO.
******************************************************

Well, one answer for each possibility.

Maybe this is a candidate for the questions asked to Harry ?

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 252
RE: Rules Clarification List - 7/11/2007 12:44:52 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

ORIGINAL: ajds

The "no para" flag should always be in effect on specified counters, it is a counter ability limit, not an optional rule. In other words, an entity has an ATR counter with the no para symbol in its force pool - that counter should never be able to perform the paradrop mission, no matter what optional rules are in play.

While your answer has a lot going for it on face value, things aren't quite that easy. Many air units have symbols on them that are ignored when optional rules are not used. Tank busters, twin engine fighters, and night fighters are 3 examples that come to mind immedaitely (I have been checking the code that all of these optional rules are correct - and it all looks good). So, relying on the unit depiction alone to make a determination doesn't work in many cases.

Myself, I am ambivalent. Perhaps we should ask Harry. By the way, the one response that Patrice got said that bombers flying as ATRs could not fly paradrop missions. I did not get that reading at all from option #35.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to ajds)
Post #: 253
RE: Rules Clarification List - 7/11/2007 12:56:46 AM   
Jimm


Posts: 607
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: York, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

By the way, the one response that Patrice got said that bombers flying as ATRs could not fly paradrop missions. I did not get that reading at all from option #35.


I agree with your reading of it.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 254
RE: Rules Clarification List - 7/11/2007 1:08:08 AM   
Mziln


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

11.15 Paradrops

Option 35: Any aircraft with a white range circle can fly a paradrop mission, even if it is not an ATR. However, aircraft can’t fly a paradrop mission if they have a ‘no-paradrop’ symbol:


To make this part of Option 35 a printing error you really have to stretch your imagination.

(1) This option has a gray background (as do most if not all options).
(2) There are no breaks in the paragraph.
(3) It follows an example of how to paradrop.
(4) It is at the end of 11.15 Paradrops and just before 11.16 Land combat.
(5) The description in CWiF matches Option 35.

So the ":" should probably be a period.



IMO what Option 35 allows you to do is...

Select the option and use White Circle and ATR units for a more historical game.

Or not select the option and have a less historical game but not handicap the player’s airlift capacity.

(in reply to Jimm)
Post #: 255
RE: Rules Clarification List - 7/11/2007 9:28:10 AM   
amwild

 

Posts: 105
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Thanks for the commentary on this. Chris (CWIF) clearly interpretted the No Para symbol as in effect only if option 35 is being used. And I can leave the code that way, simply rewriting the description of what happens when the optional rule is chosen/not chosen.

Or I could rewrite the code (trivial change - 1 minute) so the No Para symbol is in effect at all times. And make that clear in the documentation too.

So, do we have a consensus here? What do other forum readers think?


I am of the opinion that if No Paradrop is an optional rule, then if the option is not in play, then the rule should not be enforced. Indeed, if an optional rule (any optional rule, not just this one) is not in force, any associated counter symbologies should not be shown if at all possible. No point confusing us newbies unnecessarily...

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 256
RE: Rules Clarification List - 7/12/2007 12:23:06 AM   
composer99


Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline 		I myself would agree with Mziln.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to amwild)
Post #: 257
RE: Rules Clarification List - 7/25/2007 1:37:44 AM   
coregames


Posts: 470
Joined: 8/12/2004
Status: offline 		While I understand that Siberia is in reality part of Russia, is the penninsula part of the home country in the game? Someone in our current game is maintaining that it is not because you can't reach it with a Marine in land movement from the rest of the country. Geography would dictate that it is, but is this explicitly dealt with in the rules?

_____________________________

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

Keith Henderson

(in reply to pak19652002)
Post #: 258
RE: Rules Clarification List - 7/25/2007 2:19:32 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

ORIGINAL: coregames

While I understand that Siberia is in reality part of Russia, is the penninsula part of the home country in the game? Someone in our current game is maintaining that it is not because you can't reach it with a Marine in land movement from the rest of the country. Geography would dictate that it is, but is this explicitly dealt with in the rules?

In MWIF it is reachable with a marine unit.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to coregames)
Post #: 259
RE: Rules Clarification List - 7/25/2007 11:03:38 AM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: coregames

While I understand that Siberia is in reality part of Russia, is the penninsula part of the home country in the game? Someone in our current game is maintaining that it is not because you can't reach it with a Marine in land movement from the rest of the country. Geography would dictate that it is, but is this explicitly dealt with in the rules?

This is not explicitly dealt within the rules, but this has been clarified in the past by Harry :

This is Q326 in our list :
*************************************
Q : What is with Kamchatka (or whatever that semi-island is called)? It is connected to the rest of Russia but not within the border of the MAP. Is it part of the home country or is it a territory?

A : Kamchatka (that part of the Pacific map containing Petropavlovsk (see hex P1847) is a territory. Date: 03/04/1998
*************************************

However, in MWiF this is part of Siberia.

Edit : You can house rule this in the cardboard game too, to be part of Siberia, as this is part of Russia in reality.

< Message edited by Froonp -- 7/25/2007 11:04:22 AM >

(in reply to coregames)
Post #: 260
RE: Rules Clarification List - 7/25/2007 11:05:14 AM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
In MWIF it is reachable with a marine unit.

Will it still be reachable with a marine unit if the top 15 hexes of the map are trimmed ?

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 261
RE: Rules Clarification List - 7/25/2007 11:07:38 AM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Thanks for the commentary on this. Chris (CWIF) clearly interpretted the No Para symbol as in effect only if option 35 is being used. And I can leave the code that way, simply rewriting the description of what happens when the optional rule is chosen/not chosen.

Or I could rewrite the code (trivial change - 1 minute) so the No Para symbol is in effect at all times. And make that clear in the documentation too.

So, do we have a consensus here? What do other forum readers think?

I can ask to the rule clarification group too if needed.

Edit : Well, I have asked. I also asked the WiF Discussion list.

This is Q328 in our list :
*************************************
Q : The reading of Option 35 in 11.15 can be interpreted as meaning that if you don't use Option 35, then the no-paradrop symbols are ignored. Is this true ?

A :
*************************************
I should have the answer within the next couple of weeks (it was submitted with 27 other questions to Harry on 19/07/2007).

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 262
RE: Rules Clarification List - 7/25/2007 11:23:00 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

ORIGINAL: Froonp
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Thanks for the commentary on this. Chris (CWIF) clearly interpretted the No Para symbol as in effect only if option 35 is being used. And I can leave the code that way, simply rewriting the description of what happens when the optional rule is chosen/not chosen.

Or I could rewrite the code (trivial change - 1 minute) so the No Para symbol is in effect at all times. And make that clear in the documentation too.

So, do we have a consensus here? What do other forum readers think?

I can ask to the rule clarification group too if needed.

Edit : Well, I have asked. I also asked the WiF Discussion list.

This is Q328 in our list :
*************************************
Q : The reading of Option 35 in 11.15 can be interpreted as meaning that if you don't use Option 35, then the no-paradrop symbols are ignored. Is this true ?

A :
*************************************
I should have the answer within the next couple of weeks (it was submitted with 27 other questions to Harry on 19/07/2007).

Great. Thank you for taking care of this. It is very easy to code either way; I just want it to be 'right'.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 263
RE: Rules Clarification List - 7/25/2007 11:29:14 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline 		I came across some code the other day when checking whether the code for various optional rules was correct.

Here is the puzzlement: Crossing a strait is +1 for land units. Using a rail way connection is -1 for mechanized units. So what about a strait that has a rail line crossing it. The choices are: +1, -1, or 0 (they cancel each other out). CWIF had it as +1, and I changed that to -1. But now I believe I was wrong to make the change and I want to go back to +1.

Comments? Opinions? Actual knowledge as to which is correct?

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 264
RE: Rules Clarification List - 7/25/2007 11:41:32 AM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I came across some code the other day when checking whether the code for various optional rules was correct.

Here is the puzzlement: Crossing a strait is +1 for land units. Using a rail way connection is -1 for mechanized units. So what about a strait that has a rail line crossing it. The choices are: +1, -1, or 0 (they cancel each other out). CWIF had it as +1, and I changed that to -1. But now I believe I was wrong to make the change and I want to go back to +1.

Comments? Opinions? Actual knowledge as to which is correct?

Well, crossing a strait is always +1 for land units. This is not an optional rule.

The "using a railway connection" at -1 is if you use the optional rule 37 :
********************************
AiF/PatiF Option 37: (Railway movement bonus) A land unit pays 1 less movement point (minimum 1) to enter a hex when it moves, or advances after combat, along a railway (but not a road). This reduction occurs after you apply any weather (see 8.2) or overrun (see 11.11.6) effects.
********************************
It is for all units, not only mechanized. Why do you say it is for mechanized ?

So I'd say that if you play with option 37, a strait hexside with rail is at (+1) + (-1) = 0 movement points cost.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 265
RE: Rules Clarification List - 7/25/2007 11:47:14 AM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Great. Thank you for taking care of this. It is very easy to code either way; I just want it to be 'right'.

There are 329 questions which were listed.
109 have been submitted to Harry.
78 have been answered by Harry for the moment and are closed cases now.

From the 329 questions, 164 have answers from Harry (some are old answers, that Harry reviews too) and 167 have answers in the 2004 FAQ document.

For all those questions, 6 persons including myself have given their answer, to help Harry answering.

In the end, I intend to make an FAQ document with all the questions answered.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 266
RE: Rules Clarification List - 7/25/2007 12:04:01 PM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
========
My question:

Are alignment and DOW done simultaneously or sequentially?

Right now the program presents a list of countries that a major power can align and a second list that he can DOW on. It is up to the player to decide which to do first. Once a major power has decided on both, then another major power on the same side gets to decide on DOW and aligning countries.

How much latitude should the players have in determining the order in which these decisions are made? Does the CW know the results of the US DOW attempt(s) before making his decisions? Should one major power be allowed to align a country, then wait to see how another major power on the same side makes out in aligning a country before deciding about DOW? The reason this comes up is that both DOW and alignments can affect US Entry levels so the order can have significant effects.

I have no personal preference/bias here. I just want to code it so it executes correctly (in accordance with RAW).

About this, the question was asked under three disguises in the list, and answered.
----------------
Q035 : Does a side declares its DOWs all at once? (See also Q205 & Q262)

A035 : Well the rules say you announce all declarations of major powers, and then all minor countries. Then after all declarations of war you roll for the US entry effect. Date 19/07/2007
----------------
Q205 : Are alignment and DOW done simultaneously or sequentially?
Example : does the CW know the results of the US DOW attempt(s) before making his decisions?
Reformulation : Can Japan DOW the CW in the same impulse Germany declares war on the Netherlands and then invade NEI and the CW territories, or do Japan have to wait until the impulse after Germany DOWs the Netherlands?

A205 : Well the rules say you announce all declarations of major powers, and then all minor countries. Then after all declarations of war you roll for the US entry effect and then work out alignment but within this, you can declare war in any order you like. Thus you can wait till other major powers on your side have declared war before you do. But no you don't know the result of US entry effects before you can declare war. Date 19/07/2007
----------------
Q262 : Are all DOWs announced simultaneously, or can you make a DOW, see the result (US Entry, who aligns the minor etc.) then go on to make another during the same DOW phase?

A262 : All DOWs are announced simultaneously. Date 19/07/2007
----------------

Edit : This does not clear up the question :
Within the "you announce all declarations of major powers", is the USA declaration war **roll** known for the others allied Major Powers before they annouce their DoWs. I'm talking about the declaration of war roll on the "It's war" chart, not about the US Entry effect of the DoW, which as you said is known only after all DoWs have been done.
Which I have asked separately by email, and will add to the list if I get an answer.

< Message edited by Froonp -- 7/25/2007 12:05:45 PM >

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 267
RE: Rules Clarification List - 7/25/2007 12:48:26 PM   
amwild

 

Posts: 105
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I came across some code the other day when checking whether the code for various optional rules was correct.

Here is the puzzlement: Crossing a strait is +1 for land units. Using a rail way connection is -1 for mechanized units. So what about a strait that has a rail line crossing it. The choices are: +1, -1, or 0 (they cancel each other out). CWIF had it as +1, and I changed that to -1. But now I believe I was wrong to make the change and I want to go back to +1.

Comments? Opinions? Actual knowledge as to which is correct?


While I can't say which is actually correct according to the rules, I believe that crossing a strait via a railway should be a -1.

My reasoning is that crossing a strait by means other than rail is slower due to the necessity of using barges, etc. Where railway crosses straits, the trains just run across as if they were on any other similar non-strait terrain, thus no movement cost penalty. I would say that any strait which is bridged with a road or rail line of sufficient capacity to carry a mechanised unit should be a 0 or -1 respectively, since functionally they are no hindrance to movement.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 268
RE: Rules Clarification List - 7/25/2007 12:52:50 PM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Edit : This does not clear up the question :
Within the "you announce all declarations of major powers", is the USA declaration war **roll** known for the others allied Major Powers before they annouce their DoWs. I'm talking about the declaration of war roll on the "It's war" chart, not about the US Entry effect of the DoW, which as you said is known only after all DoWs have been done.
Which I have asked separately by email, and will add to the list if I get an answer.

Well, Harry's just answered me and he wrote :
*************
Yes and yes.

Regards
Harry
*************
The second yes was for another question, as to whether he would have time this week to answer the 30 questions I had submitted to him last week .

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 269
RE: Rules Clarification List - 7/25/2007 1:09:41 PM   
coregames


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

ORIGINAL: Froonp
You can house rule this in the cardboard game too, to be part of Siberia, as this is part of Russia in reality.


Once again, I've been playing wrong for more than 15 years ... I fee as though I might never fully get a grasp on WiF and that I may need MWiF, if only for its consistency.

If the house rule is to allow it to be part of the home country, perhaps a grey communication line could be added to connect it to mainland Asia, so that a Marine could (very slowly) reach it.

_____________________________

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

Keith Henderson

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 270
Page:   <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Rules Clarification List Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   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

8.938