CAP, is this coded correctly?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

CAP, is this coded correctly?

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 >> CAP, is this coded correctly?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

CAP, is this coded correctly? - 12/6/2013 10:27:44 PM

ParJ

Posts: 38
Joined: 1/19/2006
Status: offline

It's been a while since I played the bordgame, but the CAP seems rather useless in the MWIF game. You waste a fighter for a potential specific mission type the enemy might choose. You need to determine if a ground strike or ground support is more likely to occur.

Looking at the RAW, there is nothing that inicates that a CAP mission will end unless an actual combat takes place. You have the opportunity to fly CAP before each type of mission, but the CAP should be active for any subsequent mission type the opponent might make. What happens is that the defense allocates fighters to a specific area during a speciic time. If the opponent ground strikes or supports an attack during that time is not relevant. The fighters are there.

The RAW even specifies that you choose if the fighters fly day or night after the opponent has committed bombers.

Have you run this by Harry? I know that we have always treated CAP as being in effect for the complete impulse.

(any spelling mistakes are caused by Apple and possible bad eye sight due to middle age)

Post #: 1

RE: CAP, is this coded correctly? - 12/6/2013 11:04:03 PM

LiquidSky

Posts: 2811
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline

No..that pretty much is how it works in the real game too. You fly cap to a hex during a given air phase (say Ground Strike), and at the end of that phase it goes home, used.

What differentiates this from just flying interception, is you can use the full movement of the plane to reach it's target. If what you want to protect is within interception range, there is no point in flying it as CAP.

Another (subtle) difference is there is a good chance that for the price of one plane's mission, you entirely prevent the hex you want protected from being attacked, as they use there planes elsewhere. A win in my book.

I have also flown CAP as a way of rebasing my fighters when the turn is drawing to a close.

The good thing about having WiF on the computer is that home rules will not apply. There is no room for rules lawyering with the computer..it is always right.

_____________________________

�My logisticians are a humorless lot � they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.� � Alexander the Great

(in reply to ParJ)

Post #: 2

RE: CAP, is this coded correctly? - 12/7/2013 12:10:10 AM

ParJ

Posts: 38
Joined: 1/19/2006
Status: offline

You're most definitely right. But I just read through the rules again and they start with the text "to ground strike / port attack / etc" then follows the CAP as the first step. That can definitely mean that the phasing player need to announce that he is going to perform at least one mission of the type and then the non phasing player need to assign CAP for that mission type. If you're not performing a mission then the entire phase will be skipped and no CAP will occur.

But this is rarely used anyway so It will not matter much. And the extra rebase will work anyway.

(in reply to LiquidSky)

Post #: 3

RE: CAP, is this coded correctly? - 12/7/2013 12:55:16 AM

Zorachus99

Posts: 1066
Joined: 9/15/2000
From: Palo Alto, CA
Status: offline

If using the oil rule, the CAP re-bases are face down, and can be quite expensive.

I believe you can also rebase aircraft face-down during a combined if you are out of activity limits... or is this a ghost of WIF past?

< Message edited by Zorachus99 -- 12/7/2013 1:57:05 AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to ParJ)

Post #: 4

RE: CAP, is this coded correctly? - 12/7/2013 1:43:16 AM

brian brian

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

If using the oil rule, the CAP re-bases are face down, and can be quite expensive.

I believe you can also rebase aircraft face-down during a combined if you are out of activity limits... or is this a ghost of WIF past?

yes, ghost of the past. and maybe the future?

CAP is rarely used in WiF. For one, it is hard to always remember the capability. It might become more used on the computer, with each player being offered the opportunity at every air phase.

but later in the war when air missions are more at a premium with more and more planes on the map, it is useful if you can remember it, for the rebase. perhaps particularly when the Luftwaffe needs to retreat as well as the German army, and the turn is getting late.

(in reply to Zorachus99)

Post #: 5

RE: CAP, is this coded correctly? - 12/7/2013 1:51:08 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: oto02

You're most definitely right. But I just read through the rules again and they start with the text "to ground strike / port attack / etc" then follows the CAP as the first step. That can definitely mean that the phasing player need to announce that he is going to perform at least one mission of the type and then the non phasing player need to assign CAP for that mission type. If you're not performing a mission then the entire phase will be skipped and no CAP will occur.

But this is rarely used anyway so It will not matter much. And the extra rebase will work anyway.

Not quite.

The phasing side does not have to decide anything prior to the CAP decision by the non-phasing side. Once all the CAP decisions have been made for the phase, the phasing side is quite within his rights to not fly any missions.

Note that in MWIF CAP can only be flown to a hex that is 'threatened' by a possible mission by the phasing side. For instance, China rarely needs to defend against port attacks (what with it not having any naval units), so they are not permitted to fly CAP during that phase.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to ParJ)

Post #: 6

RE: CAP, is this coded correctly? - 12/7/2013 2:55:12 AM

paulderynck

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

Over the board, we ask the other guy: "any CAP for" <fill in> ... Port attack... Strat bombing... Ground strikes...

just to see if the other guy will be sucked-in to wasting a mission - or not? every now and again it can make a difference. Just last game my opponent did that and I quickly and dismissively said no; and then watched him fly his 6-4 MTN on the 22 range flying boat into Basra, where there'd just been a battle between the CW and Italians in which the magic 14 caused everybody to die and the hex to remain Italian. Basra at the time being 7 (MWiF) hexes from a couple P-38 Lightnings.

So it goes...

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 7

RE: CAP, is this coded correctly? - 12/7/2013 4:37:32 AM

Ur_Vile_WEdge

Posts: 585
Joined: 6/28/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Note that in MWIF CAP can only be flown to a hex that is 'threatened' by a possible mission by the phasing side. For instance, China rarely needs to defend against port attacks (what with it not having any naval units), so they are not permitted to fly CAP during that phase.

But.... My action spamming