RE: Suggested Rule Change

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: Suggested Rule Change

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: Suggested Rule Change

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Suggested Rule Change - 9/17/2005 6:15:44 PM

Mziln

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

Alright then, I have been patent and polite to you long enough.

If YOU read the rules you would know that

1. The main characteristic of incomplete conquest is that the conquered country still controls at least an Aligned Minor Country. Is covered in pick a new home country

2. Change control of the country (hexes) this is the same for incomplete or complete conquest (with one exception). Don't blatantly quote me out of context. Don't pick a single word and say it means one thing and ignore the rest of the sentence. Don't pick a single line and try to say I refer to the entire set of rules. Don't say I torture a sentence just because I disagree with your muddled interpretation.

3. You have said go post somewhere else this is not the place to discuss the game. If this is not the place to discuss the rules of the game I don't see how discussing it elsewhere would do any good.

4. Don't try to reply to my posts until I am done with them unless you edit YOUR final version. You can see the differences between what you quote and my final version.

5. I am tired of being insulted by you.

You have said I demand rule changes.
You have said I refuse to agree to Matrix interpretations of the rules
You have said I have not read the rules so my viewpoint would be meaningless.

This is not true and you know it.

You condemn my work without even a look or second thought.

I have presented my views in a logical organized manner and only responded to any and all of your questions.

Is your venom directed at me because I pointed out there was already a rule for lend lease aircraft that you overlooked?

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 31

RE: Suggested Rule Change - 9/17/2005 6:18:17 PM

wfzimmerman

Posts: 660
Joined: 10/22/2003
Status: offline

Fortunately all these stupid rules debates will soon be eliminated for MWIF users. If you don't like the way the rules are implemented, you can beg "Shannon" for a bug fix in a far-off future release.

(in reply to Mziln)

Post #: 32

RE: Suggested Rule Change - 9/17/2005 7:04:03 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman

Fortunately all these stupid rules debates will soon be eliminated for MWIF users. If you don't like the way the rules are implemented, you can beg "Shannon" for a bug fix in a far-off future release.

Which gives me an idea ....

Perhaps part of the security for MWIF should be to ask obscure questions about the rules and only let the player continue playing if gets the answer right. Or there could be little pop quizes during a game when playing against the AI and if you get the answer wrong, the AI can make illegal moves (or the player is denied a legal move). This would make MWIF somewhat like golf where the official rules manual is impenetrably obscure and even a tour professional requires a huddle of rules officials to make rulings/interpretations during play. Other possibilities are to add a bit of chance to the whole thing and roll a die to see if the rule is going to be enforced or not.

Alas, I have too many other things to do and all these beautiful ideas will languish realized. Though the last one might enter into a mythical status and be used by a player to explain why he lost so badly to the AI: "the AI cheated!".

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to wfzimmerman)

Post #: 33

RE: Suggested Rule Change - 9/17/2005 7:28:33 PM

Froonp

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

Man, cool down !

quote:

2. Change control of the country (hexes) this is the same for incomplete or complete conquest (with one exception). Don't blatantly quote me out of context. Don't pick a single word and say it means one thing and ignore the rest of the sentence. Don't pick a single line and try to say I refer to the entire set of rules. Don't say I torture a sentence just because I disagree with your muddled interpretation.

I prefer to quote only the thing I'm replying too, because I like posts to be as short as possible.

quote:

3. You have said go post somewhere else this is not the place to discuss the game. If this is not the place to discuss the rules of the game I don't see how discussing it elsewhere would do any good.

Because Steve won't rewrite any rule.
The WiF discussion list at Yahoo is read, albeit from a distance, by Harry Rowland the designer of WiF, and some (most ?) of the changes the RAW had in its life came from comments on this list.
So if you hoped for things to be modificated, the WiF Discussion list is the best place in the world.

quote:

4. Don't try to reply to my posts until I am done with them unless you edit YOUR final version. You can see the differences between what you quote and my final version.

Sorry, I did not see that your post was not "final".
Honestly, I do not see the difference, but this must be the language.

quote:

5. I am tired of being insulted by you.

Sorry, I'm not of this kind of people who use to insult people. I apologize if you felt so.
I told you my mind honestly without wanting to insult you.
If you felt insulted, I think that first I can apologize, and second I can refrain from answering you in the future about rule rewrites.

Cheers !

Patrice

(in reply to Mziln)

Post #: 34

RE: Suggested Rule Change - 9/18/2005 7:39:38 PM

Mziln

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

Lets use Italy as an example for incomplete conquest.

quote:

Italy is conquered when any 3 of these are true during this step:
1. The Allies control Rome.
2. The Allies control Tripoli.
3. The Allies control any printed factory hex in Italy (apart from Rome).
4. The Allied garrison value (see Option 46: Partisans) in Italy is greater than the Italian garrison value there (remember, Sicily is part of Italy).

Two of the 3 required steps should have been obtained if the Commonwealth is at war with Italy.

Tripoli has fallen.

The Allied garrison value in Italy is greater than the Italian garrison value (remember, Sicily is part of Italy).

I know rule 9.4 US entry doesn't specifically state that the USA can choose to only declare war on Italy but it does infer that this is possible.

quote:

The USA can declare war on Germany and Italy in the same step but it can�t attempt to declare war on Japan in the same step as it attempts to declare war on either of the others.

If it attempts declarations of war against both Germany and Italy in the same step, resolve it as one attempt, rather than one for each. If the attempt succeeds, it would count as 2 declarations for US entry purposes (see 13.3.2).

Now if the USA has only declared war ONLY on Italy and takes Genoa, Naples, or Tranto. Because there is a single factory in each city and they are on the coast so they could be invaded.

Italy is incompletely conquered if it controls Yugolsavia as the example does in the rules.

quote:

If more than one Major Power from the same side controls the capital and printed factories in a home country, the Major Power with the greatest influence in that home country is the conqueror.

The player with the greatest influence is whoever (when both sides are equal go to the next condition):
1. Controls most factories in the home country (with the capital counting as an additional 3 factories for this calculation).
2. Has the highest garrison value (see Option 46: Partisans) in the home country.
3. Occupied the home country�s last factory or capital city.

The USA controls the factory and has met the third required step.

The USA Controls the only factory in the home country so it is the conqueror.

All German units in Italy are moved out of the country because they are not at war with the USA.

Depending on the situation the German units would end up in Austria, Corsica, France, Greece, Yugoslavia, or a combination of these.

If Italy controls Yugolsavia it is a minor home country it has a capitol. It can mow make Yugolsavia its new home country.

Italy is at peace and will liberated when German units re-enter Rome.

Now if the USA successfully declares war against Italy again.

Italy has again been incompletely conquered the 3 requirements have already been met.

We go through this process again.

To break this loop Germany will have to declare war on the USA.

Or the Allies will slowly march up Italy and capture Rome.

Or am I wrong again?

< Message edited by Mziln -- 9/18/2005 8:15:39 PM >

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 35

RE: Suggested Rule Change - 9/18/2005 8:12:27 PM

Froonp

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

Hello,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln
All German units in Italy are moved out of the country because they are not at war with the USA.

Note that the conquest of Italy process take around 1 year, give or take a couple of months, and I would be surprised that Germany does not declare war to the USA to take advantage from a suprise Impulse against them during this time.
Anyway, up to this point all you are saying seems valid.

quote:

Italy is at peace and will liberated when German units re-enter Rome.

This is not true. A country incompletely conquered is still at war with the countries it was at war before. It is one of the differences between incomplete & complete conquest.

Please, also note that a country who is conquered a second time (that is, conquered after having been liberated previously) is conquered completely and uterly this time, loosing all units etc...

It's a tricky matter for the Germans to liberate the Italians, I would never do it. Otherwise, bye bye the green little friends and the activity limits.

Please, alors note that a country cannot be liberated in the same step it was conquered (in the case of Italy this is possible).

Cheers !

Patrice

< Message edited by Froonp -- 9/18/2005 8:15:59 PM >

(in reply to Mziln)

Post #: 36

RE: Suggested Rule Change - 9/18/2005 8:22:14 PM

Mziln

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

quote:

Re-conquest

If the capital city of a liberated Major Power, home country, or Minor Country is later occupied by an enemy unit during a peace step, permanently remove all that country�s units from the game, even if it is liberated again later.

The capital city is not occupied in this instance.

There is no limitation on the USA declaring war on Italy in a subsequent declaration of war step. Moving and taking unopposed hexes and having this occur anyway. As long as they don't take Rome.

You are right about them still being at war I was in error.

Now to get this example to work we have to introduce a Japannese unit.

I know this improbable but we are in agreement on the workings of incomplete conquest so far and this is only an example.

If a Japaneese unit were in Italy at this time and at war with the USA it would stay where it is while the Germans would leave.

< Message edited by Mziln -- 9/18/2005 9:28:55 PM >

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 37

RE: Suggested Rule Change - 9/19/2005 6:00:37 AM

doctormm

Posts: 124
Joined: 5/28/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln

If a Japaneese unit were in Italy at this time and at war with the USA it would stay where it is while the Germans would leave.

So you have a problem with the fact that a unit at war with the US would remain in Italy, but units at peace with the US would be forced to leave?

Why is this a problem, especially when it only seems to occur in these unbelievably contrived examples you give, and the rules as they stand remove a previously common problem (Japanese remaining in Persian oil hexes after Soviet conquest, which problem your suggested change brings back)?

(in reply to Mziln)

Post #: 38

RE: Advisors - 9/19/2005 11:53:47 AM

Froonp

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

Hello,

This agitated thread gave me an idea anyway.
One way the game could help a player.

In the improbable case Mziln took as an example (USA & Germany not at war), and with the approaching conquest of Italy, the game could warn the German player that while he is not at war with Italy's foreseen conqueror, he will be obliged to pull up his units from Italy when its conquest comes.

Or there could be a Naval advisor that would say : "The enemy has a fleet in XXX sea area, so he can try to Port Attack our YYY port."

I mean that the game could warn the player of some (maybe little known) consequences of some aspects of the present state of the game.

This could be done under the form of some sort of advisors that the player choose to consult in one of the game's menus, who would give this information. The Foreign Office Minister, a Naval Advisor, an Air Marshal, etc...

(in reply to doctormm)

Post #: 39