New to the game - Basic Questions

[paulderynck]

1) Please, do not be rude.
2) All of us have at some point been in error with the interpretation about the rules. So some humility would be nice in us all.
3) The number of units that can be overrun in a hex can in fact be more than one. Using plural instead of singular when you write about an unspecified number which often is more than one does not seem much on which to hang an interpretation of a rule.
4) The (only?) rule which specifically handles how CVPs are handled state that the CVP is not disorganized in such a move. And that is ignored because the overrun rule use plural?

Apologies if you thought that was rude. I just can't understand how the stated interpretation is arrived at, given what the rule says.

1.CVPs are units.
2, The overrun rule states units. If it were to only apply to naval units or to air units then it should say that. If all units in the hex relocate and then are disorganized, why are CVPs excepted?

You indicate there is a specific rule for CVPs on CVs that get overrun. Please reference it.

To me the logic is that units that are overrun are disorganized because they have lost capability. Why do CVs lose capability, but the CVPs don't? Playing without CVPs, the capability is lost in such a case.

Interestingly, you can re-org the CV and get the CVP re-orged for free. What your interpretation allows otherwise is to save a bit of oil and gives the ability to rebase the CVP to a face-up CV, thus possibly using it this turn without having to re-org it.

How does MWiF handle it?

[craigbear]

Grammar or not, it could certainly be interpreted that the units that are forced to rebase (the ships), they (the ships) would be disorganized. The return to base movement is for the ships, after all, not the CVPs. Just saying, the rule could be interpreted in a couple of ways barring being clarified by other rules.

English is my first language.

[Orm]

I expected the overrun rule to have an addition for option 56 and how CVPs were handled. When it had not any specification about CVPs I read on the CVP rule (cut in the only relevant part that I could find below), and when reading it my thought process went something like this:

1) If there is no addition to the overrun rule, then the CVP rule must be where the answer lies and this it what it says.
2) The CV is overrun, thus it ends it move in port, rule could apply
3) The CV becomes disorganised, and thus complies with the overrun rule.
4) It is during the action segment.
5) But the CV did not start at sea.
6) Thus the CVP is not disorganized.
7) Hmmm.... This is not as clear as I expected. This is confusing. I better ask on the forum.

And at this point I am more or less at point 8.

8) The forum answer has not really provided any clarity. Still confused.

14.4.1 Carrier plane units (CVPiF & SiF option 56)
Moving into port
When a CV ends its move in port, it becomes disorganized (see 11.4.1). Its carrier plane becomes
disorganized if the CV moved into the port during the action segment and started the step at sea.

[Centuur]

I expected the overrun rule to have an addition for option 56 and how CVPs were handled. When it had not any specification about CVPs I read on the CVP rule (cut in the only relevant part that I could find below), and when reading it my thought process went something like this:

1) If there is no addition to the overrun rule, then the CVP rule must be where the answer lies and this it what it says.
2) The CV is overrun, thus it ends it move in port, rule could apply
3) The CV becomes disorganised, and thus complies with the overrun rule.
4) It is during the action segment.
5) But the CV did not start at sea.
6) Thus the CVP is not disorganized.
7) Hmmm.... This is not as clear as I expected. This is confusing. I better ask on the forum.

And at this point I am more or less at point 8.

8) The forum answer has not really provided any clarity. Still confused.

14.4.1 Carrier plane units (CVPiF & SiF option 56)
Moving into port
When a CV ends its move in port, it becomes disorganized (see 11.4.1). Its carrier plane becomes
disorganized if the CV moved into the port during the action segment and started the step at sea.

Rule 14.4.1 seems to make things clear to me. Since the CVP was not at sea when the CV start the movement and the CV moved into a port, it doesn't get disorganised.

[Joseignacio]

Indeed. The oil cost is not symmetrical.

However. A overrun move is not the same as an abort result.

The overrun rule states that it is an return to base move where the overrun unit is disorganized at the end. Thus the rule concerning CVPs could apply where it is stated that the CVP only becomes disorganized if the CV started its move at sea.

RAC: 11.11.6 Overruns
...-
With the units from the overrun hex that you keep control of, you must immediately make a return to base
move (see 13.4.1) where they become disorganized.

A CVP is part of a CV, in fact; if you played without option 56 it would be also the same counter. So if the CV gets disorganized CVPs should as well. And the oil cost should be the same that it would cost to a CV without that option.

This and parts like this only add mess and confusion to the game.

[Joseignacio]

Hello, for the first time in my MWIF games I have come to a possible overrun.

At the same time I have remembered a doubt a friend asked about the rules, would like to know your opinions.

The rule says:

11.11.6. OVERRUNS
Land units can sometimes destroy enemy units during movement. They do this by entering the enemy hex and declaring an overrun. You can only conduct an overrun with a single unit, or with a single stack of units that started the land movement (or Advancing after combat, see 11.16.5) step together.

IMO, this means the beginning of the Advance after combat. He argued that he moved units (with the temporary overstacking) to the attacked hex

Overstacking
In general, units may not overstack during land movement. However, MWiF enables temporary overstacking, primarily to enable players to rearrange units in hexes that are fully stacked. A typical instance of this is when the French have 2
corps in every hex of the Maginot Line and want to switch which units are in which hexes. To facilitate this, MWiF permits units to be overstacked when a unit, or stack of units, ends its movement. But then the next unit or stack of units that moves has to correct the overstacking. In the case of two French corps, A and B, in Metz, and two more corps, C and D, in Strasbourg (adjacent to Metz), the player is permitted to move unit A to Strasbourg, even though that causes overstacking. But then his next move has to be to move unit A, C, or D out of Strasbourg, to eliminate the overstacking.

Temporary overstacking enables you to move a stack of units from behind your lines up to a hex in your front line (which becomes temporarily overstacked) and then continue moving by overrunning units in the enemy’s front line

and then he made another "advance after combat movement " with the ones he selected that fulfilled the conditions (i.e. armored and/or others according to rules).

I never saw this in the board, and I believe this is all horseshit, but would appreciate comments on it.

BTW, You can simply move a stack in MWIF to do the Overrun or you need to ctrl+click the battle hex and then move it forward?

[paulderynck]

If the odds for the overrun could not have been possible without the overstack, then that's an illegal move IMO.

Otherwise, multiple advancing units are going to move through the hex anyway, and if they are overstacked after that, there is a remedy.

[Courtenay]

Here is what the FAQ has to say:

For an overrun in Advance After Combat, does starting the move together mean the combat step or the movement step?

Combat step. Date 07/03/2008

So you have to start the combat stack stacked together, before you advance after combat. (The idea of advancing the units and then overrunning was so outlandish that the question wasn't even asked.)

[Joseignacio]

Thanks both

[Orm]

I need some assistance with production planning.

- USA trade 2 BPs to Free France with the new home Country in Morocco.
- There are 2 CPs available to transport those 2 BPs in each of East Coast, North Atlantic, and Cape St Vincent.
- However, MWIF insist on using the route through Bay of Biscay instead, and then use rail through Spain. This use up CPs in the BoB vital to transport resources to CW.
- When I change the route to CSV the BP becomes undeliverable and no convoy rote at all is shown. And changing to a new source for the BP to be delivered gets me back to a BP being delivered through BoB-

What do I do so that the BP will be transport through the CSV?

[rkr1958]

I need some assistance with production planning.

- USA trade 2 BPs to Free France with the new home Country in Morocco.
- There are 2 CPs available to transport those 2 BPs in each of East Coast, North Atlantic, and Cape St Vincent.
- However, MWIF insist on using the route through Bay of Biscay instead, and then use rail through Spain. This use up CPs in the BoB vital to transport resources to CW.
- When I change the route to CSV the BP becomes undeliverable and no convoy rote at all is shown. And changing to a new source for the BP to be delivered gets me back to a BP being delivered through BoB-

What do I do so that the BP will be transport through the CSV?

I handle such troublesome trades "off the books" but requires editing the game file. Confronted with your situation this is how I would deal with it.

1. Edit the game file to delete the USA to Free France 2 BP lend lease agreement.

2. Verify that there are 2 "unused" CPs in each of East Coast, North Atlantic & Cape St. Vincent at the end of turn.

3. Edit the game file to give Free France 2 saved BPs prior to final production.

These are edits that I'm comfortable making and would be happy to do or share how I do if you decide on a similar approach.

Good luck.

[Orm]

Thank you.

Edit: Issue solved. (I hope)

Just noticed that the Canadian oil used up 10 CPs in order to be transported to Bardia, Libya. I think I saved that oil in Canada the previous end of turn. No way it was ordered to Bardia. Anyway. When I cleared that order the BPs going to France changed the route by itself to CSV. Weird. I had 4 unused CPs in CSV and yet the program refused to use them. But now it does.

[rkr1958]

I should know this but with 2D10, if offensive HQ support is provided across a river w/o eng support is that support halved?

[rkr1958]

I should know this but with 2D10, if offensive HQ support is provided across a river w/o eng support is that support halved?

I just wargamed the answer to my only question. HQ support is NOT halved. However; if the HQ is being used to negate 1 of the city or factory penalties (-1 or more) in the defending hex, then that one penalty that one or more attacking HQs can negated is halved. That is, the attacker only gets +1/2 instead of +1 for HQ(s) participating in the attack.

[Orm]

However; if the HQ is being used to negate 1 of the city or factory penalties (-1 or more) in the defending hex, then that one penalty that one or more attacking HQs can negated is halved. That is, the attacker only gets +1/2 instead of +1 for HQ(s) participating in the attack.

Well, that is only sort of true if there are two HQs in the attack. This because the total positive modifier by the HQs can be no more than one, then the positive HQ modifier by attacking HQs are divided by the number of attacking HQs.

The rule says +1 if HQ is attacking city. Not per HQ.

Furthermore, if there is a -1 city modifier, and you use an ENG to attack a city, and then add a HQ, then the HQ would add zero modifier to the attack. The ENG already has the negative modifier negated.

000.jpg (28.18 KiB) Viewed 421 times

[rkr1958]

However; if the HQ is being used to negate 1 of the city or factory penalties (-1 or more) in the defending hex, then that one penalty that one or more attacking HQs can negated is halved. That is, the attacker only gets +1/2 instead of +1 for HQ(s) participating in the attack.

Well, that is only sort of true if there are two HQs in the attack. This because the total positive modifier by the HQs can be no more than one, then the positive HQ modifier by attacking HQs are divided by the number of attacking HQs.

The rule says +1 if HQ is attacking city. Not per HQ.

Furthermore, if there is a -1 city modifier, and you use an ENG to attack a city, and then add a HQ, then the HQ would add zero modifier to the attack. The ENG already has the negative modifier negated.

000.jpg

But if the city has a factory then HQ & 1-strength ENG would negate the -2 modifier? Or in the case of a 2-factory city, a HQ & 2-strength ENG would negate the -3? But for this last case if you used 2 HQs & 1-strength ENG you'd only negate 2 of the -3 and be left with -1 modifier?

Also these modified are halved by attacking across a river, unless and eng is used?

But, HQ support wouldn't be regardless if an eng is used or not?

[Orm]

Yep, you got it all right. Including river halving for attacking city bonus, and not halving for HQ support.

[rkr1958]

Yep, you got it all right. Including river halving for attacking city bonus, and not halving for HQ support.

Thanks! I've been playing this game going on close to 10 years and I feel I'm finally getting a handle on most of the rules. Thanks again for you patience and help!

[Angeldust2]

I think these modifiers could be easily better presented by MWIF in the combat screen, if always all modifiers would be displayed, even if they cancel each other out and sum up to zero.

[rkr1958]

Is there anywhere that defines which countries and/or territories are included in the French administration groups: (1) French West Africa and (2) French Equatorial Africa?

P.S. In which administrative group is Djibouti, French Somaliland?