New to the game - Basic Questions

[Joseignacio]

The French Administration groups (re Africa) are shown as areas adjacent to certain seas in the Board game. Obliously it may be more difficult to determine which belong to Equatorial Africa and which to French West Africa in MWIF.

In the original WIF classic game, you have French West Africa as one only off map box, with its Capital in Dakar. The french controlled countries of Senegal and those aroud would be French West Africa (Upper Volta, Ivory Coast, ...), those in the Cameroun area and further would be Equatorial Africa ( Cameroun, French Congo, ...)

As for French Somaliland, it does not appear in the WIF Classic (up to RAW7); if we discard the obvious groups, It Should be in All Asian map minors and territories, because it is not in the Pacific, or in All other territories and Minors if for some reason it is considered out of the Asian map and in the Eastern Europe map.

The location where it should be, in the original maps would be between English Somaliland (Asian Map) and Ethiopia/Eritrea (Eastern Europe map), it would count as All Asian map minor if the first case and as All other terr. and minors if the other location. One of those two.



Free-French Chart*
Administration group
Morocco, Algeria & Tunisia
French West Africa
Syria
Indo-China
Madagascar
All Asian map minors & territories
French Equatorial Africa
All Pacific map minors & territories
All other territories & minors

[paulderynck]

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?

In the original Africa map these were marked and can be seen in any of the RAW7 Vassal modules.
French West Africa: Senegal, Mauretania, Fr. Guinea, Fr. Sudan. Ivory Coast, Upper Volta, Togo & Dahomey, Niger Colony
French Equatorial Africa: all the rest except Fr. Somaliland

Fr. Somaliland is not on the Asian Map so it falls in the all others category. This was confirmed in the July 2009 FAQ, question 17.27 - but I'm not sure if MWiF treats it as Asian Map.

[rkr1958]

Thanks guys. Really appreciate your help and responses.

[rkr1958]

1. MWIF allows me to do the following, but is it legal under the rules as written?

2. Germany installs Vichy.

3. Germany & Italian units in Vichy are displaced.

4. French CPs at sea must return to port. The closest and only port that they may return to is Free French.

5. French BBs in now German occupied French ports (i.e., Bordeaux) are "overrun" and must be rebased. The closet and only port that they may rebase to is Free French.

6. MWIF, as the German player allows me to select, hit backspace and destroy these naval units instead of returning or rebasing them to a Free French port.

7. Is this legal under the rules as written?

[Orm]

1. MWIF allows me to do the following, but is it legal under the rules as written?

2. Germany installs Vichy.

3. Germany & Italian units in Vichy are displaced.

4. French CPs at sea must return to port. The closest and only port that they may return to is Free French.

5. French BBs in now German occupied French ports (i.e., Bordeaux) are "overrun" and must be rebased. The closet and only port that they may rebase to is Free French.

6. MWIF, as the German player allows me to select, hit backspace and destroy these naval units instead of returning or rebasing them to a Free French port.

7. Is this legal under the rules as written?

No, the German player should not be allowed to destroy the French ships in this circumstance.

The Allied player is allowed to destroy the French ships leaving an Allied port. However, the German player is not allowed to do the same thing. The German player is only allowed to call for destruction if there are no Vichy or Free French port available within rebasing range.

It is a bug, in my humble opinion.

[Joseignacio]

Sounds weird to me, I would agree with Orm...

... except if there is no FF port to rebase to in range. Range being the number of seas x 2 (including arrival port) in this case.

In that case I understand they ought to be destroyed.

[Centuur]

It's farfetched: but overstacking can also be an issue here. But normally, those ships should be able to go to the Carribean...

[rkr1958]

The Situation

(1) Germany took a land and hasn't (yet) used any of their 4 air missions.
(2) Germany flies FTR2 3-hexes (max range) during their offensive ground support phase to provide "CAP" over a hex (Chisinau, USSR) to be assaulted (land combat).
(3) Germany flew NO bombers anywhere.
(4) On the return to base of the fighter after the ground support phase, Germany still has 4 air mission left.
(5) That is, this ground support "CAP" didn't require a mission.
(6) Is this correct? Was this a "legal" move?

999-Ground-Support-.png (1.62 MiB) Viewed 712 times

[Centuur]

Yes.

RAW:

(...) combat air patrol, escort and intercept
missions don’t count against your mission limits.

[rkr1958]

Yes.

RAW:

(...) combat air patrol, escort and intercept
missions don’t count against your mission limits.

Thanks!

[paulderynck]

Except the attacker does not fly CAP for offensive ground support. The sequence of play has the defender fly CAP then the attacker flies bombers and escorts. The defender could still have flown interceptors but why bother if no bombers were present?

I agree it does not cost air missions.

[rkr1958]

(1) I was reading through this thread over at BGG -> World in Flames -> AA vs mixed Carrier and LBA ground strikes

(2) The thread discusses resolution of AA fire vs a mix of LBA & CVP planes.

(3) The consensus from the WiF rule experts there is that the AA firer chooses the class of plane that the result is applied against and then the plane owner chooses the specific planes. For example, the AA firer rolls a 6 and then could choose to apply 5 of the 6 vs a CVP, thus shooting down the CVP and Pilot.

(4) However; in reading through MWIF rules as coded (11.5.9. ANTI-AIRCRAFT FIRE) it's the owner of the planes that decide how all is applied. And this has been my experience with MWIF too.

(5) I don't see any deviation included so my question is: (a) was there a change in how AA results are applied between FE (WiF 7) & CE (WiF 8), (b) misinterpretation among the WiF rule experts over at BGG, (c) unintentional deviation between WiF 7 RAW and MWIF RAC or (d) undocumented intentional deviation between 7 RAW & RAC?

[Orm]

Alternative c) and d) are out, in my humble opinion. MWIF follows RAW FE here.

I have no idea if they changed the rules for CE as I have not read them. And do not plan to read them as I do not want to mix up the understanding for the MWIF rules.

[Joseignacio]

(1) I was reading through this thread over at BGG -> World in Flames -> AA vs mixed Carrier and LBA ground strikes

(2) The thread discusses resolution of AA fire vs a mix of LBA & CVP planes.

(3) The consensus from the WiF rule experts there is that the AA firer chooses the class of plane that the result is applied against and then the plane owner chooses the specific planes. For example, the AA firer rolls a 6 and then could choose to apply 5 of the 6 vs a CVP, thus shooting down the CVP and Pilot.

(4) However; in reading through MWIF rules as coded (11.5.9. ANTI-AIRCRAFT FIRE) it's the owner of the planes that decide how all is applied. And this has been my experience with MWIF too.

(5) I don't see any deviation included so my question is: (a) was there a change in how AA results are applied between FE (WiF 7) & CE (WiF 8), (b) misinterpretation among the WiF rule experts over at BGG, (c) unintentional deviation between WiF 7 RAW and MWIF RAC or (d) undocumented intentional deviation between 7 RAW & RAC?

Seems they were discussing WIFCE, not WIFFE, from WIF Collectors Edition (not that you need experts to interprete this , lol) :

For every 10 points in the total, the player firing anti-aircraft must choose
to:
(a) destroy 1 enemy land-based bomber; or
(b) destroy 2 enemy carrier planes; or
(c) destroy 1 carrier plane and abort 1 land-based bomber.

If there are 5 points left, the player firing anti-aircraft must choose to:
(a) abort 1 enemy land-based bomber; or
(b) destroy 1 enemy carrier plane.

For every remaining point in the total, 1 further air-to-sea factor does not press the attack.
Even though the player firing anti-aircraft chooses the type of loss, in all cases the actual unit (or factor) lost or aborted within that type is chosen by the owning player.

[Joseignacio]

In WIFFE it was:

For every 10 points in the total, the owner may choose to:
(a) destroy 1 land-based bomber; or
(b) destroy 2 carrier planes; or
(c) destroy 1 carrier plane and abort 1 land-based bomber.

If there are 5 points left, the owner may choose to:
(a) abort 1 land-based bomber; or
(b) destroy 1 carrier plane.

For every remaining point in the total, 1 further air-to-sea factor does not
press the attack.

(...)

Normally the owner chooses which aircraft will be destroyed or aborted.
However, for every 3 surprise points the opponent spends (see 11.5.6),
the opponent can select the (legal) target instead of the owner.

[rkr1958]

Rules violation or rules as coded correct?

(1) CW/Free French vs 3 KM CA surface raiders surface action in Cape St. Vincent.
(2) 1 KM CA surface raider sunk, 2 KM CA surface raiders aborted.
(3) Aborted KM CAs are intercepted in the Bay of Biscay attempting to return to Brest, France.
(4) 2 KM BB & 1 KM CA surface raiders in Bay of Biscay[4] and the opportunity for the RN to search in the Bay of Biscay has not happened yet.
(5) The RN successfully intercepts the 2 KM CAs with both sides reacting air to various boxes. In fact, the CW was able to fly their air out at full range (i.e., not reaction range).
(6) The KM search is unsuccessful so the RN fights the 2 RTBs KM CAs[0], damages & aborts both.
(7) 2 more rounds of naval action (both naval air) happen between the RN, KM surface raiders & reacted air.
(8) Finally, both sides fail to find and combat ends in the Bay of Biscay. Or does it?
(9) MWIF asks if the RN would like to search the Bay of Biscay? The CW elects not to search.
(10) Then finally, MWIF asks Germany (non-phasing) if they would like to search the Bay of Biscay?

[Centuur]

RAW:

After you have made all your naval moves, you can, if you wish,
initiate naval combat. A side can only try to initiate combat once in
each sea area each naval combat step (there can be any number of
interception combat attempts during naval movement).

MWIF is correct.

Interception combat doesn't mean that the sea area has been chosen to initiate naval combat...

[Joseignacio]

It is true that the area where there has been an interception has been "activated" by the flipping of one of the searching units and so, after the interception (which is in the movement phase) there can be a normal search in the search phase by that side, and if rejected, by the other side.

What I am not so sure is about the range of the planes in this case (full range). This is what RAW says (I extrated some excerpts because it is too long, I hope I didn't leave anything important aside:

Intercept.bmp.png (178.85 KiB) Viewed 476 times

IMO everything seems to be right except maybe the full range of planes, which I think is not correct

[rkr1958]

RAW:

After you have made all your naval moves, you can, if you wish,
initiate naval combat. A side can only try to initiate combat once in
each sea area each naval combat step (there can be any number of
interception combat attempts during naval movement).

MWIF is correct.

Interception combat doesn't mean that the sea area has been chosen to initiate naval combat...

It is true that the area where there has been an interception has been "activated" by the flipping of one of the searching units and so, after the interception (which is in the movement phase) there can be a normal search in the search phase by that side, and if rejected, by the other side.

What I am not so sure is about the range of the planes in this case (full range). This is what RAW says (I extrated some excerpts because it is too long, I hope I didn't leave anything important aside:

Intercept.bmp.png

IMO everything seems to be right except maybe the full range of planes, which I think is not correct

Thanks guys! Also, I was mistaken about flying out at full range. The CW plane that did, flew out during the naval air phase and didn't react. So, rules as coded are handling this situation correctly. Thanks again for sharing your expertise!

[Joseignacio]

So, another question, not explicitely addressed in the RAW.

We can read:

13.7.1 Conquest
You can only conquer a home country or territory if you are at war with the major power or minor country that controls it. All conquest in a turn occurs simultaneously.
Minor countries never conquer anything. The home country or territory is instead conquered by the minor’s controlling major power (unless it is not at war, see 2.5).

So, imagine Yugoslavia conquers Albania and Germany conquers Yugoslavia.

Would Yugoslavia conquer Albania for it's allied Major e.g. France or for itself? It would seem that for France, no?
Or would YU have to surrender it's Albania hexes on their being conquered by GE? Dont think so but...
Would it be an incomplete or a complete conquest? It would depend on whether Albania can be a new HC, I guess.

Now choose a new home country for the units of the conquered home country. Conquered Commonwealth home countries can pick another Commonwealth home country (e.g. if Britain is conquered, you could pick Canada as the new home country for British units). Other conquered major power home countries (and Commonwealth if you want), can pick any aligned minor home country. Conquered minor countries can pick either any home country of their controlling major power or any home country that the minor country itself controls.

So, here the text is incongruent with the previous ruling, because now it does not require that the minor which will be the new home country of YU is Aligned, opposite to what we can read in the first quote, when it refers to incomplete conquest of minors.