Rules Clarification List

[c92nichj]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: c92nichj
ANother rule question.

What nationality is a notional unit that occupies a territory such as New caledonia?

In our current game New caledonia became part of Vichy france so that makes me believe that the notional is vichy french and hence is out of supply unless the axis can trace a supply path back to metropolitan vichy france.

Or is it new caledonian and always in supply in it's home territory?

A notional unit that occupies an hex in New Caledonia is of New Caledonian nationality, so it draws it supply from any New Caledonian supply source. There are none, because there are no "friendly city in the unit’s unconquered home country".

As New Caledonia is a Minor country aligned to Vichy France, a New Caledonian notional could draw supply on "any friendly city in an unconquered home country of a major power the unit co-operates with". Minor country units only cooperate with their controller Major Power, so a New Caledonian notional can draw supply from a Vichy city in the Vichy Home Country.

So I think that you played it right.

But new caledonia is not a minor country but just a territory, as it does not have a capital city, that's why I thought the notional would be of Vichy nationality rather than New caledonian

[Incy]

Notional is Metropolian Vichy french, because this is a territory. Unless there is a unit in the hex, in which case the notional is of the same nationality as the unit.

[Mziln]

First: New Caledonia is a territory not a minor country.

AfA Option 10: Territorials belonging to a territory (e.g. Aden or New Caledonia) may be placed in any city or port in that territory.


Second: The notional unit is the same nationality as any major power or minor country with a real unit in the hex (owner’s choice if more than one). If there are no real units, it is the same nationality as the major power or minor country that controls the hex.

Third: Vichy France is a neutral major power run by the Axis major power that installed the Vichy government.

So it would have to trace back to Vichy if no other units were present.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Mziln

First: New Caledonia is a territory not a minor country.

AfA Option 10: Territorials belonging to a territory (e.g. Aden or New Caledonia) may be placed in any city or port in that territory.


Second: The notional unit is the same nationality as any major power or minor country with a real unit in the hex (owner’s choice if more than one). If there are no real units, it is the same nationality as the major power or minor country that controls the hex.

Third: Vichy France is a neutral major power run by the Axis major power that installed the Vichy government.

So it would have to trace back to Vichy if no other units were present.

You're right, as New Caledonia is a Territory, as you quoted above, the notional is Vichy French.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

This topic came up previously but I am not sure we reached a consensus on it.

I am currently revising the DOW and alignment code so it writes entries out to the Game Record Log. This serves serveral purposes, the primary one, that is my reason for doing this now, is to separate the Player's decision making from the implementation of the results in the simulated game. For example, as the USSR player, you declare war on Iran/Persia. This event is recorded in the local game record log and it is also sent to other players (over the Internet or PBEM). Lastly, it is implemented in the local copy of the simulation. When the other players receive the transmission, their copy of the game record log and copy of the simulation are brought up-to-date. They also receive an informative message on the screen announcing the DOW.

The need/benefit of separating the player decision from the implementation should be clear: 1 player makes the decision, but every player's copy of the simulation is modified. This also enables me to have the code read from existing game record logs and modify the simulation/game. That is, to replay a game. As part of that, I am recording all the die rolls and the modifications to the die rolls in effect at the time of the event. And the probability of succees too. This way you can look back and see what your chances of success were, and how lucky/unlucky you were on die rolls.

The formats for all the decisions in MWIF I developed in detail in the last quarter of 2005. During the first half of 2006 I wrote routines to define the record log formats (turned text writeups into code), and transfer them into and out of simple string structures for transmission over the Internet/by email. In the second half of 2006 I started implementing the code that takes the value of game variables and transfers them into the records. Now I am completing that code and writing the last piece in this 5 piece process of taking game record log entries and updating the values of game variables.

Game variables 2-> game record log record format 3-> string 6-> transmission 7-> string 4-> game record log format 5-> game variables.

Step 1 was defining the game record log formats. They were 462 of them at my last count.
Step 6 and 7 are NetPlay (and EMPlay - PBEM). I have NetPlay code from Dan awaiting my incorporation into the main program.

========
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).

[Jimm]

ORIGINAL:

Are alignment and DOW done simultaneously or sequentially?

Not sure I follow the coding issue you have Steve but from a game play position I would say sequential, reason being this is how it follows when you play the game with cardboard. You do- then once done is done, and devil take you if you get it wrong way round....

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
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).

Relevant rule is 9.

DoWs must be made before Alignements, because they are 2 different paragraphs in RAW, and that RAW is written in sequence of play order (See 1.1 -- things written before other things, are done in that order). DoWs are described in 9.2, 9.3, 9.4 (US), 9.5 (Neutrality Pacts), 9.6 (reserves), 9.7. Aligning countries is described in 9.8, with only 1 alignement per major power.

So :
1) DoWs are announced (9.2). First are announced all DoWs against Major Powers (9.2), then all DoWs against Minor Countries (9.2).
2) All US Entry rolls for all DoWs are made (9.2).
3) USA makes its DoW (9.4).
4) Breaking of Neutrality pacts and ensuying DoWs (9.5).
5) Reserves are called for eligible countries (9.6).
6) Control of minor countries is decided, and its armed forces are set up (9.7).
7) Minors are aligned, maximum 1 per major power per DoW phase (9.8).

In step 1), I think that all DoW are announced (selected in dialog boxes), not secretly. As players don't know the US entry result of each other's DoWs, as they are made in step 2), I see no problem in having all DoW being coordinated between major powers on the same side. That is, if the CW check the box to DoW Persia for example, and that the Russian player make this too thereafter, all players should have the opportunity to review each others' DoWs and decide to not make some of their DoWs that they do not wish to make anymore now that they know that their ally will make it too.
Except US DoW who are clearly announced in step 3) of my list, that is after all doWs have been announced and rolled for, but before Neutrality pact are checked to be broken and ensuying DoWs made.
Same for alignements, I think that they can be coordinated between players. A player should be able to review all of his allies alignements and still decide on his own alignements in consequence.

I've written to Harry a while back (october 2006) about whether US DoWs results were known for other countries DoWs, and here is what he answered :
*****************************
Gidday Patrice,

Good question, the way we play (I think) is that we don't know the results of the US entry rolls before we make our declarations of war.

Regards
Harry

> The question is :
>
> If the Neutral USA are amongst the countries declaring their wars, do the
> other Major Power "know" the result of the USA attempt to declare war
> before announcing their declaration of war, or not ?

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

You can ask him again because this answer ("the way we play (I think) is that") may seems not very firm, but the RAW seems to support what he says.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Jimm

ORIGINAL:

Are alignment and DOW done simultaneously or sequentially?

Not sure I follow the coding issue you have Steve but from a game play position I would say sequential, reason being this is how it follows when you play the game with cardboard. You do- then once done is done, and devil take you if you get it wrong way round....

Ok. DOW (9.6) by every major power on the phasing side and then Aligning countries (9.8) by the same group. These should be completely separate phases, with pDeclareWar preceding pAlign.

The problem was whether the consequences of a US attempted DOW was rolled for before or after the other Allied major powers DOW. For example, the US attempts to declare war on Japan, does the CW know whether the US succeeded before deciding to DOW on Japan too in the same impulse? If the CW goes first, do the resulting US Entry effects occur before the US declares war? Can the Allied players choose whether the US or CW DOW's first?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
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).

Relevant rule is 9.

DoWs must be made before Alignements, because they are 2 different paragraphs in RAW, and that RAW is written in sequence of play order (See 1.1 -- things written before other things, are done in that order). DoWs are described in 9.2, 9.3, 9.4 (US), 9.5 (Neutrality Pacts), 9.6 (reserves), 9.7. Aligning countries is described in 9.8, with only 1 alignement per major power.

So :
1) DoWs are announced (9.2). First are announced all DoWs against Major Powers (9.2), then all DoWs against Minor Countries (9.2).
2) All US Entry rolls for all DoWs are made (9.2).
3) USA makes its DoW (9.4).
4) Breaking of Neutrality pacts and ensuying DoWs (9.5).
5) Reserves are called for eligible countries (9.6).
6) Control of minor countries is decided, and its armed forces are set up (9.7).
7) Minors are aligned, maximum 1 per major power per DoW phase (9.8).

In step 1), I think that all DoW are announced (selected in dialog boxes), not secretly. As players don't know the US entry result of each other's DoWs, as they are made in step 2), I see no problem in having all DoW being coordinated between major powers on the same side. That is, if the CW check the box to DoW Persia for example, and that the Russian player make this too thereafter, all players should have the opportunity to review each others' DoWs and decide to not make some of their DoWs that they do not wish to make anymore now that they know that their ally will make it too.
Except US DoW who are clearly announced in step 3) of my list, that is after all doWs have been announced and rolled for, but before Neutrality pact are checked to be broken and ensuying DoWs made.
Same for alignements, I think that they can be coordinated between players. A player should be able to review all of his allies alignements and still decide on his own alignements in consequence.

I've written to Harry a while back (october 2006) about whether US DoWs results were known for other countries DoWs, and here is what he answered :
*****************************
Gidday Patrice,

Good question, the way we play (I think) is that we don't know the results of the US entry rolls before we make our declarations of war.

Regards
Harry

> The question is :
>
> If the Neutral USA are amongst the countries declaring their wars, do the
> other Major Power "know" the result of the USA attempt to declare war
> before announcing their declaration of war, or not ?

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

You can ask him again because this answer ("the way we play (I think) is that") may seems not very firm, but the RAW seems to support what he says.

Like ships in the night, our posts crossed over pitch-black sea.

I follow your logic but propose changing the label for your 4th step to: US rolls for attempted DOWs against Germany/Italy/Japan. That the US is going to make an attempt to DOW on one of the Axis major powers is done in step 1.

What I envision here are two different, but similar forms for Aligning countries and DOW. The form consists of a matrix with the phasing side's major powers as the columns and the target DOW/Align countries as the rows. Some of the cells will be blank (possible) some will be black (impossible). For example, the US might be able to DOW on Germany, but the CW can't because they are already at war.

On the side are check boxes for each major power on the phasing side: Proposed and Final. By clicking Proposed the MP lets other MPs review and enter their selections. By clicking Final, the MP says his decisions are final. Once all MPs have Final checked, the 1st step is complete.

At that point the program can performed steps 2 -> 4 by itself and only come back to the players for decisions if step 5 (reserves) or 6 (minors) require setting up units.

Aligning countries would proceed in the same manner.

[Mziln]

Yup, Sequential. MWiF is probably safer for the players because it shows which minors you can align before you accidentally DOW them.


9. Declaring war
All major powers on this side announce which major powers on the other side they are declaring war on this impulse. They then all announce which neutral minor countries they are declaring war on this impulse.

9.8 Aligning minors
If a neutral minor can align with your major power (see 19.6, 19.7 and 19.8), you can declare that it is aligning with you. You can only declare one minor aligned with your major power in each friendly impulse.



13.3.1 Entry markers
The US entry level is changed by the entry markers you draw. You will have an entry level against Japan and another against Germany and Italy. This is explained in 9.4.

Only you will know your entry levels, although your opponents will make guesses based on the entry options you choose and may learn some information from intelligence operations (option 63[/b]: see 22.1).

You can look at your own markers after you have committed them to a particular entry pool but you can’t show them to anyone else (even on your own side).

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Mziln


Yup, Sequential. MWiF is probably safer for the players because it shows which minors you can align before you accidentally DOW them.


9. Declaring war
All major powers on this side announce which major powers on the other side they are declaring war on this impulse. They then all announce which neutral minor countries they are declaring war on this impulse.

9.8 Aligning minors
If a neutral minor can align with your major power (see 19.6, 19.7 and 19.8), you can declare that it is aligning with you. You can only declare one minor aligned with your major power in each friendly impulse.



13.3.1 Entry markers
The US entry level is changed by the entry markers you draw. You will have an entry level against Japan and another against Germany and Italy. This is explained in 9.4.

Only you will know your entry levels, although your opponents will make guesses based on the entry options you choose and may learn some information from intelligence operations (option 63[/b]: see 22.1).

You can look at your own markers after you have committed them to a particular entry pool but you can’t show them to anyone else (even on your own side).

Ok, I'll add some information to the DOW form as to which countries can be aligned by whom. You won't be able to align them using that form though.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I follow your logic but propose changing the label for your 4th step to: US rolls for attempted DOWs against Germany/Italy/Japan. That the US is going to make an attempt to DOW on one of the Axis major powers is done in step 1.

Yes but the problem I see is that RAW has the USA makes his DoWs after the US Entry dices for all other DoWs are already made and known. That is, the USA can decide whether the US entry level is high enough or not before announcing his DoWs. So, making the USA announce his DoWs (while the USA are bound by the US Entry rules) at the same time as the other major powers seems wrong to me.
All the major powers on the Allied Side should announce their DoWs, coordinating at will, then all US Entry rolls are made, then the USA, knowing his new US Entry level, announces his DoWs over the Axis Major Powers. This is clear that the USA player should also warn his fellow allies powers that he intends to also DoW if his Entry allow for this, but this can be taken care of by normal communications between players (phone, MSN, speaking, etc...).
It seems weird to me (and contrary to RAW) that the USA shoudl announce for example that they will DoW Japan (step 1)) just to discover because of US Entry rolls made in step 2) that this has become impossible, or that this has gone to levels that the US player was not willing to face.

What I envision here are two different, but similar forms for Aligning countries and DOW. The form consists of a matrix with the phasing side's major powers as the columns and the target DOW/Align countries as the rows. Some of the cells will be blank (possible) some will be black (impossible). For example, the US might be able to DOW on Germany, but the CW can't because they are already at war.

The CWiF program already has such a matrix doesn't it ?

On the side are check boxes for each major power on the phasing side: Proposed and Final. By clicking Proposed the MP lets other MPs review and enter their selections. By clicking Final, the MP says his decisions are final. Once all MPs have Final checked, the 1st step is complete.

At that point the program can performed steps 2 -> 4 by itself and only come back to the players for decisions if step 5 (reserves) or 6 (minors) require setting up units.

And also (step 6)), deciding what Major Power aligns which minor country that was DoWed by the other side.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

There is a matrix as to the political relationships between countries but is is not specifically for DOW or Aligning purposes - just information.

Who controls a minor country is determined by closest capital - that calculation is already in the program (from CWIF).

It is not clear to me that 9.2 doesn't also apply to the US. It starts: "All major powers on this side ...". That seems to me to include the USA.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

There is a matrix as to the political relationships between countries but is is not specifically for DOW or Aligning purposes - just information.

Who controls a minor country is determined by closest capital - that calculation is already in the program (from CWIF).

Not only.
The Major Power with the closest capital will be proposed first, but if he declines, the next closer is proposed next, so in practice, any active major power can choose to control the minor, tere are just distances priorities that must be respected in case 2 major powers wan't to control it.

It is not clear to me that 9.2 doesn't also apply to the US. It starts: "All major powers on this side ...". That seems to me to include the USA.

Yes, 9.2 talks about all generalities about DoWing, but 9.4 and then 9.5 makes the specifices of the case they cover, and each chapter talks about the major powers making their DoWing at this step.

Quote from the rules :
************************************
9.4 US entry
(...)
Attempting to Declare war
Announce your attempt to declare war on a major power. Then, on the “It’s War” table, cross index your entry level against that major power with your tension level against it to find the war number.
************************************

As this is stated in 9.4, this is done when 9.4 arrives, that is, after all US Entry rolls have been made and resolved.

Quote from the rules :
************************************
9.5 Neutrality pacts
(...)
You may only declare war on a major power you have a neutrality pact with by first breaking the pact in your declaration of war step. Once you have broken a pact, you and the other major power can declare war on each other without restriction. You could even declare war in the same step. Once a pact is broken, both major powers return the entry markers they have placed in their common border (see below) to the common entry marker pool.
************************************

9.5 specificaly points out that you can DoW right after having broken the pact, and the pact breaking is here in 9.5, which happens right after USA DoWings and US Entry rolls.

[Jimm]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
It is not clear to me that 9.2 doesn't also apply to the US. It starts: "All major powers on this side ...". That seems to me to include the USA.

Yes, 9.2 talks about all generalities about DoWing, but 9.4 and then 9.5 makes the specifices of the case they cover, and each chapter talks about the major powers making their DoWing at this step.

To me its clear that 9.2 implies that all the MPs on the relevant side make their declarations at that point, as Steve suggests, including the US. Seems to me that the entry in 9.4 is a clarification of the specific process for the US but it doesn't directly imply that the actual decision to DOW by the US comes after all the others are resolved- although the process of working it out comes after the entry effect of the others.

Thats just how I read it!
Jimm

[Froonp]

So the US announce that they will DoW Japan for instance, without knowing his chances of success ???
As all other DoWs will have an effect on their level, and not a slight one, this can lead to nonsenses like dropping from 50% chances of success which is acceptable, to 20-30% with is less acceptable.
No, this is not logical to me, and I don't know any gaming group who plays with such a blind US DoW, and the rule being written in sequence of play order supports the fact that the USA announce his DoW in 9.4, as Germany and / or USSR announce that they will try to break their pacts in 9.5, and make their subsequent DoWs. How could Grmany DoW Russia in 9.2, as it has not broken the pact ? How can the USA announce any DoW in 9.2, as it can only compute his level and roll for his success or failure in 9.4 ???

ORIGINAL: Jimm

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
It is not clear to me that 9.2 doesn't also apply to the US. It starts: "All major powers on this side ...". That seems to me to include the USA.

Yes, 9.2 talks about all generalities about DoWing, but 9.4 and then 9.5 makes the specifices of the case they cover, and each chapter talks about the major powers making their DoWing at this step.

To me its clear that 9.2 implies that all the MPs on the relevant side make their declarations at that point, as Steve suggests, including the US. Seems to me that the entry in 9.4 is a clarification of the specific process for the US but it doesn't directly imply that the actual decision to DOW by the US comes after all the others are resolved- although the process of working it out comes after the entry effect of the others.

Thats just how I read it!
Jimm

[Jimm]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

So the US announce that they will DoW Japan for instance, without knowing his chances of success ???
As all other DoWs will have an effect on their level, and not a slight one, this can lead to nonsenses like dropping from 50% chances of success which is acceptable, to 20-30% with is less acceptable.
No, this is not logical to me, and I don't know any gaming group who plays with such a blind US DoW, and the rule being written in sequence of play order supports the fact that the USA announce his DoW in 9.4, as Germany and / or USSR announce that they will try to break their pacts in 9.5, and make their subsequent DoWs. How could Grmany DoW Russia in 9.2, as it has not broken the pact ? How can the USA announce any DoW in 9.2, as it can only compute his level and roll for his success or failure in 9.4 ???

Yes but how often do you get multiple DOWs on the same impulse? ok it can happen but not that often?

9.2 also says:-

"Each declaration of war on a major power or neutral minor country could trigger a US entry effect (see 13.3.3), which are rolled for after all declarations of war." (italics on "all" are from RAW)

To me that implies that all the declarations, if there are more than one, are effectively simultaneous and therefore the US Entry effect of one would not be taken into account on a US DOW made at the same time- so the US player is not "blind".

With the breaking of pacts, yes, you break the pact in the DOW step and as it says "...You could even declare war in the same step..." so the breaking of the pact and the DOW effectively can take place at the same time without a problem. How often have you seen a German player specifically renouncing the Nazi Soviet pact, pausing and then declaring on Russia as a seperate act? Its 99 times out of a hundred effectively the same action.

To me 9.4 and 9.5 are simply clarifying the specific situations of DOWing with USA and when there is a pact- I see it as logical and supported by the wording of 9.2 that the DOWs are simultaneously announced and worked out?

I cant remember this ever being an issue in a game I've played, but its one of those where the wording is sufficiently ambiguous to cause problems when you analyse it in the detail needed to get a computer to run it!

Jimm

[Froonp]

I think this is a valid reading too, and as far as I remember, I don't remember having had this isssue in a game I was in neither.

I don't remember neither having had a CW DoW for example, having an impact on an US DoW made during the same impulse.

My own reading was maybe a too much literal reading of the rule. Which does not mean that it was wrong neither, as I think that both readings are valid too, but the "All major powers on this side ..." part that is in 9.2 tend to make your reading seems to be more likely to be the right one.

[Jimm]

Its a tricky one and I can see how you came to your original view too.

I blame Harry!

[coregames]

ORIGINAL: trees trees

COOL, a new Harry game? Yay!

I still haven't completely chewed and digested 7 Ages yet, but if he does spring another game on us, I will just have to be a glutton.