Rules Clarification List

[Mziln]

Sigh; to me step 9 includes ALL who can DOW. Here is the entire paragraph...


9. Declaring war
In this step, your major powers can declare war on major powers from the other side or on unaligned minor countries. There are restrictions on some major powers declaring war (see China - 9.2, US entry - 13.3, neutrality pacts - 9.5 and Soviet border rectification - 19.6).


Interacting with countries you are not at war with


If you’re not at war with a particular major power or minor country, your interaction with it is limited. You can’t attack its units (exception: see 9.9, multiple states of war). You can’t bomb factories or resources it controls.

You can’t enter a hex controlled by:
• a neutral minor country;
• a neutral major power on your side; or
• a major power or minor country you’re not yet at war with on the other side.



I agree with Jimm "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."

But the DOW's would be sequential (including the US) and after the DOW's the entry marker pools would be adjusted simultaneously either positively or negatively.

This way the US might not be able to DOW in one step but might have the tension pool totals to do it the next DOW step.

The Tension Pool level decides if the USA can go to war. The only way to negatively adjust a Tension pool is to fail an attempt to DOW.

On the other hand the entry marker pool is what is being adjusted here. If it is empty and you are required to remove a marker from it will keep the USA from entering the war against that major power at all.

As far as the US communicating with other powers is concerned. As Patrice has pointed out there is no way to enforce the USA's not telling other players what is in the tension pools.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

I am sitting in the camp that has all DOWs done simultaneously and the US Entry effects calculated in a separate, later step.

As to the US not knowing the chances of success, if the US performs their DOW first, and calculates the effects of that first, then the DOW(s) - and effects thereof - of the other Allied major powers will occur later and not impact the US's chance of success.

The hard part for the CW is deciding to DOW on Japan in the same impulse that the US is going to try. It can be awkward if the US DOW attempt fails and the CW ends up going it alone against Japan.

[Mziln]

If DOW's are done simultaneously then Persia could be at war with Japan and the USSR on impulse 2. And Japan and the USSR would be at peace.

Who would control Persia?

Rule 9.9 Multiple States of War only involves Major powers.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Mziln

If DOW's are done simultaneously then Persia could be at war with Japan and the USSR on impulse 2. And Japan and the USSR would be at peace.

Who would control Persia?

Rule 9.9 Multiple States of War only involves Major powers.

DOW are done simultaneously for the phasing side, not for both the Axis and the Allied powers.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I am sitting in the camp that has all DOWs done simultaneously and the US Entry effects calculated in a separate, later step.

As to the US not knowing the chances of success, if the US performs their DOW first, and calculates the effects of that first, then the DOW(s) - and effects thereof - of the other Allied major powers will occur later and not impact the US's chance of success.

The hard part for the CW is deciding to DOW on Japan in the same impulse that the US is going to try. It can be awkward if the US DOW attempt fails and the CW ends up going it alone against Japan.

Well, I think that his opinion should be asked to Harry Rowland about this in the end, as this is quite a touchy subject amongst players.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I am sitting in the camp that has all DOWs done simultaneously and the US Entry effects calculated in a separate, later step.

As to the US not knowing the chances of success, if the US performs their DOW first, and calculates the effects of that first, then the DOW(s) - and effects thereof - of the other Allied major powers will occur later and not impact the US's chance of success.

The hard part for the CW is deciding to DOW on Japan in the same impulse that the US is going to try. It can be awkward if the US DOW attempt fails and the CW ends up going it alone against Japan.

Well, I think that his opinion should be asked to Harry Rowland about this in the end, as this is quite a touchy subject amongst players.

Then this should be on the Rules Clarification List submitted to Harry. How is that coming, by the way?

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Well, I think that his opinion should be asked to Harry Rowland about this in the end, as this is quite a touchy subject amongst players.

Then this should be on the Rules Clarification List submitted to Harry. How is that coming, by the way?

Peter Kanjorski who offered to lead this has given no news since some weeks ago (a month ?), and half a dozen people have answered the 200 questions of the Excel list, giving their opinion about each "rule question".
This is quite stalled for the moment.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Well, I think that his opinion should be asked to Harry Rowland about this in the end, as this is quite a touchy subject amongst players.

Then this should be on the Rules Clarification List submitted to Harry. How is that coming, by the way?

This question is on our list (#35), and here are the comments about it so far :

Question : Does a side declares DOWs all at once?

FAQ Answer : Believe ruled that a Side declares the DOWs in major - minor order, the actual DOWs are resolved in order of declaration (see 9.7) but treated simultaneously. So GE + IT DOWing Turkey would be 1 joint DOW on Turkey, not China and could be resolved before or after a DOW on NETH by Japan (for example). (unconfirmed)

Jeff Wang : RAI - yes, I still think US "It's War" DOWs should be resolved first
Wendell : Yes, except first declare wars on major powers, then on minors.
Patrice : Yes, except first declare wars on major powers, then on minors.
Lane Brody : all mp's then all minors
Tom Bell : 9.2 you announce all DoWs at once. There is no sequence to DoW. Important in border garrisons ratios.

[Ullern]

_ These trivial questions. Because the following two line of events will for all practical purposess be identical, even though they are not:
A1) All dows are made, exepct for the USA still not at total war.
A2) the US-entry effects are implemented
A3) USA decidedes wether to DOW and implements it.
...

B1) All dows are made, including the USA
B2) the US-entry effects are implemented, but the effect of the USA dow are implemented first
...

There is a clear difference between A and B but I claim its only theoretical, because game theory should cause you to behave the same regardless _ well unless you are a CW player who wants the US to stay out of the war for another turn. As I said - purely a theoretical idea. (But on the other hand: if the result of the USA DOW was known somehow before the B1 or A1 was finished, that would cause people do make different decisions.)

Ullern

[Mziln]

I vote for plan "B".

[c92nichj]

Where is Build points produced? and can be lendleased from. I see two options:

A) Production points are produced at the factory but then all PP are summed up and a production multiplier is applied to the total, all BP's arrive in the Capital.

B) BP's appear at the factories.
This gives a problem with rounding, assume CW has production multiplier 1.25.

2 factories in india times 1.25 leaves 2.5 BP >>3BP
2 factories in Canada times 1.25 leaves 2.5 BP >>3 BP

So four factories gives 6BP? or do they produce 5BP? is it in india or Canada that you get 3BP's?

This is important when it comes to lendlease of BP's to for example FF or Russia from Indian/Canadian/Australian factories, to reduce need of convoys.

[Jimm]

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

Where is Build points produced? and can be lendleased from. I see two options:

A) Production points are produced at the factory but then all PP are summed up and a production multiplier is applied to the total, all BP's arrive in the Capital.

B) BP's appear at the factories.
This gives a problem with rounding, assume CW has production multiplier 1.25.

2 factories in india times 1.25 leaves 2.5 BP >>3BP
2 factories in Canada times 1.25 leaves 2.5 BP >>3 BP

So four factories gives 6BP? or do they produce 5BP? is it in india or Canada that you get 3BP's?

This is important when it comes to lendlease of BP's to for example FF or Russia from Indian/Canadian/Australian factories, to reduce need of convoys.

Basically, A. Each resource you transport to a factory produces one production point. You then total up, and apply the production multiple to arrive at your BPs.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Jimm

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

Where is Build points produced? and can be lendleased from. I see two options:

A) Production points are produced at the factory but then all PP are summed up and a production multiplier is applied to the total, all BP's arrive in the Capital.

B) BP's appear at the factories.
This gives a problem with rounding, assume CW has production multiplier 1.25.

2 factories in india times 1.25 leaves 2.5 BP >>3BP
2 factories in Canada times 1.25 leaves 2.5 BP >>3 BP

So four factories gives 6BP? or do they produce 5BP? is it in india or Canada that you get 3BP's?

This is important when it comes to lendlease of BP's to for example FF or Russia from Indian/Canadian/Australian factories, to reduce need of convoys.

Basically, A. Each resource you transport to a factory produces one production point. You then total up, and apply the production multiple to arrive at your BPs.

I agree.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Jimm

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

Where is Build points produced? and can be lendleased from. I see two options:

A) Production points are produced at the factory but then all PP are summed up and a production multiplier is applied to the total, all BP's arrive in the Capital.

B) BP's appear at the factories.
This gives a problem with rounding, assume CW has production multiplier 1.25.

2 factories in india times 1.25 leaves 2.5 BP >>3BP
2 factories in Canada times 1.25 leaves 2.5 BP >>3 BP

So four factories gives 6BP? or do they produce 5BP? is it in india or Canada that you get 3BP's?

This is important when it comes to lendlease of BP's to for example FF or Russia from Indian/Canadian/Australian factories, to reduce need of convoys.

Basically, A. Each resource you transport to a factory produces one production point. You then total up, and apply the production multiple to arrive at your BPs.

I agree with Jimm here too.

About Lend Lease, I think that in your example, the CW can choose to lend 3 BP from his 2 factories of India (with his PM of 1.25, and also to lend 3 BP from his 2 factories of Canada.
Let's say he had a total of 22 PP produced by all his factories, what does matter is that the total of his produced BP is 28 (22 x 1.25 = 27.5).
That mean that he will be left with 22 BP for his own production.

But, if the CW was reduced to India & Canada, and only had those 4 factories, his total production would be 5 BP and he could only lend 5 BP, and in this case, he would only be able to lend 3 BP from one of those countries, and 2 BP from the other, and it would be his choice to decide which one lends 3 BP.

[c92nichj]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Jimm

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

Where is Build points produced? and can be lendleased from. I see two options:

A) Production points are produced at the factory but then all PP are summed up and a production multiplier is applied to the total, all BP's arrive in the Capital.

B) BP's appear at the factories.
This gives a problem with rounding, assume CW has production multiplier 1.25.

2 factories in india times 1.25 leaves 2.5 BP >>3BP
2 factories in Canada times 1.25 leaves 2.5 BP >>3 BP

So four factories gives 6BP? or do they produce 5BP? is it in india or Canada that you get 3BP's?

This is important when it comes to lendlease of BP's to for example FF or Russia from Indian/Canadian/Australian factories, to reduce need of convoys.

Basically, A. Each resource you transport to a factory produces one production point. You then total up, and apply the production multiple to arrive at your BPs.

I agree with Jimm here too.

About Lend Lease, I think that in your example, the CW can choose to lend 3 BP from his 2 factories of India (with his PM of 1.25, and also to lend 3 BP from his 2 factories of Canada.
Let's say he had a total of 22 PP produced by all his factories, what does matter is that the total of his produced BP is 28 (22 x 1.25 = 27.5).
That mean that he will be left with 22 BP for his own production.

But, if the CW was reduced to India & Canada, and only had those 4 factories, his total production would be 5 BP and he could only lend 5 BP, and in this case, he would only be able to lend 3 BP from one of those countries, and 2 BP from the other, and it would be his choice to decide which one lends 3 BP.

I don't think this is how it works in the old CWIF, where all lendlease have to originate from London in the CW case. There is nothing in the rules that state that buildpoints appear at factories or from where you have to ship lendlease.

For instance you do not need to ship build points from say Manchuria to build units in japan, the production points are just added up and multiplied to get buildpoints to spend.

[coregames]

This may sound silly, but someone in our current game is under the impression that, in a naval combat with only planes involved, an air-to-air combat can still occur. I tried to tell him that without ships to target, there can be no bombing mission to escort.

The rules are a little ambiguous here, but unless I have been playing WiF wrong for the last 16 years, air-to-air combat can only occur when the bombers have a target.

According to 11.5.7: 'Determine the type of naval combat you will fight this round. A naval air combat involves each side’s aircraft fighting each other, then attacking the opposing ships or SUBs.'. This does not say, '...attacking the opposing ships or SUBs if there are any', but my friend was very upset when I tried to explain this semantic point.

This is probably just me wasting everyone's time, but a clarification would be helpful for his sake, as well as mine.

Thanks

[Ullern]

ORIGINAL: coregames

This may sound silly, but someone in our current game is under the impression that, in a naval combat with only planes involved, an air-to-air combat can still occur. I tried to tell him that without ships to target, there can be no bombing mission to escort.

The rules are a little ambiguous here, but unless I have been playing WiF wrong for the last 16 years, air-to-air combat can only occur when the bombers have a target.

According to 11.5.7: 'Determine the type of naval combat you will fight this round. A naval air combat involves each side’s aircraft fighting each other, then attacking the opposing ships or SUBs.'. This does not say, '...attacking the opposing ships or SUBs if there are any', but my friend was very upset when I tried to explain this semantic point.

This is probably just me wasting everyone's time, but a clarification would be helpful for his sake, as well as mine.

Thanks

oohh.
You put a lot of weight in here with 16 years. I was 14 with my first game, that would be 1990, so soon 17 years then. (Yes I actually match you.) And we've always allowed it!

ullern

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: coregames
This may sound silly, but someone in our current game is under the impression that, in a naval combat with only planes involved, an air-to-air combat can still occur. I tried to tell him that without ships to target, there can be no bombing mission to escort.

The rules are a little ambiguous here, but unless I have been playing WiF wrong for the last 16 years, air-to-air combat can only occur when the bombers have a target.

According to 11.5.7: 'Determine the type of naval combat you will fight this round. A naval air combat involves each side’s aircraft fighting each other, then attacking the opposing ships or SUBs.'. This does not say, '...attacking the opposing ships or SUBs if there are any', but my friend was very upset when I tried to explain this semantic point.

This is probably just me wasting everyone's time, but a clarification would be helpful for his sake, as well as mine.

Thanks

I agree with you that if there are no ships in the naval combat, then there is no naval combat. The key word here is 'naval', with a clear implication of there being a navy present. If there are ships in the sea area but they are not included as part of the combat (i.e., in a sea section not included), then they are not fighting and there is no reason for the air planes to be flying. More or less the same thing you said.

[lomyrin]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: coregames
This may sound silly, but someone in our current game is under the impression that, in a naval combat with only planes involved, an air-to-air combat can still occur. I tried to tell him that without ships to target, there can be no bombing mission to escort.

The rules are a little ambiguous here, but unless I have been playing WiF wrong for the last 16 years, air-to-air combat can only occur when the bombers have a target.

According to 11.5.7: 'Determine the type of naval combat you will fight this round. A naval air combat involves each side’s aircraft fighting each other, then attacking the opposing ships or SUBs.'. This does not say, '...attacking the opposing ships or SUBs if there are any', but my friend was very upset when I tried to explain this semantic point.

This is probably just me wasting everyone's time, but a clarification would be helpful for his sake, as well as mine.

Thanks

I agree with you that if there are no ships in the naval combat, then there is no naval combat. The key word here is 'naval', with a clear implication of there being a navy present. If there are ships in the sea area but they are not included as part of the combat (i.e., in a sea section not included), then they are not fighting and there is no reason for the air planes to be flying. More or less the same thing you said.

It is quite possible for the Allies to leave planes at sea at an end of turn and for the Axis to fly planes of theirs to that sea area during a combined or naval action the next turn providing the weather allows flights. This can be true even when there are no ships in that sea area. These actions could be just to have control of a sea area, very important for intercept purposes as an example.

The two side having planes in the sea area during one side's combined or naval action allows the active player to search and for the inactive player to initiate a search if the active player added planes to the area in this impulse. Intercept flights can then be performed by both sides and a search will result in an air to air battle if they are found. This is true regardless of any ships in the area or not. As long as there are fighters present a battle will be fought.
If the only planes present are bombers there will not be a fight.

Checking with CWiF this also holds true in that game program.

Lars

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: coregames

This may sound silly, but someone in our current game is under the impression that, in a naval combat with only planes involved, an air-to-air combat can still occur. I tried to tell him that without ships to target, there can be no bombing mission to escort.

The rules are a little ambiguous here, but unless I have been playing WiF wrong for the last 16 years, air-to-air combat can only occur when the bombers have a target.

According to 11.5.7: 'Determine the type of naval combat you will fight this round. A naval air combat involves each side’s aircraft fighting each other, then attacking the opposing ships or SUBs.'. This does not say, '...attacking the opposing ships or SUBs if there are any', but my friend was very upset when I tried to explain this semantic point.

Whatever the counters present, any type of naval combat can still occur, provided a side pays the surprise points necessary to choose it.
i.e. there can be a sub combat chosen without convoys, an air combat chosen without planes, etc... Sure, this kind of choice leads to "no combat" i nreality, and a new search roll.

If there are only planes, why would an air to air combat not occur ? Planes just fight, and there is nothing to bomb. Both sides patrols just fight each other.