Rules Clarification List

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
In MWIF it is reachable with a marine unit.

Will it still be reachable with a marine unit if the top 15 hexes of the map are trimmed ?

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Thanks for the commentary on this. Chris (CWIF) clearly interpretted the No Para symbol as in effect only if option 35 is being used. And I can leave the code that way, simply rewriting the description of what happens when the optional rule is chosen/not chosen.

Or I could rewrite the code (trivial change - 1 minute) so the No Para symbol is in effect at all times. And make that clear in the documentation too.

So, do we have a consensus here? What do other forum readers think?

I can ask to the rule clarification group too if needed.

Edit : Well, I have asked. I also asked the WiF Discussion list.

This is Q328 in our list :
*************************************
Q : The reading of Option 35 in 11.15 can be interpreted as meaning that if you don't use Option 35, then the no-paradrop symbols are ignored. Is this true ?

A :
*************************************
I should have the answer within the next couple of weeks (it was submitted with 27 other questions to Harry on 19/07/2007).

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Thanks for the commentary on this. Chris (CWIF) clearly interpretted the No Para symbol as in effect only if option 35 is being used. And I can leave the code that way, simply rewriting the description of what happens when the optional rule is chosen/not chosen.

Or I could rewrite the code (trivial change - 1 minute) so the No Para symbol is in effect at all times. And make that clear in the documentation too.

So, do we have a consensus here? What do other forum readers think?

I can ask to the rule clarification group too if needed.

Edit : Well, I have asked. I also asked the WiF Discussion list.

This is Q328 in our list :
*************************************
Q : The reading of Option 35 in 11.15 can be interpreted as meaning that if you don't use Option 35, then the no-paradrop symbols are ignored. Is this true ?

A :
*************************************
I should have the answer within the next couple of weeks (it was submitted with 27 other questions to Harry on 19/07/2007).

Great. Thank you for taking care of this. It is very easy to code either way; I just want it to be 'right'.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

I came across some code the other day when checking whether the code for various optional rules was correct.

Here is the puzzlement: Crossing a strait is +1 for land units. Using a rail way connection is -1 for mechanized units. So what about a strait that has a rail line crossing it. The choices are: +1, -1, or 0 (they cancel each other out). CWIF had it as +1, and I changed that to -1. But now I believe I was wrong to make the change and I want to go back to +1.

Comments?[&:] Opinions?[8|] Actual knowledge as to which is correct?[X(]

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I came across some code the other day when checking whether the code for various optional rules was correct.

Here is the puzzlement: Crossing a strait is +1 for land units. Using a rail way connection is -1 for mechanized units. So what about a strait that has a rail line crossing it. The choices are: +1, -1, or 0 (they cancel each other out). CWIF had it as +1, and I changed that to -1. But now I believe I was wrong to make the change and I want to go back to +1.

Comments?[&:] Opinions?[8|] Actual knowledge as to which is correct?[X(]

Well, crossing a strait is always +1 for land units. This is not an optional rule.

The "using a railway connection" at -1 is if you use the optional rule 37 :
********************************
AiF/PatiF Option 37: (Railway movement bonus) A land unit pays 1 less movement point (minimum 1) to enter a hex when it moves, or advances after combat, along a railway (but not a road). This reduction occurs after you apply any weather (see 8.2) or overrun (see 11.11.6) effects.
********************************
It is for all units, not only mechanized. Why do you say it is for mechanized ?

So I'd say that if you play with option 37, a strait hexside with rail is at (+1) + (-1) = 0 movement points cost.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Great. Thank you for taking care of this. It is very easy to code either way; I just want it to be 'right'.

There are 329 questions which were listed.
109 have been submitted to Harry.
78 have been answered by Harry for the moment and are closed cases now.

From the 329 questions, 164 have answers from Harry (some are old answers, that Harry reviews too) and 167 have answers in the 2004 FAQ document.

For all those questions, 6 persons including myself have given their answer, to help Harry answering.

In the end, I intend to make an FAQ document with all the questions answered.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
========
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).

About this, the question was asked under three disguises in the list, and answered.
----------------
Q035 : Does a side declares its DOWs all at once? (See also Q205 & Q262)

A035 : Well the rules say you announce all declarations of major powers, and then all minor countries. Then after all declarations of war you roll for the US entry effect. Date 19/07/2007
----------------
Q205 : Are alignment and DOW done simultaneously or sequentially?
Example : does the CW know the results of the US DOW attempt(s) before making his decisions?
Reformulation : Can Japan DOW the CW in the same impulse Germany declares war on the Netherlands and then invade NEI and the CW territories, or do Japan have to wait until the impulse after Germany DOWs the Netherlands?

A205 : Well the rules say you announce all declarations of major powers, and then all minor countries. Then after all declarations of war you roll for the US entry effect and then work out alignment but within this, you can declare war in any order you like. Thus you can wait till other major powers on your side have declared war before you do. But no you don't know the result of US entry effects before you can declare war. Date 19/07/2007
----------------
Q262 : Are all DOWs announced simultaneously, or can you make a DOW, see the result (US Entry, who aligns the minor etc.) then go on to make another during the same DOW phase?

A262 : All DOWs are announced simultaneously. Date 19/07/2007
----------------

Edit : This does not clear up the question :
Within the "you announce all declarations of major powers", is the USA declaration war **roll** known for the others allied Major Powers before they annouce their DoWs. I'm talking about the declaration of war roll on the "It's war" chart, not about the US Entry effect of the DoW, which as you said is known only after all DoWs have been done.
Which I have asked separately by email, and will add to the list if I get an answer.

[amwild]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I came across some code the other day when checking whether the code for various optional rules was correct.

Here is the puzzlement: Crossing a strait is +1 for land units. Using a rail way connection is -1 for mechanized units. So what about a strait that has a rail line crossing it. The choices are: +1, -1, or 0 (they cancel each other out). CWIF had it as +1, and I changed that to -1. But now I believe I was wrong to make the change and I want to go back to +1.

Comments?[&:] Opinions?[8|] Actual knowledge as to which is correct?[X(]

While I can't say which is actually correct according to the rules, I believe that crossing a strait via a railway should be a -1.

My reasoning is that crossing a strait by means other than rail is slower due to the necessity of using barges, etc. Where railway crosses straits, the trains just run across as if they were on any other similar non-strait terrain, thus no movement cost penalty. I would say that any strait which is bridged with a road or rail line of sufficient capacity to carry a mechanised unit should be a 0 or -1 respectively, since functionally they are no hindrance to movement.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Edit : This does not clear up the question :
Within the "you announce all declarations of major powers", is the USA declaration war **roll** known for the others allied Major Powers before they annouce their DoWs. I'm talking about the declaration of war roll on the "It's war" chart, not about the US Entry effect of the DoW, which as you said is known only after all DoWs have been done.
Which I have asked separately by email, and will add to the list if I get an answer.

Well, Harry's just answered me and he wrote :
*************
Yes and yes.

Regards
Harry
*************
The second yes was for another question, as to whether he would have time this week to answer the 30 questions I had submitted to him last week [:D].

[coregames]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
You can house rule this in the cardboard game too, to be part of Siberia, as this is part of Russia in reality.

Once again, I've been playing wrong for more than 15 years [&:] ... I fee as though I might never fully get a grasp on WiF and that I may need MWiF, if only for its consistency.

If the house rule is to allow it to be part of the home country, perhaps a grey communication line could be added to connect it to mainland Asia, so that a Marine could (very slowly) reach it.

[Froonp]

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.

About this one, this was asked and answered too :
************************
Q023 : When is the control of BPs changed for Trade Agreements?
A023 : During the production step in any city or major port controlled by the recipient, that the giver can transport the BPs to. (this is raw and could be open to manipulation). Date 05/07/2007

Q024 : When is the control of RP changed for Trade Agreements?
A024 : See Q023. Date 05/07/2007
************************

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Edit : This does not clear up the question :
Within the "you announce all declarations of major powers", is the USA declaration war **roll** known for the others allied Major Powers before they annouce their DoWs. I'm talking about the declaration of war roll on the "It's war" chart, not about the US Entry effect of the DoW, which as you said is known only after all DoWs have been done.
Which I have asked separately by email, and will add to the list if I get an answer.

Well, Harry's just answered me and he wrote :
*************
Yes and yes.

Regards
Harry
*************
The second yes was for another question, as to whether he would have time this week to answer the 30 questions I had submitted to him last week [:D].

I thought I had this mostly straightened out. But I did not expect a Yes answer from Harry to your question.

First, a clarification as to what the question was asking, by 'rolled' do you mean whether the USA succeeded in its DOW on a major power? If so, then the USA DOW's on majors should be a separate subphase that is performed first. Once that has been decided as succeeding/failing, then DOWs by non-USA major powers on other major powers would be the next subphase.

I just got the 8 existing DOW subphases executing correctly yesterday (though I haven't fully tested all the possibilities). I already have another subphase to add to the existing 8, that I believe is necessary. That would be to ask the players on the non-phasing side to determine which major power is going to control each of the attacked minors before setting them up. The reason I want this to be a separate subphase is because players can decline to be the controlling major power, which means that who is going to set them up is undetermined until the question for each attacked minor has been answered. Delaying the question of who until the minor is just about to be set up means that the responsibility may change and the player "making decisions" have to be switched. Best is to have all the questions about who is setting up which minors done separately, then the subphase for setting them up can proceed smoothly.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I thought I had this mostly straightened out. But I did not expect a Yes answer from Harry to your question.

First, a clarification as to what the question was asking, by 'rolled' do you mean whether the USA succeeded in its DOW on a major power?

Yes.

If so, then the USA DOW's on majors should be a separate subphase that is performed first. Once that has been decided as succeeding/failing, then DOWs by non-USA major powers on other major powers would be the next subphase.

Well, within the answer to Q205 was :
*******************************
Well the rules say you announce all declarations of major powers, and then all minor countries. Then after all declarations of war you roll for the US entry effect and then work out alignment but within this, you can declare war in any order you like. Thus you can wait till other major powers on your side have declared war before you do. But no you don't know the result of US entry effects before you can declare war. Date 19/07/2007

Q0205 : Are alignment and DOW done simultaneously or sequentially?
Example : does the CW know the results of the US DOW attempt(s) before making his decisions?
*******************************

He says that "you can DoW in any order you like", and that you can "wait till other major powers on your side have declared war before you do".

This means that within the DoW part of the DoW phase, the DoWs are sequential.
Thus, why make the USA DoW separate ? Just have a dialog that allows DoWs to be made for each major power, and when the USA tries to DoW, the roll is immediately made, and others DoWs can be done.

I just got the 8 existing DOW subphases executing correctly yesterday (though I haven't fully tested all the possibilities). I already have another subphase to add to the existing 8, that I believe is necessary. That would be to ask the players on the non-phasing side to determine which major power is going to control each of the attacked minors before setting them up. The reason I want this to be a separate subphase is because players can decline to be the controlling major power, which means that who is going to set them up is undetermined until the question for each attacked minor has been answered. Delaying the question of who until the minor is just about to be set up means that the responsibility may change and the player "making decisions" have to be switched. Best is to have all the questions about who is setting up which minors done separately, then the subphase for setting them up can proceed smoothly.

This must be done that way anyway, as Harry said : "Then after all declarations of war you roll for the US entry effect and then work out alignment"

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I thought I had this mostly straightened out. But I did not expect a Yes answer from Harry to your question.

First, a clarification as to what the question was asking, by 'rolled' do you mean whether the USA succeeded in its DOW on a major power?

Yes.

If so, then the USA DOW's on majors should be a separate subphase that is performed first. Once that has been decided as succeeding/failing, then DOWs by non-USA major powers on other major powers would be the next subphase.

Well, within the answer to Q205 was :
*******************************
Well the rules say you announce all declarations of major powers, and then all minor countries. Then after all declarations of war you roll for the US entry effect and then work out alignment but within this, you can declare war in any order you like. Thus you can wait till other major powers on your side have declared war before you do. But no you don't know the result of US entry effects before you can declare war. Date 19/07/2007

Q0205 : Are alignment and DOW done simultaneously or sequentially?
Example : does the CW know the results of the US DOW attempt(s) before making his decisions?
*******************************

He says that "you can DoW in any order you like", and that you can "wait till other major powers on your side have declared war before you do".

This means that within the DoW part of the DoW phase, the DoWs are sequential.
Thus, why make the USA DoW separate ? Just have a dialog that allows DoWs to be made for each major power, and when the USA tries to DoW, the roll is immediately made, and others DoWs can be done.

I just got the 8 existing DOW subphases executing correctly yesterday (though I haven't fully tested all the possibilities). I already have another subphase to add to the existing 8, that I believe is necessary. That would be to ask the players on the non-phasing side to determine which major power is going to control each of the attacked minors before setting them up. The reason I want this to be a separate subphase is because players can decline to be the controlling major power, which means that who is going to set them up is undetermined until the question for each attacked minor has been answered. Delaying the question of who until the minor is just about to be set up means that the responsibility may change and the player "making decisions" have to be switched. Best is to have all the questions about who is setting up which minors done separately, then the subphase for setting them up can proceed smoothly.

This must be done that way anyway, as Harry said : "Then after all declarations of war you roll for the US entry effect and then work out alignment"

Ok.

I have made the USA the first Allied major power to DOW for whichever player is playing it, but that player can skip the USA, do DOW for his other major powers (on major powers only), and then come back to the USA - if he wants to. Once the USA player says he wants to DOW on Germany, Italy, or Japan, then it will be irrevocable, because the program wil immediately roll for success/failure. The results of that roll will be reported to all the players as an informational message (and their copies of the game brought up to date, of course).

The one caveat here is that some other Allied major power may DOW on a major before the USA decides whether to do that or not (e.g., the USSR on Japan). If so, he will not know in advance whether the USA succeeded or not. This means it is up to the players to do this in the correct (i.e., best for them) order, rather that the program acting as a guiding 'parent'.

I'll just move the code for testing success/failure for USA DOW on G/I/J up in the sequence of play. It had been part of the US Entry results subphase which follows DOWs on minor countries.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I came across some code the other day when checking whether the code for various optional rules was correct.

Here is the puzzlement: Crossing a strait is +1 for land units. Using a rail way connection is -1 for mechanized units. So what about a strait that has a rail line crossing it. The choices are: +1, -1, or 0 (they cancel each other out). CWIF had it as +1, and I changed that to -1. But now I believe I was wrong to make the change and I want to go back to +1.

Comments?[&:] Opinions?[8|] Actual knowledge as to which is correct?[X(]

Well, crossing a strait is always +1 for land units. This is not an optional rule.

The "using a railway connection" at -1 is if you use the optional rule 37 :
********************************
AiF/PatiF Option 37: (Railway movement bonus) A land unit pays 1 less movement point (minimum 1) to enter a hex when it moves, or advances after combat, along a railway (but not a road). This reduction occurs after you apply any weather (see 8.2) or overrun (see 11.11.6) effects.
********************************
It is for all units, not only mechanized. Why do you say it is for mechanized ?

So I'd say that if you play with option 37, a strait hexside with rail is at (+1) + (-1) = 0 movement points cost.

Ok. I'll make them cancel out with a result of 0.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Ok.

I have made the USA the first Allied major power to DOW for whichever player is playing it, but that player can skip the USA, do DOW for his other major powers (on major powers only), and then come back to the USA - if he wants to. Once the USA player says he wants to DOW on Germany, Italy, or Japan, then it will be irrevocable, because the program wil immediately roll for success/failure. The results of that roll will be reported to all the players as an informational message (and their copies of the game brought up to date, of course).

The one caveat here is that some other Allied major power may DOW on a major before the USA decides whether to do that or not (e.g., the USSR on Japan). If so, he will not know in advance whether the USA succeeded or not. This means it is up to the players to do this in the correct (i.e., best for them) order, rather that the program acting as a guiding 'parent'.

I'll just move the code for testing success/failure for USA DOW on G/I/J up in the sequence of play. It had been part of the US Entry results subphase which follows DOWs on minor countries.

I think this is good that way.

For the caveat you talk about, this is up to the players to communicate between them. The players also have to know the rule, and know that the USA may want to DoW at one moment of the game. For that they need to communicate between them as players communicate over the board. I'm the US player in our current game, and I communicate to my fellows (not saying my US Entry levels) by saying my allies that I should be at war soon, or that I will gear up next turn and that I don't want them to make me loss US Entry chits, things like that.

For "Once the USA player says he wants to DOW on Germany, Italy, or Japan, then it will be irrevocable, because the program wil immediately roll for success/failure. ", please have a warning dialog that says that this will be rolled on the "It's War Chart", and that after it have been rolled, it can't be cancelled.

[Froonp]

********************************
AiF/PatiF Option 37: (Railway movement bonus) A land unit pays 1 less movement point (minimum 1) to enter a hex when it moves, or advances after combat, along a railway (but not a road). This reduction occurs after you apply any weather (see 8.2) or overrun (see 11.11.6) effects.
********************************

I hate this rule Option 37.
It should never have been part of normal WiF FE, and should have stayed with AiF, where it belongs.
It was made to have movement less harsh on pacific scaled maps in the first place, for the AiF game.
For me, having this used in regular WiF FE games on the European scaled maps, and worse in MWiF, is pure heresy. But I'm not the designer, Harry is, and Harry thought that having this in WiF FE was good.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

I'll add some message about the probability of success/failure and the penalties for failure. This only concerns the USA DOW on G/I/J so it doesn't come up very often. there is a separate form for DOW on majors so it is pretty clear what is happening (as opposed to the CWIF form which provided for many several different decisions).

Railway movement is an optional rule. There's more than 1 optional rule that I would not particularly like to use.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

********************************
AiF/PatiF Option 37: (Railway movement bonus) A land unit pays 1 less movement point (minimum 1) to enter a hex when it moves, or advances after combat, along a railway (but not a road). This reduction occurs after you apply any weather (see 8.2) or overrun (see 11.11.6) effects.
********************************

I hate this rule Option 37.
It should never have been part of normal WiF FE, and should have stayed with AiF, where it belongs.
It was made to have movement less harsh on pacific scaled maps in the first place, for the AiF game.
For me, having this used in regular WiF FE games on the European scaled maps, and worse in MWiF, is pure heresy. But I'm not the designer, Harry is, and Harry thought that having this in WiF FE was good.

There has always been discussion on the WiF list about Russian blow-outs. My view is that this option is a HUGE factor in creating Russian blow-outs. In '41 and '42 it gives the Germans a very large advantage - eliminating the effect of rain in clear hexes with rail lines and for Infantry in Forest hexes with rail lines. And there are a lot of rail lines going to where the German wants to get to. Once on the Asian map it produces a similar large German advantage. At the same times in the game when Russia has slow moving units its effect is not balanced. We have stopped playing with it for this reason. You might say it should help Russia later in the game, but it produces a large possibility that there will be no Russia later in the game.

Having said that, it is an optional rule and can be chosen or not by the players as is their desire.

I do agree with Patrice that it is rather ahistorical given what we know about the Russian roads (or lack thereof) in the 40s.

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

********************************
AiF/PatiF Option 37: (Railway movement bonus) A land unit pays 1 less movement point (minimum 1) to enter a hex when it moves, or advances after combat, along a railway (but not a road). This reduction occurs after you apply any weather (see 8.2) or overrun (see 11.11.6) effects.
********************************

I hate this rule Option 37.
It should never have been part of normal WiF FE, and should have stayed with AiF, where it belongs.
It was made to have movement less harsh on pacific scaled maps in the first place, for the AiF game.
For me, having this used in regular WiF FE games on the European scaled maps, and worse in MWiF, is pure heresy. But I'm not the designer, Harry is, and Harry thought that having this in WiF FE was good.

I haven't kept up with the rules but I've always thought that rail movement didn't work quite right. It was frustrating to have a unit disrupted for up to 2 months after any rail movement when historically German Corps could pack-up in France, rail about 1500km to the Eastern Front and be in action in about a week. It often seemed quicker (in terms of being able to actually use it where required) to simply move the unit normally. We used to house-rule that railed units were unavailable until next impulse.

Option 37, however, seems like an overcorrection. Forgive me if I have missed something or got it hopelessly wrong as I haven't played a proper game of WiF for a few years.

Cheers, Neilster