Rules Clarification List

World in Flames is the computer version of Australian Design Group classic board game. World In Flames is a highly detailed game covering the both Europe and Pacific Theaters of Operations during World War II. If you want grand strategy this game is for you.

Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets

User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: Rules Clarification List

Post by Froonp »

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Good thing you made this post.[&o] I was about to code it up wrong.[X(]

Yes, it is 14.4.1
*******************************
14.4.1 Carrier plane units (CVPiF & SiF option 56)
(...)
Rebasing
During the rebase aircraft step of each turn, you can rebase a face-up carrier plane, up to double its range, from its CV to a hex or vice versa (including the cost to get into or out of the sea-box section).
You can also rebase a carrier plane from a CV to another CV in the same sea-box section or port or from a CV to the port hex it is in or vice versa. Each of these counts as a rebase for activities limits. Like all other rebases, the carrier plane remains face-up.
*******************************

I'd add that Option 44 applies to CVP too :
*******************************
11.17 Aircraft rebases
(...)
Option 44: An aircraft can rebase up to triple its printed range (or 6 times its printed range if it has extended range), if it only flies over friendly controlled hexes, and sea-dots in sea areas that don’t contain an enemy aircraft, undamaged CV with carrier plane, or SCS unit.
*******************************
User avatar
Norman42
Posts: 206
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:09 pm
Location: Canada

RE: Rules Clarification List

Post by Norman42 »

Yes, Patrice has it right on that.  Seabox doesnt matter when flying CVP missions as far as range is concerned.
-------------

C.L.Norman
User avatar
paulderynck
Posts: 8507
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Canada

RE: Rules Clarification List

Post by paulderynck »

ORIGINAL: Froonp
ORIGINAL: Norman42
Truk is not adjacent to any hexdot on the Bismarck sea area(on WiFFE map), so it seems to me that you cannot Port Attack it from the B. Sea at all unless you have 4(or 3 rounding up) range on the CVP. Likewise with the Solomons.

My understanding of this rule was to allow a carrier at sea on the old Americas map to port strike say New York (which costs 6 movement points America Map movement, but is adjacent to a hexdot) even if your CVP had under 6 range, ie most of them.

This rule would help justify some of the differences in map scale in WiFFE with regards to port attacks.

With the unified map scale in MWiF I think this special rule's purpose no longer exists, since CVP won't need 'help' to reach ports on some maps, and it can simply be left as "A carrier plane can fly a mission to any hex in range. Measure the range from any hex-dot in the CV’s sea area".

Yes, this would leave Truk un-port-strikable from Bismarck Sea(in WiFFE) unless you had the proper range, which seems to be the rule as written.
Thanks for the correction, this is it.
I think you're totaly right here (except for the 3 rounded up to 4 -- a plane with range 3 on the Pacific map of WiF FE can't travel 2 hexes, as each hex cost 2. First hex it spends 2, second hex it ought to spend 2 more, and has it has not, it can't move the second hex).

Agree on the fact you don't round the range up. However, I thought the whole reason for the exception rule r.e. port attacks was for when you play with CV units without CVPs. This is for two reasons:
1. The rule citation appears under CV units (14.4), not under CVP units (14.4.1).
2. The RAW rule quote: The range of Japanese carrier planes is double their CV’s air component. All other carrier planes’ range, and all carrier planes’ air-to-air rating and air-to-sea factors equal their CV’s air component. All carrier planes’ tactical factors are half the value of their CV’s air component. Their strategic bombardment factors are one quarter of their CV’s air component. then implies a non-Japanese CV unit with an air component of 1 would not be able to attack any hex on the Pacific map. So the exception for port attacks allows such units to perform that mission in the Pacific.

Our group struggled with that rule's wording and its placement in RAW for some time before we came up with this interpretation. Since we always play with CVPs, the rule does not affect us (although it could now, if Patrice is right) because there are no CVPs with a range of 1.

For MWiF this may not matter due to the standardization of the scale of the maps, however depending where the hex-dots and sea zone boundary lines are, there may be missions that can now be flown in MWiF that are impossible in WiFFE.

Regards,
Paul

Paul
User avatar
Taxman66
Posts: 2303
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:28 pm
Location: Columbia, MD. USA

RE: Rules Clarification List

Post by Taxman66 »

I was reading over the RAW 7 rules (last set I used was 6.02 in 2002) and noticed lots of differences, however a  few stuck out, I figured this was the best forum to put them in:
 
1)
The base surprise rule now has a new clause: "Furthermore, they are not surprised by land or aircraft units attacking from, or flying over, hexes controlled by a major power or minor country at war with them last impulse."
 
However that clause does not interact well with the way the rules in 15.1 are written:
e.g. "If a land unit controlled by a major power declaring war on you enters a hex containing one of your faceup aircraft units, it (PiF Option 28: and its pilot ~ see 14.6) is destroyed, not rebased."
e.g.  "Aircraft units controlled by a major power declaring war, cannot be intercepted if they are flying: * a strategic bombardment mission against a hex controlled by a surprised major power or minor country; or * any other mission exclusively against surprised units."
 
Is the new clause ment to allow aircraft (under the stated conditions) to be intercepted or not?  I can see the arguement both ways.  I think/guess that the intent is that said aircraft gain none of the benefits of surprise, but am not sure of that as the Rules As Written aren't truely clear on that issue (again how 15 & 15.1 interact language wise).
 
The intent seems to be to stop the old USSR is surprised by the Italian air force trick.  As an aside, this has a somewhat negative effect as the threat of this 'trick' is about the only way to ever get GE & IT to DOW the USA (and when playing with DOD III, provide the USA with needed P.E. shifts)
 
Of lesser importance...
2)
What is Option 49 (Hitler's War) supposed to represent?
 
3)
Can anyone explain to me how in the world an A-bomb is less effective at night?  And I'm not buying the 'accuracy' arguement.  I doubt rain/snow would be much of a factor (except perhaps reducing the effects of fallout) either.  --This isn't really a big deal as unless you're playing into '46+ I don't think I've ever seen an A-bomb actually effect the results of the game (in terms of victory conditions, i.e. strategic hexes/cities).
"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: Rules Clarification List

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

I was reading over the RAW 7 rules (last set I used was 6.02 in 2002) and noticed lots of differences, however a  few stuck out, I figured this was the best forum to put them in:

1)
The base surprise rule now has a new clause: "Furthermore, they are not surprised by land or aircraft units attacking from, or flying over, hexes controlled by a major power or minor country at war with them last impulse."

However that clause does not interact well with the way the rules in 15.1 are written:
e.g. "If a land unit controlled by a major power declaring war on you enters a hex containing one of your faceup aircraft units, it (PiF Option 28: and its pilot ~ see 14.6) is destroyed, not rebased."
e.g.  "Aircraft units controlled by a major power declaring war, cannot be intercepted if they are flying: * a strategic bombardment mission against a hex controlled by a surprised major power or minor country; or * any other mission exclusively against surprised units."

Is the new clause ment to allow aircraft (under the stated conditions) to be intercepted or not?  I can see the arguement both ways.  I think/guess that the intent is that said aircraft gain none of the benefits of surprise, but am not sure of that as the Rules As Written aren't truely clear on that issue (again how 15 & 15.1 interact language wise).

The intent seems to be to stop the old USSR is surprised by the Italian air force trick.  As an aside, this has a somewhat negative effect as the threat of this 'trick' is about the only way to ever get GE & IT to DOW the USA (and when playing with DOD III, provide the USA with needed P.E. shifts)

Of lesser importance...
2)
What is Option 49 (Hitler's War) supposed to represent?

3)
Can anyone explain to me how in the world an A-bomb is less effective at night?  And I'm not buying the 'accuracy' arguement.  I doubt rain/snow would be much of a factor (except perhaps reducing the effects of fallout) either.  --This isn't really a big deal as unless you're playing into '46+ I don't think I've ever seen an A-bomb actually effect the results of the game (in terms of victory conditions, i.e. strategic hexes/cities).
As I understand it, yes, the idea was to prevent the Italian air force from basing in hexes controlled by Germany (this is after Germany and the USSR are at war) and then 'surprise' the USSR by declaring war.

I don't know about the other stuff you asked about.
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
User avatar
Taxman66
Posts: 2303
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:28 pm
Location: Columbia, MD. USA

RE: Rules Clarification List

Post by Taxman66 »

That's what I guessed, it's just not written well when taken with the rest of the surprise rules.

I believe the special rule allowing port strikes that would otherwise be out of range is in there primarly for dealing with port strikes into off map boxes with ports, but it looks like you figured it out.

As for the Twin engine fighter and fighter bomber rules... yeah we figured that weirdness out a long time ago. We experimented with reversing the rule (i.e. Twin Eng fighters got the -1 and Fighter's flying as bombers got the worse result), wound up not making much of a difference as our play style typically didn't see fighters flying as bombers where they weren't escorted or couldn't be intercepted. It might've come up more if we used the bounce optional rule, but we generally hated that option.
"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: Rules Clarification List

Post by Froonp »

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

I was reading over the RAW 7 rules (last set I used was 6.02 in 2002) and noticed lots of differences, however a  few stuck out, I figured this was the best forum to put them in:

1)
The base surprise rule now has a new clause: "Furthermore, they are not surprised by land or aircraft units attacking from, or flying over, hexes controlled by a major power or minor country at war with them last impulse."

However that clause does not interact well with the way the rules in 15.1 are written:
e.g. "If a land unit controlled by a major power declaring war on you enters a hex containing one of your faceup aircraft units, it (PiF Option 28: and its pilot ~ see 14.6) is destroyed, not rebased."
e.g.  "Aircraft units controlled by a major power declaring war, cannot be intercepted if they are flying: * a strategic bombardment mission against a hex controlled by a surprised major power or minor country; or * any other mission exclusively against surprised units."

Is the new clause ment to allow aircraft (under the stated conditions) to be intercepted or not?  I can see the arguement both ways.  I think/guess that the intent is that said aircraft gain none of the benefits of surprise, but am not sure of that as the Rules As Written aren't truely clear on that issue (again how 15 & 15.1 interact language wise).

The intent seems to be to stop the old USSR is surprised by the Italian air force trick.  As an aside, this has a somewhat negative effect as the threat of this 'trick' is about the only way to ever get GE & IT to DOW the USA (and when playing with DOD III, provide the USA with needed P.E. shifts)

Of lesser importance...
2)
What is Option 49 (Hitler's War) supposed to represent?

3)
Can anyone explain to me how in the world an A-bomb is less effective at night?  And I'm not buying the 'accuracy' arguement.  I doubt rain/snow would be much of a factor (except perhaps reducing the effects of fallout) either.  --This isn't really a big deal as unless you're playing into '46+ I don't think I've ever seen an A-bomb actually effect the results of the game (in terms of victory conditions, i.e. strategic hexes/cities).
The best place to discuss this may be the WiF Discussion List rather than here.
hakon
Posts: 298
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 12:55 pm

RE: Rules Clarification List

Post by hakon »

ORIGINAL: Froonp
If you have no fighter group, your air-to-air strength equals the air-to-air rating of your front bomber only.

When the rolling players front aircraft has a Orange air-to-air rating and the Non-rolling players front aircraft has a Non-orange air-to-air rating you achieve one result less than normal.

If the fighter flies as a bomber you get -1 to its air-to-air rating.

Flying as a bomber doesn't make the fighter better. You receive the result shift AND the -1 to the air-to-air rating.
I'm gonna correct that.

This is from the questions we submitted to Harry :
***********************************
Q294> Are Twin-Engined FTR acting as a bomber one result less than normal in an Air to Air combat in which enemy fighters are involved?

Answer> No. You are not one result less than normal as you are not a fighter when you are a bomber. However if also playing Option 54 then your air to air rating is reduced by 1. Date 29/12/2007

Relevant Rule Quote>
14.3.2 Option 53: (Twin-engined fighters) In air-to-air combat during the day, all front fighters with an orange air-to-air rating achieve one result less than normal when the front enemy fighter in the combat does not have an orange air-to-air rating. In these cases an AX result becomes a DX, a DX becomes an AA, an AA becomes a DA and so on. A DC result is unaffected.
14.3.2 Option 54: (Fighter bombers) Reduce the air-to-air rating of the front bomber by 1 if it is a FTR.
***********************************


I just saw this one. I think that the prosed change is a bad one, here is why:
- Fighters flying as bombers defend at -1, as well as get worse attack results. This means they are already penalized by being easier to shoot down. This alone balances the slightly better damage that they will inflict
- Fighters flying as bombers don't actively seek targets out. If it's combat value comes into play at all, all enemy bombers will get through. (Except when it escorted by another fighter, and is bounced)
- Fighters flying as bombers never get to bounce enemy bombers
- When attacked/found by enemy fighters, fighters flying as bombers would just drop their bomb load, and fight as normal, without any penalty, so a double penalty is too harch

If you ignore the orange result when the fighters fly as bombers, you get:
- More friendly casualties
- More enemy fighter casualties
- No enemy bomber casualties

I find this quite realistic. If these fighters would fly as fighters, the enemy fighters would avoid them, making both sides score fewer kills. If they fly as bombers, they will be sought out, then drop their bombs, and engage in dogfight, leading to higher casualties for both sides.

And since all enemy bombers will get through this way, it's not only realistic, but also balanced.

Cheers
Hakon
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: Rules Clarification List

Post by Froonp »

ORIGINAL: hakon
I just saw this one. I think that the prosed change is a bad one, here is why:
This is not a change, this is RAW clarified.

Edit : Moreover, I don't understand your point at all.
User avatar
paulderynck
Posts: 8507
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Canada

RE: Rules Clarification List

Post by paulderynck »

Agree on the fact you don't round the range up. However, I thought the whole reason for the exception rule r.e. port attacks was for when you play with CV units without CVPs. This is for two reasons:
1. The rule citation appears under CV units (14.4), not under CVP units (14.4.1).
2. The RAW rule quote: The range of Japanese carrier planes is double their CV’s air component. All other carrier planes’ range, and all carrier planes’ air-to-air rating and air-to-sea factors equal their CV’s air component. All carrier planes’ tactical factors are half the value of their CV’s air component. Their strategic bombardment factors are one quarter of their CV’s air component. then implies a non-Japanese CV unit with an air component of 1 would not be able to attack any hex on the Pacific map. So the exception for port attacks allows such units to perform that mission in the Pacific.

Our group struggled with that rule's wording and its placement in RAW for some time before we came up with this interpretation. Since we always play with CVPs, the rule does not affect us (although it could now, if Patrice is right) because there are no CVPs with a range of 1.

For MWiF this may not matter due to the standardization of the scale of the maps, however depending where the hex-dots and sea zone boundary lines are, there may be missions that can now be flown in MWiF that are impossible in WiFFE.

Regards,
Paul

Hi Steve,

Just curious on how this one ended up getting coded? Did you decide the exception was for CVs without CVPs or for both with and without CVPs?
Paul
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: Rules Clarification List

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
Agree on the fact you don't round the range up. However, I thought the whole reason for the exception rule r.e. port attacks was for when you play with CV units without CVPs. This is for two reasons:
1. The rule citation appears under CV units (14.4), not under CVP units (14.4.1).
2. The RAW rule quote: The range of Japanese carrier planes is double their CV’s air component. All other carrier planes’ range, and all carrier planes’ air-to-air rating and air-to-sea factors equal their CV’s air component. All carrier planes’ tactical factors are half the value of their CV’s air component. Their strategic bombardment factors are one quarter of their CV’s air component. then implies a non-Japanese CV unit with an air component of 1 would not be able to attack any hex on the Pacific map. So the exception for port attacks allows such units to perform that mission in the Pacific.

Our group struggled with that rule's wording and its placement in RAW for some time before we came up with this interpretation. Since we always play with CVPs, the rule does not affect us (although it could now, if Patrice is right) because there are no CVPs with a range of 1.

For MWiF this may not matter due to the standardization of the scale of the maps, however depending where the hex-dots and sea zone boundary lines are, there may be missions that can now be flown in MWiF that are impossible in WiFFE.

Regards,
Paul

Hi Steve,

Just curious on how this one ended up getting coded? Did you decide the exception was for CVs without CVPs or for both with and without CVPs?
I am not sure what your question is. Rather than have me guess at what you are referring to (and maybe be wrong), could you clarify?
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
User avatar
paulderynck
Posts: 8507
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Canada

RE: Rules Clarification List

Post by paulderynck »

I am not sure what your question is. Rather than have me guess at what you are referring to (and maybe be wrong), could you clarify?

_____________________________

Steve

Hi Steve,

I appreciate you replied so quickly and apologize that I got tied up with life for a few days here.

Here is the non-skinny:

Originally you had posted concerning a citation from RAW 14.4 (3 paras up from 14.4.1) which states: “A carrier plane can fly, and return from, a port attack mission that is out of range, if the port is adjacent to any hexdot in the sea area.”

In my reply (post #383) I explained our groups’ rationale for interpreting this rule to apply only to playing with CV units without CVPs. (So that playing with CV units only and without this rule, then only Japanese ‘1’ class carriers would be able to port strike on the Pacific WiF map – any other power’s ‘1’ class carriers would be out of range without this exception.) Other posters thought that the exception was there to allow any CV (playing without CVPs) and CVP (if used) to port attack any port adjacent to a hexdot anywhere, but mainly this would be of importance when using the American mini-map or in off-map boxes. Either or even both these explanations could be correct, but unfortunately there was no further discussion on the topic, which prompted my post that you just replied to.

Of course with MWiF the scale is standardized to one hex everywhere which makes the need for exceptions moot. So I guess the question becomes: Did you end up coding any exceptions to the range allowance for making port attacks in the case of playing with CVs only and/or in the case of playing with CVPs? I’m thinking no exceptions are warranted and in either case you just use the appropriate range allowance. (Making all CVPs better than ‘1’ class CVs only, and other CVPs better than a lot of the best CVs only, because no CVP has a range lower than 2 and some have ranges higher than 6.)

I also had made the observation that depending where the sea boundaries are drawn and which hexes are hexdots in MWiF, then there may well be port attacks (or any other air missions for that matter) which will be possible in MWiF, but are not possible in WIF. But I think that is a natural outcome of going to universal one hex scale and not likely a big deal.

I hope this explanation covers it but let me know if I need to provide anything more.

Thank you.
Paul
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: Rules Clarification List

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

Here are two examples of why carrier air units (abstract or actual, when that optional rule is being used), need to be able to port attack ports adjacent to their sea areas, regardless of how far the port is from the closest all-sea hex-dot in the sea area.

Oslo can be port attacked by any carrier air units aboard a carrier unit in the Baltic Sea. That is not true for ones in the North Sea. They latter need to have a range of 3 to reach Oslo.

Likewise, Baltimore can be port attacked by any carrier air unit in the East Coast sea area, regardless of the carrier air unit's range.

Image
Attachments
PortAttack..620081.jpg
PortAttack..620081.jpg (333.95 KiB) Viewed 234 times
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: Rules Clarification List

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

Both night combat (RAW 14.2.3) and twin engine fighters (RAW 14.3.2) may cause the results of air-to-air combat to be "one less than normal".

We have had discussions in the past in this thread as to whether that also applies to the result for the pilot. Today I am looking at the code that handles this and I am not sure what we decided, or whether a consensus was reached. I would like to code this once and for all and never think about it again.

There seem to me to be two choices when the result of the air-to-air combat is "one less than normal":
1 - take the result for the pilot from the 'normal' result.
2 - take the result for the pilot from the cell within the air-to-air combat results table for the "one less than normal" result. This means moving through the A-2-A column and finding the closest cell with the lower result.

I am voting for the 1st choice. Other opinions?
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: Rules Clarification List

Post by Froonp »

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Both night combat (RAW 14.2.3) and twin engine fighters (RAW 14.3.2) may cause the results of air-to-air combat to be "one less than normal".

We have had discussions in the past in this thread as to whether that also applies to the result for the pilot. Today I am looking at the code that handles this and I am not sure what we decided, or whether a consensus was reached. I would like to code this once and for all and never think about it again.

There seem to me to be two choices when the result of the air-to-air combat is "one less than normal":
1 - take the result for the pilot from the 'normal' result.
2 - take the result for the pilot from the cell within the air-to-air combat results table for the "one less than normal" result. This means moving through the A-2-A column and finding the closest cell with the lower result.

I am voting for the 1st choice. Other opinions?
This was submitted to Harry by the rule clarifying task force, as Q373 :
**********************************************
Q373> When using the Twin-Engined Fighter (or Night Fighter) optional rule, which answer is true?
(a) The lettered result is downgraded, and colors for pilot losses stay the same (they just may become non-applicable when a kill turns into an abort).
(b) The lettered result and colors for pilot losses are downgraded.

Answer> (a). Date 18/01/2008
**********************************************

Which seems to be the same as what you chose.
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: Rules Clarification List

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: Froonp
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Both night combat (RAW 14.2.3) and twin engine fighters (RAW 14.3.2) may cause the results of air-to-air combat to be "one less than normal".

We have had discussions in the past in this thread as to whether that also applies to the result for the pilot. Today I am looking at the code that handles this and I am not sure what we decided, or whether a consensus was reached. I would like to code this once and for all and never think about it again.

There seem to me to be two choices when the result of the air-to-air combat is "one less than normal":
1 - take the result for the pilot from the 'normal' result.
2 - take the result for the pilot from the cell within the air-to-air combat results table for the "one less than normal" result. This means moving through the A-2-A column and finding the closest cell with the lower result.

I am voting for the 1st choice. Other opinions?
This was submitted to Harry by the rule clarifying task force, as Q373 :
**********************************************
Q373> When using the Twin-Engined Fighter (or Night Fighter) optional rule, which answer is true?
(a) The lettered result is downgraded, and colors for pilot losses stay the same (they just may become non-applicable when a kill turns into an abort).
(b) The lettered result and colors for pilot losses are downgraded.

Answer> (a). Date 18/01/2008
**********************************************

Which seems to be the same as what you chose.
No, choice (a) is different.

Thanks, I'll code it that way. What I need to add is a check for if an AX/DX becomes an AA. In that case the pilot always lives - unless it was a flying bomb with a black death's head[:D]. There's a reason my code for the air-to-air combat has grown from 22 pages to 52 pages over the last 10 days.
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: Rules Clarification List

Post by Froonp »

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Froonp
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Both night combat (RAW 14.2.3) and twin engine fighters (RAW 14.3.2) may cause the results of air-to-air combat to be "one less than normal".

We have had discussions in the past in this thread as to whether that also applies to the result for the pilot. Today I am looking at the code that handles this and I am not sure what we decided, or whether a consensus was reached. I would like to code this once and for all and never think about it again.

There seem to me to be two choices when the result of the air-to-air combat is "one less than normal":
1 - take the result for the pilot from the 'normal' result.
2 - take the result for the pilot from the cell within the air-to-air combat results table for the "one less than normal" result. This means moving through the A-2-A column and finding the closest cell with the lower result.

I am voting for the 1st choice. Other opinions?
This was submitted to Harry by the rule clarifying task force, as Q373 :
**********************************************
Q373> When using the Twin-Engined Fighter (or Night Fighter) optional rule, which answer is true?
(a) The lettered result is downgraded, and colors for pilot losses stay the same (they just may become non-applicable when a kill turns into an abort).
(b) The lettered result and colors for pilot losses are downgraded.

Answer> (a). Date 18/01/2008
**********************************************

Which seems to be the same as what you chose.
No, choice (a) is different.

Thanks, I'll code it that way. What I need to add is a check for if an AX/DX becomes an AA. In that case the pilot always lives - unless it was a flying bomb with a black death's head[:D]. There's a reason my code for the air-to-air combat has grown from 22 pages to 52 pages over the last 10 days.
Heu... ?!? [&:]

You were saying :
1 - take the result for the pilot from the 'normal' result.

and Harry was saying :
(a) The lettered result is downgraded, and colors for pilot losses stay the same (they just may become non-applicable when a kill turns into an abort).

So the result on the airplane is downgraded (as RAW says), and the result on the pilot is not downgraded (as RAW don't clearly say, that's why we asked the question).

So it seems to me that both you & Harry are saying that the result on pilots is not downgraded. Unless I am mistaken, which can totaly be true [:D]
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: Rules Clarification List

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

The code as it exists now, (from CWIF - soon to be changed) leaves the original pilot result untouched. So if modifying the combat result changes an AX to an AA, the pilot could still die based on the original AX.
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
User avatar
lomyrin
Posts: 3741
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 7:17 pm
Location: San Diego

RE: Rules Clarification List

Post by lomyrin »

PLane on autopilot ?
 
Lars
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: Rules Clarification List

Post by Froonp »

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

The code as it exists now, (from CWIF - soon to be changed) leaves the original pilot result untouched. So if modifying the combat result changes an AX to an AA, the pilot could still die based on the original AX.
So this is OK then, except for pilots killed based on the original AX.
Post Reply

Return to “World in Flames”