Rules Clarification List

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Yes. I believe I have this coded correctly now, but I want to read through that section of code one more time.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

I just finished coding up my first 'digression' from the sequence of play. This one is for deciding whether to scrap a unit after it has been destroyed.

So far I have implemented this for air-to-air combat, naval combat, carpet bombing, and anti-air combat. I'll do the other 10 places as I come to them in my transformation of the SOP to accommodate NetPlay. Overruns and land combat are the obvious missing ones, but there are a lot more having to do with units being unable to return to base (air and naval units). That comes up not only in normal "return to base" phases but also when control of a hex changes: overruns, partisans, peace, conquest, surrender, Vichy, liberation, etc.. There are also overstacking conditions, the most unusal being the loss of a boat plane during the weather phase (when a lake freezes).

The main reason for this post is that I have made a small change to the rules in implementing this code.

For example, the decisions about scrapping units destroyed in air-to-air combat is made after all the air-to-air combats have been fought. There might be a half dozen or more air-to-air combats, and the program keeps track of all the air units (and their cargo) that have been shot down. Once all the combats have been completely resolved, the program make a digression from the sequence of play asking each player who has a newly destroyed unit whether he wants to scrap it or not.

Now technically, WIF FE wants that decision make immediately following the DX or AX result. That requires a lot of stoppages in the SOP while everyone waits for the decision to be made by the individual who owns the unit. My change gathers those decisions all together and processes them as a group. From a programming point of view, this is more efficient, and I think it expedites play as well. I do not think this change has any material effect of the game. In fact, since the decision to scrap is really a production issue in simulation terms, delaying these decisions so they can all be done at the same time seems more realistic. I would even consider delaying them until the production phase at the end of the turn, when other decisions about scrapping units are made - but I will not do that since it would be a major change from WIF FE.

For anti-air combat the scrap decisions are delayed until the end of the subphase. So, they occur after anti-air fire by the defender and again after AA fire by the attacker.

Naval combat scrap decisions (by both sides) are made after each naval combat is completed (not after each round).

Carpet bombing scrap decisions are made after all carpet bombing has been completed.

Comments?

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
For example, the decisions about scrapping units destroyed in air-to-air combat is made after all the air-to-air combats have been fought. There might be a half dozen or more air-to-air combats, and the program keeps track of all the air units (and their cargo) that have been shot down. Once all the combats have been completely resolved, the program make a digression from the sequence of play asking each player who has a newly destroyed unit whether he wants to scrap it or not.

I think that this is a good idea.
Moreover, I think that WiF would also have done it this way if it didn't necessitate bookeeping. Harry does not want the game to have to remember things, for example here I'm sure the reason for the decision to be immediate is so that the players don't have to set aside in a specific place the destroyed units for future scrapping choice.

Now technically, WIF FE wants that decision make immediately following the DX or AX result. That requires a lot of stoppages in the SOP while everyone waits for the decision to be made by the individual who owns the unit. My change gathers those decisions all together and processes them as a group. From a programming point of view, this is more efficient, and I think it expedites play as well. I do not think this change has any material effect of the game. In fact, since the decision to scrap is really a production issue in simulation terms, delaying these decisions so they can all be done at the same time seems more realistic. I would even consider delaying them until the production phase at the end of the turn, when other decisions about scrapping units are made - but I will not do that since it would be a major change from WIF FE.

Well, in our group we play it this way, because we do not want during the turn to think about how much of this kind of unit is left to decide if we scrap it or not, so as lazy as we are, we stockpile lost units in Spain or Turkey, and we decide at the end of the turn.

I think you did well.
This changes nothing to the game, and speeds it up.

[Norman42]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I think you did well.
This changes nothing to the game, and speeds it up.

Agreed.

I think most WiF groups do the same as Patrice mentioned; pile all the losses in one spot, then decide what to scrap just before production. Doesn't really change anything, just speeds up the flow of the game.

[Taxman66]

Wouldn't it be easier to make the scrap decisions in the end of turn bookkeeping, just prior to production?  That way you could take care of it all at once and without additional game play interruptions.
 
I think the benefit vastely outweighs the loss (in terms of changing the sequence of play) as it would very, very rarely make a difference in terms of the owner deciding to keep the unit instead of scrapping it.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

Wouldn't it be easier to make the scrap decisions in the end of turn bookkeeping, just prior to production?  That way you could take care of it all at once and without additional game play interruptions.

I think the benefit vastely outweighs the loss (in terms of changing the sequence of play) as it would very, very rarely make a difference in terms of the owner deciding to keep the unit instead of scrapping it.

Very tempting. I will certainly do this for PBEM, where I expect to change the SOP quite a bit. Saving a dozen emails is a good and noble thing to do.

For now, I will leave it as is for the other modes of play. I have this knee-jerk adversion to making changes from WIF FE. There is always the lingering suspicion that the change will have some unforeseen consequence.

But thank you all for not only accepting this change, but suggesting that I should push it even further away from RAW.

[Taxman66]

I think the main purpose for it in RAW is the 'no memory' ideal.  That is by making the decision at the moment the unit is lost you don't have to keep all your current turn's losses in a separate pile for a later decision prior to builds.  With a computer, that's not an issue.  Maybe you could ask Harry? 
 
I mean really, how often are additional losses later in the turn going to make someone decide to change his mind about scrapping a unit?  To be honest I can't think of it ever happening.

[YohanTM2]

Excellent idea, especially for PBEM as Steve notes which is mainly what I will be playing.

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

Wouldn't it be easier to make the scrap decisions in the end of turn bookkeeping, just prior to production?  That way you could take care of it all at once and without additional game play interruptions.

I think the benefit vastely outweighs the loss (in terms of changing the sequence of play) as it would very, very rarely make a difference in terms of the owner deciding to keep the unit instead of scrapping it.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

I think the main purpose for it in RAW is the 'no memory' ideal.  That is by making the decision at the moment the unit is lost you don't have to keep all your current turn's losses in a separate pile for a later decision prior to builds.  With a computer, that's not an issue.  Maybe you could ask Harry? 

I mean really, how often are additional losses later in the turn going to make someone decide to change his mind about scrapping a unit?  To be honest I can't think of it ever happening.

My reluctance to make rules changes is because:

"getting the WIF rules defined is like nailing jello to a wall."

To paraphrase one of the guys from my chorus.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
"getting the WIF rules defined is like nailing jello to a wall."

To paraphrase one of the guys from my chorus.

[:D]
He plays WiF ?
This said, I would also have said that in the 1992-2000 period, but since then the rules have quite stabilized, and the latest set of rules was left untouched since August 2004, and I would not say that anymore. One and a Half a page of errata in the latest Annual, after 4 years is very small to me.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
"getting the WIF rules defined is like nailing jello to a wall."

To paraphrase one of the guys from my chorus.

[:D]
He plays WiF ?
This said, I would also have said that in the 1992-2000 period, but since then the rules have quite stabilized, and the latest set of rules was left untouched since August 2004, and I would not say that anymore. One and a Half a page of errata in the latest Annual, after 4 years is very small to me.

He (Bill) is usually talking about trying to get a group of people organized.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

I am looking very closely at the air transport and paradrop missions, in light of the clarifications to the rules. In doing so, I have come across a possible problem. But first let me establish a little context, before jumping into the most complex case.

An ATR can start empty or carrying another unit/cargo for an air transport mission. For a paradrop mission, it has to be carrying a qualified unit/cargo. Let’s call its starting hex O for point of origination. The weather in the hex O does not matter for either air transport or paradrop missions. The weather in the destination hex, D, does matter, and may prevent either mission type from being flown.

For air transport missions, the ATR may start empty in hex O and pick up a unit/cargo in hex D. Whether dropping off or picking up cargo in hex D, the air transport mission requires that the ATR be capable of landing in hex D, though it does not have to actually land there. For instance, normally the terrain in hex D could not be mountain.

For paradrop missions, the ATR has to be capable of landing in D, if D is a friendly controlled hex (explicitly stated in the rules). Implicit from that statement is that a paradrop can be made into hex D, even if the ATR can not land there, but if and only if the hex is enemy controlled.

After completing their mission in hex D, both air transport and paradrop missions fly to a return hex, R. Since both air transport and paradrop missions are subject to air-to-air and anti-air combat in hex D, they might be aborting their mission when they fly to R.

Now the tricky bit is that an ATR is forbidden from returning to R with cargo if the weather in R is bad (storm/blizzard). Note that if it is empty, the ATR can return to a bad weather hex. And if the weather isn’t bad, the ATR can return with cargo. The abort result can produce a situation where the ATR still has its cargo and has to find a return hex with acceptable weather.

So my question is what happens to the ATR and its cargo that has been forced to abort, with cargo, from an air transport or paradrop mission when there is no viable return hex due to bad weather?

One partial solution is that for an air transport mission the ATR be forced to land in D, which has good weather and where we know it is capable of landing. This does raise the question of what ‘abort’ means for an air transport mission. For example, the ATR might have been simply trying to fly its cargo from O to D. Even though it is aborted over hex D, is it still permitted to land/deliver its cargo there? I would say yes. But I do not know whether that means it is subject to a second round of air-to-air and anti-air combat? - which would be true if its return hex R is not D.

The more difficult case is for a paradrop mission where the expected mission was to fly from O (which has bad weather) to D, drop the paratroop unit and then return to R (which has bad weather). In fact, R could very well be O. Two solutions are: (1) force the ATR to return to O, so there is no advantage to the phasing player, or (2) destroy the cargo unit and let the ATR return anywhere it likes. I sort of doubt that the crew of the ATR would be capable of pushing all the paratroopers out of the plane, just so the ATR could return to base safely. My preference is for #1.

==========
And while I am posing puzzling questions, is a carrier air unit, aboard a carrier, permitted to fly escort duty for a strategic bombing mission (being flown by a land based bomber), assuming the target hex is within range? Can it fly as an interceptor? In general, can a carrier air unit, while aboard a carrier, fly all fighter missions except naval air?

[Zorachus99]

Based on what I've read, the abort allows the cargo to return to base with the cargo disrupted in the case of an abort result, which I would expect supercedes the restriction on allowable mission capability.  Though the rules can be read from a lawyerly (sic?) perspective, I'd say that if the plane left from a restricted weather zone, it should be able to return whence it came with its undestroyed cargo (disrupted).
 
You can argue the opposite, that the cargo must be destroyed; but the most reasonable extreme I would adjucate is that the cargo would be spiraled.
 
All of which is not outlined clearly.

[Norman42]

In general, can a carrier air unit, while aboard a carrier, fly all fighter missions except naval air?

Yes, if:

- the weather in both the seazone, and the target hex allows such a mission,
- air mission limits allow,
- the cvp has the range to reach the target hex in question,
- and has not been previously used/aborted

[lomyrin]

One partial solution is that for an air transport mission the ATR be forced to land in D, which has good weather and where we know it is capable of landing. This does raise the question of what ‘abort’ means for an air transport mission. For example, the ATR might have been simply trying to fly its cargo from O to D. Even though it is aborted over hex D, is it still permitted to land/deliver its cargo there? I would say yes. But I do not know whether that means it is subject to a second round of air-to-air and anti-air combat? - which would be true if its return hex R is not D.


I, and the group that I played with, have always let the ATR and cargo that was aborted over its destination hex land there but both the ATR and the Cargo would be disrupted. We have never had it suffer a second air/air combat over the same hex.
 
The ATR with a Para onboard could be returned to its source hex even if the weather there was bad.
 
In the CV air case, yes, those planes, if not disrupted, can fly fighter and support missions provided their range is sufficient to reach the desired hex observing halving of range where appropriate.
 
Lars
 

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Norman42

In general, can a carrier air unit, while aboard a carrier, fly all fighter missions except naval air?

Yes, if:

- the weather in both the seazone, and the target hex allows such a mission,
- air mission limits allow,
- the cvp has the range to reach the target hex in question,
- and has not been previously used/aborted

Thanks.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

One partial solution is that for an air transport mission the ATR be forced to land in D, which has good weather and where we know it is capable of landing. This does raise the question of what ‘abort’ means for an air transport mission. For example, the ATR might have been simply trying to fly its cargo from O to D. Even though it is aborted over hex D, is it still permitted to land/deliver its cargo there? I would say yes. But I do not know whether that means it is subject to a second round of air-to-air and anti-air combat? - which would be true if its return hex R is not D.


I, and the group that I played with, have always let the ATR and cargo that was aborted over its destination hex land there but both the ATR and the Cargo would be disrupted. We have never had it suffer a second air/air combat over the same hex.

The ATR with a Para onboard could be returned to its source hex even if the weather there was bad.

In the CV air case, yes, those planes, if not disrupted, can fly fighter and support missions provided their range is sufficient to reach the desired hex observing halving of range where appropriate.

Lars

Good. That seems best to me too. I do need to write special code for these events though [not the Carrier air unit stuff though].

[composer99]

As far as I know, any time a plane is returning to base after a mission, it may land in any hex in which it can stack, whether it is carrying cargo or not. The weather requirement for cargo matters only for the target hex of the mission.
 
Also, if I recall correctly, if an ATR is aborted during combat or picks up a unit at the target hex (rather than dropping one off), the unit gets disorganized as well when it returns to base with the ATR.
 
Also, an aircraft aborted in combat is never put through a second round of fighting in the same a2a combat, no matter where it lands.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: composer99

As far as I know, any time a plane is returning to base after a mission, it may land in any hex in which it can stack, whether it is carrying cargo or not. The weather requirement for cargo matters only for the target hex of the mission.

Also, if I recall correctly, if an ATR is aborted during combat or picks up a unit at the target hex (rather than dropping one off), the unit gets disorganized as well when it returns to base with the ATR.

Also, an aircraft aborted in combat is never put through a second round of fighting in the same a2a combat, no matter where it lands.

I am incorporating into Rules as Coded (RAC) a long list of rules questions that Patrice has headed up and that Harry Rowland has answered. One of the changes is to forbid an ATR from returning to base with cargo in a hex experiencing bad weather. I believe this is intended to plug a hole in the rules where:
1 - you can not start with cargo on an ATR and fly to a hex experiencing bad weather, but
2 - you could start with the ATR empty, fly to a hex where you pick up cargo, and then return to base in a hex experiencing bad weather.

1 & 2 seem contradictory, permitting the more difficult mission (2) while forbidding the easier mission (1).
===========
A second round of air-to-air + anti-air combats is normally fought in the ATR's return to base hex from an air transport mission, whether it has cargo or not (see 11.12 of RAW).

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

One partial solution is that for an air transport mission the ATR be forced to land in D, which has good weather and where we know it is capable of landing. This does raise the question of what ‘abort’ means for an air transport mission. For example, the ATR might have been simply trying to fly its cargo from O to D. Even though it is aborted over hex D, is it still permitted to land/deliver its cargo there? I would say yes. But I do not know whether that means it is subject to a second round of air-to-air and anti-air combat? - which would be true if its return hex R is not D.


I, and the group that I played with, have always let the ATR and cargo that was aborted over its destination hex land there but both the ATR and the Cargo would be disrupted. We have never had it suffer a second air/air combat over the same hex.

The ATR with a Para onboard could be returned to its source hex even if the weather there was bad.

In the CV air case, yes, those planes, if not disrupted, can fly fighter and support missions provided their range is sufficient to reach the desired hex observing halving of range where appropriate.

Lars

Good. That seems best to me too. I do need to write special code for these events though [not the Carrier air unit stuff though].

Maybe we can add this to the list of questions for Harry ? As a sequel to the Qustion about the ATRs that sprang up this discussion ?