Naval Combat Aborts

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: terje439

Another one from JGN;

Original: Froonp post #36
Well, this may be right that screening actions show at the WiF FE scale, but this does not make right the affirmation of that mysterious JGN (JagdGeschwader of Nowhere ?) that "combat can only occur once per impulse per sea area". Nor does the examples provided show that "combat can only occur once per impulse per sea area". There is nothing in RAW that supports that, and on the contrary there are multiples places that support the contrary, as Orm shown in post #22.

Nothing to support my view in the RAW?

Original: WORLD IN FLAMES: Final Rules page #19 (verbatim from WiFFE-Raw-7.0.pdf)
11.5 Naval combat
11.5.1 Combat sequence
After you have made all your naval moves, you can, if you wish, initiate naval combat. A SIDE CAN ONLY TRY TO INITIATE COMBAT ONCE IN EACH SEA AREA each naval combat step (there can be any number of INTERCEPTION COMBAT ATTEMPTS during naval movement).

You can’t try to initiate naval combat at all if you chose a land or pass action. However, your units can take part in any combat that another major power initiates.

Choose a sea area and initiate a combat there. You can only choose an area if it contains at least one unit from each side that are at war with each other.

NOTE:
It specifically says "combat".
It does not say “Naval combat”.
It does not say “Intercept combat”.
It specifically says “Interception combat attempts”.
It does not say “Interception combats”.
This means that ONE (1) “Naval combat” - OR - “Intercept combat” can occur in a sea area per impulse.


Otherwise the RAW would read:

“After you have made all your naval moves, you can, if you wish, initiate naval side can only try to initiate combat once in each sea area each naval combat step (there can be any number of INTERCEPTION COMBATS during naval movement).”

This makes me annoyed and I wonder if you have thought of the implications if the game would be played like you suggest. [:(]

For example: CW has a large force in The North Sea. Germany sends out 1 raider. It gets intercepted and a combat is in North Sea is fought. The entire German Fleet then sails out and the CW force in The North Sea is then forbidden to try and intercept it. After that lesson with the entire German fleet out playing havoc on allied conv and conv escorts CW next time a lone German raider moves out he dare not try to intercept. If Germany and Italy goes for an invasion against Great Britain the CW forces would never dare to try to intercept raiders as long as Axis has invasion forces ready. [X(]

Now to rules.

During the Naval Movement the side that is not moving can try to intercept the moving task force when it enters a sea area. If the interception succeeds and the moving task force try to fight through a Naval Combat starts. After that Naval Combat is ended any remaining units in the moving task force can continue to move if the player so choose. In this I feel we are all in agreement.

The rules then state that:

11.5 Naval combat
11.5.1 Combat sequence
After you have made all your naval moves, you can, if you wish, initiate
naval combat. A side can only try to initiate combat once in each sea
area each naval combat step (there can be any number of interception
combat attempts during naval movement).

Note that it says that you can initiate combat AFTER you made all your naval moves. It does NOT say "After you have made all your naval moves, you can, if you wish, initiate naval combat except where a combat has already occured during the naval movement phase".

Lets look at the rule again.

11.5 Naval combat
11.5.1 Combat sequence
After you have made all your naval moves, you can, if you wish, initiate
naval combat. A side can only try to initiate combat once in each sea
area each naval combat step (there can be any number of interception
combat attempts during naval movement).

Note that the rule say that you can only try to initiate combat ONCE in each sea area EACH NAVAL COMBAT STEP. It does not say "once in each sea area that has had no combat during the naval movement step each naval combat step"

And that brings me to:
3.1 Sequence of play
D2.3 Perform actions
The major powers that didn’t pass perform these
steps in this order (their action choice will limit
what they can do ~ see action limits table):
(a) Port attacks
(b) Naval air missions
(c) Naval movement
(d) Your naval combat
(e) Opponent’s naval combat
(f) Strategic bombardment
(g) Carpet bombing (option 32)
(h) Ground strike missions
(i) Rail movement
(j) Land movement
(k) Air transport
(l) Debark land units at sea
(m) Invasions
(n) Paradrops
(o) Land combat
(p) Air rebases
(q) Reorganisation
D2.4 End of action

Note that Naval Movement is a separate step from Naval Combat.

-Orm

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: terje439

Another one from JGN;

Original: Froonp post #36
Well, this may be right that screening actions show at the WiF FE scale, but this does not make right the affirmation of that mysterious JGN (JagdGeschwader of Nowhere ?) that "combat can only occur once per impulse per sea area". Nor does the examples provided show that "combat can only occur once per impulse per sea area". There is nothing in RAW that supports that, and on the contrary there are multiples places that support the contrary, as Orm shown in post #22.

Nothing to support my view in the RAW?

Original: WORLD IN FLAMES: Final Rules page #19 (verbatim from WiFFE-Raw-7.0.pdf)
11.5 Naval combat
11.5.1 Combat sequence
After you have made all your naval moves, you can, if you wish, initiate naval combat. A SIDE CAN ONLY TRY TO INITIATE COMBAT ONCE IN EACH SEA AREA each naval combat step (there can be any number of INTERCEPTION COMBAT ATTEMPTS during naval movement).

You can’t try to initiate naval combat at all if you chose a land or pass action. However, your units can take part in any combat that another major power initiates.

Choose a sea area and initiate a combat there. You can only choose an area if it contains at least one unit from each side that are at war with each other.

NOTE:
It specifically says "combat".
It does not say “Naval combat”.
It does not say “Intercept combat”.
It specifically says “Interception combat attempts”.
It does not say “Interception combats”.
This means that ONE (1) “Naval combat” - OR - “Intercept combat” can occur in a sea area per impulse.


Otherwise the RAW would read:

“After you have made all your naval moves, you can, if you wish, initiate naval side can only try to initiate combat once in each sea area each naval combat step (there can be any number of INTERCEPTION COMBATS during naval movement).”

This makes me annoyed and I wonder if you have thought of the implications if the game would be played like you suggest. [:(]

For example: CW has a large force in The North Sea. Germany sends out 1 raider. It gets intercepted and a combat is in North Sea is fought. The entire German Fleet then sails out and the CW force in The North Sea is then forbidden to try and intercept it. After that lesson with the entire German fleet out playing havoc on allied conv and conv escorts CW next time a lone German raider moves out he dare not try to intercept. If Germany and Italy goes for an invasion against Great Britain the CW forces would never dare to try to intercept raiders as long as Axis has invasion forces ready. [X(]

Now to rules.

During the Naval Movement the side that is not moving can try to intercept the moving task force when it enters a sea area. If the interception succeeds and the moving task force try to fight through a Naval Combat starts. After that Naval Combat is ended any remaining units in the moving task force can continue to move if the player so choose. In this I feel we are all in agreement.

The rules then state that:

11.5 Naval combat
11.5.1 Combat sequence
After you have made all your naval moves, you can, if you wish, initiate
naval combat. A side can only try to initiate combat once in each sea
area each naval combat step (there can be any number of interception
combat attempts during naval movement).

Note that it says that you can initiate combat AFTER you made all your naval moves. It does NOT say "After you have made all your naval moves, you can, if you wish, initiate naval combat except where a combat has already occured during the naval movement phase".

Lets look at the rule again.

11.5 Naval combat
11.5.1 Combat sequence
After you have made all your naval moves, you can, if you wish, initiate
naval combat. A side can only try to initiate combat once in each sea
area each naval combat step (there can be any number of interception
combat attempts during naval movement).

Note that the rule say that you can only try to initiate combat ONCE in each sea area EACH NAVAL COMBAT STEP. It does not say "once in each sea area that has had no combat during the naval movement step each naval combat step"

And that brings me to:
3.1 Sequence of play
D2.3 Perform actions
The major powers that didn’t pass perform these
steps in this order (their action choice will limit
what they can do ~ see action limits table):
(a) Port attacks
(b) Naval air missions
(c) Naval movement
(d) Your naval combat
(e) Opponent’s naval combat
(f) Strategic bombardment
(g) Carpet bombing (option 32)
(h) Ground strike missions
(i) Rail movement
(j) Land movement
(k) Air transport
(l) Debark land units at sea
(m) Invasions
(n) Paradrops
(o) Land combat
(p) Air rebases
(q) Reorganisation
D2.4 End of action

Note that Naval Movement is a separate step from Naval Combat.

-Orm

Internally, MWIF has three 'times' that naval combat may occur: Phasing Side selects sea areas for naval combat (NavalCombatA Phase), non-phasing side does the same (NavalCombatD Phase), and naval interception combats (NavalInterception Digression).

During NavalCombatA, the phasing side can initiate combat in any sea area only once, though there may be additional naval combat(s) in the same sea area caused by naval interceptions during the phase.

During NavalCombatD, the non-phasing side can initiate combat in any sea area only once, though there may be additional naval combat(s) in the same sea area caused by naval interceptions during the phase.

Combats occuring during a NavalInterception Digression are completely separate from naval combats that occur during the Naval Combat phases.

There are numerous places in the sequence of play where naval units can move; in all but one of those, naval moves can be intercepted. The sole exception is the mandatory movement of at-sea French naval units to the closest French held port during the formation of Vichy. Otherwise, all naval moves are subject to being intercepted.

(1) Overruns during land movement and advance after combat, (2) conquest of countries, and (3) any other phase when which side controls territory changes, can all result in naval units being forced to rebase. Those units can be intercepted which may result in naval combat.

[Froonp]

Dam it !!!!
11.16 says "Land combat" !!!!

Does this mean that there can be only one land combat per impulse !!!!! Oh noooooooo....

[Shannon V. OKeets]

To bring this thread back to my original question, ...

It looks to me like there are two choices:
1 - Queue the naval combats, letting each one be in-between rounds, while naval aborts are processed.
2 - Queue naval combat aborts, running each naval combat to quiescience, before executing the naval combat aborts.

For #1 there is a need to queue aborts as well, when there is more than one unit/side aborting from a naval combat. Furthermore, these queues for naval combat aborts will have to be maintained per naval combat, which raises the question of which abort gets processed first. For example, if naval combat 1 causes two units to abort (one from each side) and the first aborting unit is intercepted and engages in naval combat 2, which in turn causes a unit to abort, should the second unit from the 1st combat move before or after the first unit from the 2nd combat moves/aborts?
---
#1 is how it is written in RAW, and handles most cases that occur in over the board play. However, it only addresses processing the abort queues indirectly. I read it as the first unit from the 2nd combat moves before the second unit from the 1st combat.

What really causes me grief with #1 is the cyclical possibility of multiple combats occuring in the same sea area simultaneously. While in the middle of naval combat 1, we begin processing naval combat 3. After 3 reaches quiescience, we perform more search rolls in the same sea area to conclude naval combat 1. That just doesn't seem right.
---
The main objection to #2 seems to be "it isn't RAW".

From a practical point of view, the change from RAW would mean that players will know how each naval combat turns out, before having to decide where to abort their units. This is a definite change, but not one that I consider major. My reasoning is that the players also gain additional information when playing according to RAW: they know whether their aborting units made it safely back to port or not, before each naval combat is completed. So while #2 deviates from RAW, it does not result in additional (or less) information being available to players, but instead changes what information is available.
---
To state this more simply:
with #1 the players know how the aborts turned out, before concluding a naval combat;
with #2 the players know how the naval combat turned out, before performing the aborts.
===
Please let me know your vote for #1 or #2.

And just to bias the results[;)], my vote is for #2.

[lomyrin]

I prefer #1 but could accept #2 if it avoids a number of coding problems.
 
Lars

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
It looks to me like there are two choices:
1 - Queue the naval combats, letting each one be in-between rounds, while naval aborts are processed.
2 - Queue naval combat aborts, running each naval combat to quiescience, before executing the naval combat aborts.

For #1 there is a need to queue aborts as well, when there is more than one unit/side aborting from a naval combat. Furthermore, these queues for naval combat aborts will have to be maintained per naval combat, which raises the question of which abort gets processed first. For example, if naval combat 1 causes two units to abort (one from each side) and the first aborting unit is intercepted and engages in naval combat 2, which in turn causes a unit to abort, should the second unit from the 1st combat move before or after the first unit from the 2nd combat moves/aborts?
---
#1 is how it is written in RAW, and handles most cases that occur in over the board play. However, it only addresses processing the abort queues indirectly. I read it as the first unit from the 2nd combat moves before the second unit from the 1st combat.

I read it the same.

What really causes me grief with #1 is the cyclical possibility of multiple combats occuring in the same sea area simultaneously. While in the middle of naval combat 1, we begin processing naval combat 3. After 3 reaches quiescience, we perform more search rolls in the same sea area to conclude naval combat 1. That just doesn't seem right.
---
The main objection to #2 seems to be "it isn't RAW".

From a practical point of view, the change from RAW would mean that players will know how each naval combat turns out, before having to decide where to abort their units. This is a definite change, but not one that I consider major. My reasoning is that the players also gain additional information when playing according to RAW: they know whether their aborting units made it safely back to port or not, before each naval combat is completed. So while #2 deviates from RAW, it does not result in additional (or less) information being available to players, but instead changes what information is available.
---
To state this more simply:
with #1 the players know how the aborts turned out, before concluding a naval combat;
with #2 the players know how the naval combat turned out, before performing the aborts.
===
Please let me know your vote for #1 or #2.

And just to bias the results[;)], my vote is for #2.

My preference and vote go to #1.

As I said previously, there can be days, even weeks, between 2 naval combat rounds within a naval combat, so "the players knowing how the aborts turned out, before concluding a naval combat" is credible IMO.

Also, this is an added level on non predictability of things naval, and I think that this feel very right in WiF FE, and fits history a lot. Things at sea could be very unpredictable.

Finaly, I think that by having RAW this way Harry was very subtle and bright in creating a strategical game mechanism that could create unpredictability and chaos in naval combats, and MWiF should keep that.

[npilgaard]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Please let me know your vote for #1 or #2.

Compared to the amount of work required and the relatively small practical importance, I don't think it is worth it going for #1. #2 is fine with me.

[Zorachus99]

#2 is clearer to understand and less frustrating as a player.  After a naval combat is resolved for the first round, the queued ships would be able to abort collectively with a fleet aborting the sea area, or be able to abort as a result of naval combat round.  Then, you would have to interrupt the battle to handle the interception combats (where friendly units in the new sea area are of no use), and after returning to port, return to the original combat that initiated the aborts in the first place to see if the sides find each other again, provided there are ships left on both sides.
 
Please remember that aborted damaged ships have to sucessfully return to base to be placed in the repair pool, and they remain at sea for subsequent combat rounds in the original sea area if they do not abort.

[terje439]

From JGN:

Original: Orm
For example: CW has a large force in The North Sea. Germany sends out 1 raider. It gets intercepted and a combat is in North Sea is fought. The entire German Fleet then sails out and the CW force in The North Sea is then forbidden to try and intercept it. After that lesson with the entire German fleet out playing havoc on allied convoy and convoy escorts CW next time a lone German raider moves out he dare not try to intercept. If Germany and Italy goes for an invasion against Great Britain the CW forces would never dare to try to intercept raiders as long as Axis has invasion forces ready.

Yes, I have thought about it.
Be careful what task forces you intercept.
This makes German raiding possible.
Think, “Defense in depth” not “Impregnable wall of steel”.
You have to keep track of your opponents “Activity actions” vs. their “Activity limits”.
Keep a naval reserve.

Original: Orm
Note: That it says that you can initiate combat AFTER you made all your naval moves. It does NOT say, "After you have made all your naval moves, you can, if you wish, initiate naval combat except where a combat has already occurred during the naval movement phase".

Uh, yes it does.
11.5 Naval combat
11.5.1 Combat sequence
After you have made all your naval moves, you can, if you wish, initiate naval combat. A SIDE CAN ONLY TRY TO INITIATE COMBAT ONCE IN EACH SEA AREA each naval combat step (there can be any number of INTERCEPTION COMBAT ATTEMPTS during naval movement).

11.6 Opponent’s naval combat
After your side has resolved combat in all their selected sea areas, any major power on the other side can try to initiate COMBAT (see 11.5.2) in any other sea areas your side moved a non-SUB unit into or within (but not through) in your naval air missions step or your naval movement step. YOUR OPPONENTS CAN’T PICK AN AREA THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SELECTED THIS IMPULSE.

Original: Orm
Note: That the rules say that you can only try to initiate combat ONCE in each sea area EACH NAVAL COMBAT STEP. It does not say, "once in each sea area that has had no combat during the naval movement step each naval combat step"

Fighting your way through
If you want to fight your way through, put your task force into one section of the sea-box (as if it was ending a move there).
Now start the normal combat sequence (see 11.5 Naval combat - 11.5.1 Combat sequence). The only differences are in the first round:
The NORMAL COMBAT SEQUENCE is ONE (1) naval combat per sea area per impulse.

Original: Orm
Note: That Naval Movement is a separate step from Naval Combat.

Are you now supporting ONE (1) naval interception combat per your “Naval movement step” and ONE (1) per naval combat per your “Naval combat step”?
The RAW states you may have multiple "Interception attempts" and multiple "Interception combat rounds". The RAW doesn't state you may have multiple "Interception combats".

[peskpesk]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Please let me know your vote for #1 or #2.

And just to bias the results[;)], my vote is for #2.

I vote for #1 but accept #2 since it avoids a number of coding problems.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Please let me know your vote for #1 or #2.

Warspite1

Steve - my vote is for #1

[Zorachus99]

Are you now supporting ONE (1) naval interception combat per your “Naval movement step” and ONE (1) per naval combat per your “Naval combat step”?
The RAW states you may have multiple "Interception attempts" and multiple "Interception combat rounds". The RAW doesn't state you may have multiple "Interception combats".

How is interception combat rounds preventing you from further interceptions? Because you refer to how naval combat is conducted, you infer that you may only have ONE interception combat? That seems patently absurd because the inteception rule outlines that you may intercept at your convienience any or all task forces moving through the sea area.

What makes this silly is that you are proposing to only allow one interception combat per impulse?

From my reading it seems relatively clear that you may intercept as many times as you like, and may have combat with any forces attempting to fight through the sea zone during naval movement.

A strange side effect of the rule is that if you attempt to intercept, succeed, all futher naval moves are unhindered moving through a sea zone.

This means I can get real gamey, move a single ship out at a time until the opponent intercepts succesfully one time, and then I'm free to ignore enemy fleets in that sea zone?

This is patently silly and has neither historical basis or any realistic play style. During a naval move, using this silly gamey tactic, you can ensure that any blockade can sink one and only one ship.

Baldurdash!

[Froonp]

How can you misread "A side can only try to initiate combat once in each sea area each naval combat step (there can be any number of interception combat attempts during naval movement)" so badly ??? [&:]

In your view, how can there be "any number interception combat attempts" without having any number of naval combats resulting from these interceptions attempts ? So these attempts, if successfull, would result in no naval combat being fought ? Wow, that's screening !!!! [&o]. So, these successfull interception combat attempts would result in what, in your mind ???

So if I want to slip a fleet past the enemy blockading me, I just have to sail the fleet in tens of single ships, so the enemy can only successfully intercept one of them ??? If I'm skilled enough, I keep the enemy guessing by not sailing my best ships so that he waits for me to sail them, and then I don't ?
Or I can sail 15 BP in the North Atlantic from the UK, bypassing the Kriegsmarine in the Bay oof Biscay by only sailing them one at a time, so they can only intercept one of them ??? Woow !!!!! great super power of the screening !!!! The Kriegsmarine is too busy for 2 months sinking that CP, so the other 14 are safe.


To be serious, RAW says that :
"If the interception attempt succeeds, the moving player has 2 choices:
(a) stop the move in that sea area; or
(b) try to fight through."

Then it says that if you try to fight through, you "start the normal combat sequence", with some exceptions for first round.

The normal combat sequence, described in 11.5.1 under its own sub-header of 11.5.1, is :
1. Both sides (active side first) fly aircraft to the area (naval air interception).
2. Both sides (active side first) commit SUBs
3. Search for the enemy. If neither side finds the other, the combat is over.
4. Determine type of combat (air, surface or submarine).
5. Resolve combat.
6. Both sides can abort the combat (active side first).
7. If both sides remain, start again from step 1. If not, the combat is over.

Contrarily to what you wrote (or rather made poor Terje write -- why by the way don't you post directly under your own screen name ???), it does not say that "A side can only try to initiate combat once in each sea area each naval combat step". The part of RAW that says that is the introductionary paragraph about Naval Combat in 11.5.1, before the combat sequence is described.

Moreover, the example described at the end of 11.4.6 explicitely show that interception combats are distinct from normal naval combat by saying, after having described a naval combat resulting from a successful interception attempt :
"Instead of moving them on, Heinz could choose to leave his fleet in the North Sea, in which case they would stay in the 2 section of the sea-box. If they do this, they could fight again in the naval combat step."


Anyway, you're still free to read and play the game at home the way you want, provided you find other native english readers that read it the same way. You'll have pretty nasty surprises though the day you play it elsewhere.

[terje439]

And back from JGN:

Original: Zorachus (edited for grammar and spelling)
How are interception combat rounds preventing you from further interceptions? Because you refer to how naval combat is conducted, you infer that you may only have ONE interception combat? That seems patently absurd because the interception rule outlines that you may intercept at your convenience any or all task forces moving through the sea area.

What makes this silly is that you are proposing to only allow one interception combat per impulse?

From my reading it seems relatively clear that you may intercept as many times as you like, and may have combat with any forces attempting to fight through the sea zone during naval movement.

A strange side effect of the rule is that if you attempt to intercept, succeed, all further naval moves are unhindered moving through a sea zone.

This means I can get real gamey, move a single ship out at a time until the opponent intercepts successfully one time, and then I'm free to ignore enemy fleets in that sea zone?

This is patently silly and has neither historical basis nor any realistic play style. During a naval move, using this silly gamey tactic, you can ensure that any blockade can sink one and only one ship.

Balderdash!

This is no longer a matter for discussion.
My last entry posted by Terje (Thank you for you help J) was emailed to him shortly before Steve’s post #42.

[Ullern]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

To bring this thread back to my original question, ...

It looks to me like there are two choices:
1 - Queue the naval combats, letting each one be in-between rounds, while naval aborts are processed.
2 - Queue naval combat aborts, running each naval combat to quiescience, before executing the naval combat aborts.

For #1 there is a need to queue aborts as well, when there is more than one unit/side aborting from a naval combat. Furthermore, these queues for naval combat aborts will have to be maintained per naval combat, which raises the question of which abort gets processed first. For example, if naval combat 1 causes two units to abort (one from each side) and the first aborting unit is intercepted and engages in naval combat 2, which in turn causes a unit to abort, should the second unit from the 1st combat move before or after the first unit from the 2nd combat moves/aborts?
---
#1 is how it is written in RAW, and handles most cases that occur in over the board play. However, it only addresses processing the abort queues indirectly. I read it as the first unit from the 2nd combat moves before the second unit from the 1st combat.

What really causes me grief with #1 is the cyclical possibility of multiple combats occuring in the same sea area simultaneously. While in the middle of naval combat 1, we begin processing naval combat 3. After 3 reaches quiescience, we perform more search rolls in the same sea area to conclude naval combat 1. That just doesn't seem right.
---
The main objection to #2 seems to be "it isn't RAW".

From a practical point of view, the change from RAW would mean that players will know how each naval combat turns out, before having to decide where to abort their units. This is a definite change, but not one that I consider major. My reasoning is that the players also gain additional information when playing according to RAW: they know whether their aborting units made it safely back to port or not, before each naval combat is completed. So while #2 deviates from RAW, it does not result in additional (or less) information being available to players, but instead changes what information is available.
---
To state this more simply:
with #1 the players know how the aborts turned out, before concluding a naval combat;
with #2 the players know how the naval combat turned out, before performing the aborts.
===
Please let me know your vote for #1 or #2.

And just to bias the results[;)], my vote is for #2.

Having read all the posts in this thread for the first time just now, I would vote for #1, but I'd be willing to discuss how to get #2 satisfactory if #1 is too horrific for Steve.

What I consider important for this thread is:
Aborts are a stack (last in first out)
And secondly, I will quote rule 11.5.8 Combat results from RAW, which says all of the following:

ORIGINAL: RAW 11.5.8 Combat results:
Result Effect
A Your unit aborts. At the end of the combat round, return it to base according to the return to base rules (see 13.4).
<...>
You can choose the same unit to suffer more than one result, unless it is already destroyed or has suffered an ‘A’ result.
<...>
However, you only implement ‘A’ results (including unsuccessful ‘D’ results and double ‘1/2A’ results) at the end of this round of combat. All units aborting to the same port can abort together if you wish.

I emphasized the last line in bold.

What I am saying so far is just exactly the same as what Patrice, Paul and others have already pointed out above. But in addition I'd like to quote the following:

ORIGINAL: RAW 11.4.6 Fighting your way through
After the first round, the combat continues exactly like any other combat. It is quite possible for your moving task force to be excluded from later combat rounds.

With the stack approach, and the #1 solution, all non-cyclical issues would be in accordance with RAW (I believe). So what about the possibility of cyclical combats with the #1 solution?

I do think that there is another way of going about this that Steve so far didn't suggest. I am going to suggest that now:

Think of each Sea Zone with an ongoing naval combat as an Active Sea Zone. The naval combat queue (solution #1) tells the order in which these combats occur, if an aborted ships are successfully intercepted in a Sea Zone that already are in the naval combat queue, that naval combat is moved to the first position of the naval combat queue (but with the additional first round exceptions from RAW 11.4.6 Fighting your way through).


Most of you have probably already understood what I am writing. But to elaborate a little more:
_ The result of my interpretation is that because of cyclical movement the next round of a combat may be implemented while there are still units left in the abort queue from a previous round. But I don’t see any problem with that. Units that are aborted from a Sea Zone don’t take part in any further combat in that Sea Zone (even if moving in and out of the Sea Zone as someone else here pointed out), so they just have to stay referenced in the queue until there is a chance to proceed with the abort move. (On the other hand units that are fighting their way through a Sea Zone will all be part of a future combat round according to normal rules, unless it’s the first round after they were intercepted in which case they’re automatically included.)


I am sure that Steve will tell us if there are any reasons why this will not work with MWIF. Until he says so I think it’s possible.[:)]

[Ullern]

-Repost - sorry

[Ullern]

-Repost - sorry

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: ullern

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

To bring this thread back to my original question, ...

It looks to me like there are two choices:
1 - Queue the naval combats, letting each one be in-between rounds, while naval aborts are processed.
2 - Queue naval combat aborts, running each naval combat to quiescience, before executing the naval combat aborts.

For #1 there is a need to queue aborts as well, when there is more than one unit/side aborting from a naval combat. Furthermore, these queues for naval combat aborts will have to be maintained per naval combat, which raises the question of which abort gets processed first. For example, if naval combat 1 causes two units to abort (one from each side) and the first aborting unit is intercepted and engages in naval combat 2, which in turn causes a unit to abort, should the second unit from the 1st combat move before or after the first unit from the 2nd combat moves/aborts?
---
#1 is how it is written in RAW, and handles most cases that occur in over the board play. However, it only addresses processing the abort queues indirectly. I read it as the first unit from the 2nd combat moves before the second unit from the 1st combat.

What really causes me grief with #1 is the cyclical possibility of multiple combats occuring in the same sea area simultaneously. While in the middle of naval combat 1, we begin processing naval combat 3. After 3 reaches quiescience, we perform more search rolls in the same sea area to conclude naval combat 1. That just doesn't seem right.
---
The main objection to #2 seems to be "it isn't RAW".

From a practical point of view, the change from RAW would mean that players will know how each naval combat turns out, before having to decide where to abort their units. This is a definite change, but not one that I consider major. My reasoning is that the players also gain additional information when playing according to RAW: they know whether their aborting units made it safely back to port or not, before each naval combat is completed. So while #2 deviates from RAW, it does not result in additional (or less) information being available to players, but instead changes what information is available.
---
To state this more simply:
with #1 the players know how the aborts turned out, before concluding a naval combat;
with #2 the players know how the naval combat turned out, before performing the aborts.
===
Please let me know your vote for #1 or #2.

And just to bias the results[;)], my vote is for #2.

Having read all the posts in this thread for the first time just now, I would vote for #1, but I'd be willing to discuss how to get #2 satisfactory if #1 is too horrific for Steve.

What I consider important for this thread is:
Aborts are a stack (last in first out)
And secondly, I will quote rule 11.5.8 Combat results from RAW, which says all of the following:

ORIGINAL: RAW 11.5.8 Combat results:
Result Effect
A Your unit aborts. At the end of the combat round, return it to base according to the return to base rules (see 13.4).
<...>
You can choose the same unit to suffer more than one result, unless it is already destroyed or has suffered an ‘A’ result.
<...>
However, you only implement ‘A’ results (including unsuccessful ‘D’ results and double ‘1/2A’ results) at the end of this round of combat. All units aborting to the same port can abort together if you wish.

I emphasized the last line in bold.

What I am saying so far is just exactly the same as what Patrice, Paul and others have already pointed out above. But in addition I'd like to quote the following:

ORIGINAL: RAW 11.4.6 Fighting your way through
After the first round, the combat continues exactly like any other combat. It is quite possible for your moving task force to be excluded from later combat rounds.

With the stack approach, and the #1 solution, all non-cyclical issues would be in accordance with RAW (I believe). So what about the possibility of cyclical combats with the #1 solution?

I do think that there is another way of going about this that Steve so far didn't suggest. I am going to suggest that now:

Think of each Sea Zone with an ongoing naval combat as an Active Sea Zone. The naval combat queue (solution #1) tells the order in which these combats occur, if an aborted ships are successfully intercepted in a Sea Zone that already are in the naval combat queue, that naval combat is moved to the first position of the naval combat queue (but with the additional first round exceptions from RAW 11.4.6 Fighting your way through).


Most of you have probably already understood what I am writing. But to elaborate a little more:
_ The result of my interpretation is that because of cyclical movement the next round of a combat may be implemented while there are still units left in the abort queue from a previous round. But I don’t see any problem with that. Units that are aborted from a Sea Zone don’t take part in any further combat in that Sea Zone (even if moving in and out of the Sea Zone as someone else here pointed out), so they just have to stay referenced in the queue until there is a chance to proceed with the abort move. (On the other hand units that are fighting their way through a Sea Zone will all be part of a future combat round according to normal rules, unless it’s the first round after they were intercepted in which case they’re automatically included.)


I am sure that Steve will tell us if there are any reasons why this will not work with MWIF. Until he says so I think it’s possible.[:)]

Yes, I understood all of this as being implied in choosing the #1 implementation of naval combat aborts (according to RAW). I find it quite complex and would not be happy to have the task of explaining it to a new WIF player. The #2 implementation would be much easier to exlpain.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: terje439

And back from JGN:

This is no longer a matter for discussion.
My last entry posted by Terje (Thank you for you help J) was emailed to him shortly before Steve’s post #42.

Thank goodness. I haven't seen many arguments that were as inane as that one.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Please let me know your vote for #1 or #2.

And just to bias the results[;)], my vote is for #2.

I strongly support #1 and thoroughly dislike #2.

One tactic I have seen used in Naval Combats is to resolve the ones furthest from enemy home bases first so that in the event of success, the aborting enemy units will have to go through sea zones where they can be intercepted again, and in the event of failure, your own units won't. Furthermore you may even have sailed your own units into enemy waters for that specific purpose, knowing that you'll have pretty decent combat opportunities against aborting enemy units that must fight through from the zero box. You might not even choose to search yourself in that sea zone when the "normal" search opportunity comes around because other enemy units there already are formidable. (Of course they'll likely search for you in that event, but at least you can ensure that happens after you've performed all your own searches. And if you do intercept successfully you could abort after that combat. [;)])

#2 eliminates this tactic if all naval combats including the opponents are queued. Even if there is a queue for the phasing player followed by a queue for the non-phasing player, I could lose a decent intercept possibility in the second sea zone (caused by successful combat in the first sea zone) because of an unlucky split in the second sea zone.

In summary, #2 is bad because it takes away the chess-like decision process that the phasing player employs in determining in which order to search the sea zones. It takes an advantage away that is there in RAW.