Naval Combat Aborts

[Zorachus99]

Just so I'm clear on this, because it does seem complex.

1. Naval Combat #1 - Searches in Cape St. Vincent successful, 1 Naval combat round completed, the phasing player decides to not voluntarily abort all units in the sea area, the non-phasing player then decides to not abort all units. Results of the combat are that unit 101 has had an 'A' result.
2. Naval Combat #2 - In Bay of Biscay. Aborted unit 101 is moving through and may be intercepted by the non-phasing player. Non-phasing player disrupts a ship and searches unsuccessfully. Aborted unit returns to port.
3. Naval Combat #3 - in Cape St. Vincent combat resumes and search is successful. The phasing player receives another 'A' result on unit 102. Phasing player announces his intention to abort the sea area. All units in Cape St. Vincent sea area abort as a stack through the Bay of Biscay. Non-phasing player decides to not abort all his units in Cape St. Vincent.
4. Naval Combat #4 - non-phasing player searches again in Cape St. Vincent (does not disrupt a unit because of previous search). Combat results are applied. Phasing player chooses to abort again, all phasing units in the Bay of Biscay return to ports in France.
5. Naval Comabt #5 - phasing player searches in North Atlantic. Phasing player decides to abort North atlantic after combat.
6. Naval Combat #6 - aborting units are returning to base through Bay of Biscay. Non-phasing player decides to intercept again. Non-phasing player finds the enemy, and one round of combat is resolved. Phasing player decides that he will stay and let a another search roll occur. Non-phasing player decides to abort all units in Bay of Biscay. Non-Phasing player returns to base. Phasing player returns to base (they are still aborting).

Anyone feel free to edit or correct this, particularly step 3 or 6.

This is my understanding of the functional way aborts are handled.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Using that definition means that during naval combats initiated by the phasing side in the NavalCombatA phase, the initiating side (phasing side) aborts first). While during the NavalCombatD phase, the side which did not initiate the combat (the phasing side) aborts first.

Yes, why should that be a problem? It is consistent throughout that impulse's naval combat resolution and when the now inactive side becomes the active side in the next impulse, those roles are reversed. So what?

And for the example that I gave concerning declaring Vichy France, which side aborts depends on which side was the phasing side during the last impulse - which could be the Axis or Allied side. That would be the same side when the Italians intercept the CW and when the CW intercepts the Italians.

Isn't it less confusing to know which side is active as defined by the sequence of play and keep it that way throughout the End of Turn Stage? Does it matter if its the CW or the Italians as long as who is active is pre-defined? - which it is! Yes it could be different from game to game for this Vichy case but having it switch is just the "rub of the nap" for whomsoever feels disadvantaged.

Is it just me, or do other people also find this to be inconsistent?

I prefer that the side which is moving into the area always aborts either first or second. So, I do not really have a problem with the phasing side aborting first from both NavalCombatA and NavalCombatD, since in both cases they have moved into the sea area.

But for interception combats, I would then prefer the answer to be the side that moves into the area. This comes up during land movement when naval units are overrun in a port, during the Conquest phase when control of a port changes sides, and at many other times.

What is preferred is not always what is RAW. You have the power to make it different but is the reason "it is my preference" a good enough reason?

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

Just so I'm clear on this, because it does seem complex.

1. Naval Combat #1 - Searches in Cape St. Vincent successful, 1 Naval combat round completed, the phasing player decides to not voluntarily abort all units in the sea area, the non-phasing player then decides to not abort all units. Results of the combat are that unit 101 has had an 'A' result.
2. Naval Combat #2 - In Bay of Biscay. Aborted unit 101 is moving through and may be intercepted by the non-phasing player. Non-phasing player disrupts a ship and searches unsuccessfully. Aborted unit returns to port.
3. Naval Combat #3 - in Cape St. Vincent combat resumes and search is successful. The phasing player receives another 'A' result on unit 102. Phasing player announces his intention to abort the sea area. All units in Cape St. Vincent sea area abort as a stack through the Bay of Biscay. Non-phasing player decides to not abort all his units in Cape St. Vincent.
4. Naval Combat #4 - non-phasing player searches again in Cape St. Vincent (does not disrupt a unit because of previous search). Combat results are applied. Phasing player chooses to abort again, all phasing units in the Bay of Biscay return to ports in France.
5. Naval Comabt #5 - phasing player searches in North Atlantic. Phasing player decides to abort North atlantic after combat.
6. Naval Combat #6 - aborting units are returning to base through Bay of Biscay. Non-phasing player decides to intercept again. Non-phasing player finds the enemy, and one round of combat is resolved. Phasing player decides that he will stay and let a another search roll occur. Non-phasing player decides to abort all units in Bay of Biscay. Non-Phasing player returns to base. Phasing player returns to base (they are still aborting).

Anyone feel free to edit or correct this, particularly step 3 or 6.

This is my understanding of the functional way aborts are handled.

As edits were invited to aid clarity, I'll have a go (changes in bold):

1. Naval Combat #1 - Searches in Cape St. Vincent successful, 1 Naval combat round completed, the phasing player decides to not voluntarily abort all units in the sea area, the non-phasing player then decides to not abort all units. Results of the combat are that unit 101 has had an 'A' result.
2. Possible Naval Combat - In Bay of Biscay. Aborted unit 101 is moving through and may be intercepted by the non-phasing player. Non-phasing player disrupts a ship and searches unsuccessfully. Aborted unit returns to port.
3. Naval Combat #2 - in Cape St. Vincent combat resumes and search is successful. The phasing player receives another 'A' result on unit 102. Phasing player announces his intention to abort the sea area. All units in Cape St. Vincent sea area abort as a stack through the Bay of Biscay. (They could be aborted one by one but the phasing player decides not to do so.) Non-phasing player decides to not abort all his units in Cape St. Vincent.
4. Naval Combat #3 - non-phasing player searches again in Cape St. Vincent (does not disrupt a unit because of previous search) and succeeds. Combat results are applied. Phasing player chooses to abort again, all phasing units in the Bay of Biscay return to ports in France. Non phasing player then decides to not abort all units.
5. Naval Comabt #4 - phasing player searches in North Atlantic and succeeds. Phasing player decides to abort North atlantic after combat and again decides to move all aborting units as one stack, versus the other choices available.
6. Naval Combat #5 - aborting units are returning to base through Bay of Biscay. Non-phasing player decides to intercept again. Non-phasing player finds the enemy, and one round of combat is resolved. Phasing player decides that he will stay and let another search roll occur. Non-phasing player decides to abort all units in Bay of Biscay. Non-Phasing player returns to base on west coast of France. Phasing player returns to base (they are still aborting).

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is what a queue might look like for option #1. To make sense of this it is easiest to start at #9 and read the list backwards - that is the chronology of what has happened.
===
1. Units 108, phasing side combat result abort from Naval Combat #3, round 1 (still needs to leave Cape St. Vincent)
2. Unit 107 non-phasing side side combat result abort from Naval Combat #3, round 1 (still needs to leave Cape St. Vincent)
3. Naval Combat #3 - in Cape St. Vincent, 1st round completed, 2nd round to start.

4. Units 105, 106, non-phasing side combat result abort from Naval Combat #2, round 3 (heading to Gibraltar, intercepted in Cape St. Vincent, occupying the zero box)
5. Units 102, 103, 104 in different sea box sections, phasing side side voluntary abort from Naval Combat #2, round 3 (still need to leave Bay of Biscay)
6. Naval Combat #2 - in Bay of Biscay, 3rd round completed.

7. Unit 101, phasing side combat result abort from Naval Combat #1, round 2 (heading to Plymouth, intercepted in Bay of Biscay, occupying zero box)
8. Unit 100, non-phasing side side combat result abort from Naval Combat #1, round 2 (still needs to leave Cape St. Vincent)
9. Naval Combat #1 - in Cape St. Vincent, 2nd round completed, 3rd round to start.
===
I am not sure about the order of #4 and #5. Does the fact that #4 is a combat result abort put it ahead of #5 (a voluntary abort)? Or does the fact that #5 is by the phasing side put it ahead of #4 (phasing side aborts before non-phasing side)?

After the Naval Combat #2 round, there is the voluntary abort choice. If acted upon, those units would abort first if phasing side, second if non-phasing. Likewise for the combat aborts. Within this, the owning player decides the order and composition of the aborts.

[paulderynck]

deleted

[Shannon V. OKeets]

After mulling this over for a week, I decided to assert my perogatives as the developer and make a couple of changes from RAW. This is not done lightly and is one of the very few times I have deviated from the Rules as Written.
===
I - Instead of processing each naval combat abort prior to completing a naval combat (to quiescience), MWIF will queue the aborting naval combat units and run each naval combat through to its end.

Details: This means there will never be more than 1 naval combat extant at any time. There may be naval units in the abort queue from multiple naval combats however. The queue will be processed in the Last In First Out order. Voluntary aborts will be placed into the queue after any combat result aborts from the current naval combat. The result is that all units aborting from the most recent naval combat will be processed before any naval units that aborted from earlier naval combats.

Consequences: This is a manifest change from RAW but I do not believe it impacts play significantly. It does not introduce a bias favoring: the Axis, the Allies, the attacking side, the defending side, the stronger side, or the weaker side. The number of possible naval combats is unchanged. The number of possible aborting units is unchanged. The tactics that players use to decide where units abort may change, though it is difficult to say precisely how. Mostly that is because more than 2 naval combat extant at the same time occurs so rarely during play that players haven't developed detailed tactical systems for how to handle it.

Motivation for change:
1 - this is easier to code.
2 - this is easier for new players to understand.
3 - this is easier to report to the players so they understand what the current status is.

These 3 reasons are of roughly equal weight.

CWIF did not report back to the player what the current status was. It kept track of all the different aborting units and combats and processed them in the order as dictated by RAW (as far as I can tell from reading through the code). The code was extremely difficult to understand and equally difficult to modify. I need to make changes to the code to support the NetPlay, PBEM, and AI Opponent modes of play. Simplicity in the code is important for many reasons.

I am strongly motivated to have new WIF players enjoy MWIF. Having multiple partially completed naval combats in a queue is not easy to understand, especially when there are multiple units aborting from each naval combat. This comes up rarely, and when playing over the board, players simply work things out among themselves whenever it comes up. But given a new player sitting alone at his computer, I believe the introduction of new naval combats before the older ones have been completed will be both unexpected and confusing. MWIF is complex enough without adding this queuing scheme to the mix.

My aesthetic is that the players should always be kept informed as to what is happening (has happened) during the game. CWIF did a lot of things "behind the scenes" and just moved the sequence of play ahead - it assumed the players could figure out what had happened. That is unacceptable to me. Even experienced players prefer to be provided with more details, especially concerning combat results. Already I have made many changes elsewhere in the code to provide more feedback. Creating a form to show multiple naval combats in progress and units queued to abort from those combats was a daunting task. On the other hand, providing a list of units that are aborting is quite easy. I will simply clone the form that shows Selectable Units.
===
II - Instead of having the phasing side abort first from interception combats, MWIF will have the side that moved units into the sea area abort first.

Details: Not much beyond what the single sentence above says. RAW has the phasing side abort first (or the last side that was the phasing side during the end of turn stage). This change has zero effect on the order in which units abort from naval combats otherwise. Which units can abort as a group and which can be aborted separately is unchanged.

Consequences: The use of this change will be a very rare event. It only comes up when both sides have units aborting from the same naval combat in the same round. And the naval combat will have to have been caused by an successful naval interception. Typically, knowing where your opponent aborted his units is of benefit when deciding where to abort your own units. That is, it is better to go last. But neither side should gain an advantage from this change. Afterall, it only happens when both sides are aborting units, so both sides have 'suffered' some adverse event.

Motivation for change:
1 - The vast majority of naval combats take place during the two naval combat phases. In both of those cases it is the side that moved units into the sea area that aborts first. Therefore, it seems to me to be more consistent to have the side which moved units into the sea area that results in a naval interception combat to also abort first. If your side 'just' moved units into the sea area, you abort first.

I believe this is the first time I have so starkly made a change because I disliked how the rule was written in RAW. Most of the time, I simply put on blinders and write the code according to RAW.
===
My apologies to those who find these two changes abhorent. My final decision was based on how I expect I will feel about these changes 1 year from now. To have not made them would have bothered me much more than to have made them.

[Ullern]

[:)]

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

After mulling this over for a week, I decided to assert my perogatives as the developer and make a couple of changes from RAW. This is not done lightly and is one of the very few times I have deviated from the Rules as Written.
===
I - Instead of processing each naval combat abort prior to completing a naval combat (to quiescience), MWIF will queue the aborting naval combat units and run each naval combat through to its end.

Details: This means there will never be more than 1 naval combat extant at any time. There may be naval units in the abort queue from multiple naval combats however. The queue will be processed in the Last In First Out order. Voluntary aborts will be placed into the queue after any combat result aborts from the current naval combat. The result is that all units aborting from the most recent naval combat will be processed before any naval units that aborted from earlier naval combats.

Consequences: This is a manifest change from RAW but I do not believe it impacts play significantly. It does not introduce a bias favoring: the Axis, the Allies, the attacking side, the defending side, the stronger side, or the weaker side. The number of possible naval combats is unchanged. The number of possible aborting units is unchanged. The tactics that players use to decide where units abort may change, though it is difficult to say precisely how. Mostly that is because more than 2 naval combat extant at the same time occurs so rarely during play that players haven't developed detailed tactical systems for how to handle it.

Motivation for change:
1 - this is easier to code.
2 - this is easier for new players to understand.
3 - this is easier to report to the players so they understand what the current status is.

These 3 reasons are of roughly equal weight.

CWIF did not report back to the player what the current status was. It kept track of all the different aborting units and combats and processed them in the order as dictated by RAW (as far as I can tell from reading through the code). The code was extremely difficult to understand and equally difficult to modify. I need to make changes to the code to support the NetPlay, PBEM, and AI Opponent modes of play. Simplicity in the code is important for many reasons.

I am strongly motivated to have new WIF players enjoy MWIF. Having multiple partially completed naval combats in a queue is not easy to understand, especially when there are multiple units aborting from each naval combat. This comes up rarely, and when playing over the board, players simply work things out among themselves whenever it comes up. But given a new player sitting alone at his computer, I believe the introduction of new naval combats before the older ones have been completed will be both unexpected and confusing. MWIF is complex enough without adding this queuing scheme to the mix.

My aesthetic is that the players should always be kept informed as to what is happening (has happened) during the game. CWIF did a lot of things "behind the scenes" and just moved the sequence of play ahead - it assumed the players could figure out what had happened. That is unacceptable to me. Even experienced players prefer to be provided with more details, especially concerning combat results. Already I have made many changes elsewhere in the code to provide more feedback. Creating a form to show multiple naval combats in progress and units queued to abort from those combats was a daunting task. On the other hand, providing a list of units that are aborting is quite easy. I will simply clone the form that shows Selectable Units.
===
II - Instead of having the phasing side abort first from interception combats, MWIF will have the side that moved units into the sea area abort first.

Details: Not much beyond what the single sentence above says. RAW has the phasing side abort first (or the last side that was the phasing side during the end of turn stage). This change has zero effect on the order in which units abort from naval combats otherwise. Which units can abort as a group and which can be aborted separately is unchanged.

Consequences: The use of this change will be a very rare event. It only comes up when both sides have units aborting from the same naval combat in the same round. And the naval combat will have to have been caused by an successful naval interception. Typically, knowing where your opponent aborted his units is of benefit when deciding where to abort your own units. That is, it is better to go last. But neither side should gain an advantage from this change. Afterall, it only happens when both sides are aborting units, so both sides have 'suffered' some adverse event.

Motivation for change:
1 - The vast majority of naval combats take place during the two naval combat phases. In both of those cases it is the side that moved units into the sea area that aborts first. Therefore, it seems to me to be more consistent to have the side which moved units into the sea area that results in a naval interception combat to also abort first. If your side 'just' moved units into the sea area, you abort first.

I believe this is the first time I have so starkly made a change because I disliked how the rule was written in RAW. Most of the time, I simply put on blinders and write the code according to RAW.
===
My apologies to those who find these two changes abhorent. My final decision was based on how I expect I will feel about these changes 1 year from now. To have not made them would have bothered me much more than to have made them.

Good on you, Steve.[:)]

I support your rationale and objectives.

[Anendrue]

After a comprehensive reading of this thread I remember very clearly why I look forward to MWIF. No longer will a Dr. of Jurisprudence specialized in "venatus sceptrum" (game rules) and extensively schooled in the art of debate and logic be required to play multiplayer. With the rules resolved and set down a game can just be played and enjoyed. Thanks to all of you for removing the inevitable "discussions of rules" that slow down game play. This is the number one reason for purchasing MWIF in my opinion. Multiplayer emphasizing play and not debate!