strategy and its repercussions in the Balkans

[Extraneous]

The entire posting,,,

Q19.4-3 19.4
Finland has a total of 6 units, 4 are currently outside of Finland. So a 5th can't leave Finland. One of the 2 Finnish units in
Finland is a LND. Does the rule restriction "...you can only move a minor country land or aircraft unit from inside the home country to outside the home country, if half or more of its on- map land and aircraft units are currently inside its home country" forbid me from

(a) flying a mission with a LND outside the country during the action stage even if I return to base in Finland and/or

(b) placing one of the LND in the reserve pool (with its pilot added to the German pilots track) during the Production step?

yes and yes. Date 19/02/2009

19.4: However, you can only move a minor country land or aircraft unit outside the home country controlled by the minor, if half or more of its on map land and
aircraft units are currently inside its home country (…).

9/02/2009

Please note the "However".

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

The entire posting,,,

Q19.4-3 19.4
Finland has a total of 6 units, 4 are currently outside of Finland. So a 5th can't leave Finland. One of the 2 Finnish units in
Finland is a LND. Does the rule restriction "...you can only move a minor country land or aircraft unit from inside the home country to outside the home country, if half or more of its on- map land and aircraft units are currently inside its home country" forbid me from

(a) flying a mission with a LND outside the country during the action stage even if I return to base in Finland and/or

(b) placing one of the LND in the reserve pool (with its pilot added to the German pilots track) during the Production step?

yes and yes. Date 19/02/2009

19.4: However, you can only move a minor country land or aircraft unit outside the home country controlled by the minor, if half or more of its on map land and
aircraft units are currently inside its home country (…).

9/02/2009

Please note the "However".

The "however" is not part of the answer. It is part of the rule that the answer is based on. Because of the "however" is part of the rule then it will appear regardless on both the question and the answer and therefore has no relevance to this discussion.

The "are currently inside" part of the rule that Paul bolded seems to have a different meaning to us. [:(]

Since I can't figure out any other way to say the same thing I give up.

[rmdesantis]

I have been reading this posting with some interest, and I have to admit that I am now quite confused as to what I am allowed to do. I had always read the rule that if a minor had 3 non-naval units on the board, then I could move 2 of them out of the country (leaving 1 behind in-country). I can see that this isn't necessarily the case. When we all play F2F, then house rules can take care of any disagreements, but we are now moving beyond that.

At this stage I would like to ask - how will MWIF operate? What restriction will it enforce?

Mike

[Extraneous]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

The entire posting,,,

Q19.4-3 19.4
Finland has a total of 6 units, 4 are currently outside of Finland. So a 5th can't leave Finland. One of the 2 Finnish units in Finland is a LND. Does the rule restriction "...you can only move a minor country land or aircraft unit from inside the home country to outside the home country, if half or more of its on- map land and aircraft units are currently inside its home country" forbid me from

(a) flying a mission with a LND outside the country during the action stage even if I return to base in Finland and/or

(b) placing one of the LND in the reserve pool (with its pilot added to the German pilots track) during the Production step?

yes and yes. Date 19/02/2009

19.4: However, you can only move a minor country land or aircraft unit outside the home country controlled by the minor, if half or more of its on map land and
aircraft units are currently inside its home country (…).

9/02/2009

Please note the "However".

The "however" is not part of the answer. It is part of the rule that the answer is based on. Because of the "however" is part of the rule then it will appear regardless on both the question and the answer and therefore has no relevance to this discussion.


The "are currently inside" part of the rule that Paul bolded seems to have a different meaning to us. [:(]

Since I can't figure out any other way to say the same thing I give up.

I will ignore the rule quotes for now and just look at the FAQ.

6 Finnish units are currently on the map.
4 Finnish units are currently outside of Finland.
2 Finnish units are currently inside of Finland.

Since the Finnish air unit meets your criteria why can't it leave Finland or enter the reserve pool?

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: rmdesantis

I have been reading this posting with some interest, and I have to admit that I am now quite confused as to what I am allowed to do. I had always read the rule that if a minor had 3 non-naval units on the board, then I could move 2 of them out of the country (leaving 1 behind in-country). I can see that this isn't necessarily the case. When we all play F2F, then house rules can take care of any disagreements, but we are now moving beyond that.

At this stage I would like to ask - how will MWIF operate? What restriction will it enforce?

Mike

MWIF operate as you read the rule. As Paul and I have been saying.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

I will ignore the rule quotes for now and just look at the FAQ.

6 Finnish units are currently on the map.
4 Finnish units are currently outside of Finland.
2 Finnish units are currently inside of Finland.

Since the Finnish air unit meets your criteria why can't it leave Finland or enter the reserve pool?

Since you asked nicely I will make an attempt to make my point one more time.

The Finnish air unit in the FAQ example do not meet my criteria.
- 6 units on map and 4 of them are outside Finland with 2 in Finland. That make 33% of the units located in Finland and that is less than 50% so the AC is not allowed to be removed.

- If there had been 3 units in Finland (out of 6) instead of 2 then there would have been 50% of the units located in Finland. One could then leave Finland and leaving 4 units outside and only 2 units in Finland.

-----

1 Land (and air) unit total -> 1 may leave
2 Land unit total -> 2 may leave
3 Land unit total -> 2 may leave
4 Land unit total -> 3 may leave
5 Land unit total -> 3 may leave
6 Land unit total -> 4 may leave
7 Land unit total -> 4 may leave
8 Land unit total -> 5 may leave

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I think that Extraneous and paulderynck should get married - because they bicker like an old married couple. [;)]

We'd never agree on what the vows mean.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

It should have been written as: "Rumania becomes aligned with Germany as a full Axis ally during the next Axis declaration of war step. It need no longer keep any of its units inside Rumania - they can all leave." In essence "they can all leave" does the trick. Like all exceptions in rules, the exception is just that - it does not alter the general rule. And the general rule is as stated in my and Orm's posts.

It is not on the AUSTRALIAN DESIGN GROUP WiF FE Rule Clarification Summary.

So prove it.

While this rule is a little strange, it is actually quite clear. The example states explicitly that if 3 of the 5 Rumanian units are presently in Rumania, then one of those three units can leave.

Restrictions on use
Minor country units can move and fight outside their home country. However, you can only move a minor country land or aircraft unit from inside the home country to outside the home country, if half or more of its on- map land and aircraft units are currently inside its home country (exception: Rumania becomes a full Axis ally ~ see 19.6.2).

Example: Rumania has 4 land units and 1 aircraft unit on the map. You can move a unit out of Rumania if at least 3 of those units (remember, halves round up) are presently in Rumania. They could be 3 land units or 2 land units and an aircraft unit. Its naval units are not restricted.

[Centuur]

I'm back from a weeks visit in Germany, and I conclude that there are still all kinds of rules discussions going on, which are already covered in the rules.

The movement of land and air units of minors to places outside their home country is really very simple:

If there is currently 50% or more of the on map units inside the home country, units may leave that country.

So:
1 minor unit on the map: it may leave
2 minor units on the map: both may leave (before the second one leave the country, there are 50% or more of that minor unit in it's home country).
3 minor units on the map: 2 can leave
4 means 3 can leave and so on and on...

This is the rule as is stated in the text (which has been quoted a lot already). There cannot be another way to read this rule.

[brian brian]

Extraneous will very much enjoy playing World in Flames. The game is especially fun when you discover that a rule was played incorrectly, but it is now too late in the play of that game to fix things. Your Alternative History of WWII is now set in stone. Next time, things will be different, but one might as well keep playing to see what happens. Sometimes the Played-It-Wrong is too great to continue the game, but that is a minority of occurrences.

Let's return to strategy and it's repercussion in the Balkans. Perhaps Greeks would disagree that they are part of the Balkans. Leaving that aside, the participation of Bulgaria and Rumania in an attack on Greece is a distraction, one that players of the game can easily get hung up on. Just because the political (or other) rules of the game allow something to happen, does not make that happening a good thing. In this case, the co-operation rules greatly detract from what the political rules _might_ give the Axis if we posit an unlikely series of events from German/Russian political decision-making.

So again let's return to strategy. Orm's suggested defense of Greece is a good one, but I think I would do it a little differently against a Nov/Dec 39 DOW. The key is southern Greece. In the long run, the Axis need hexes adjacent to Athens to get a good attack. Approaching solely from the north lets the Allies maximize their defense of those approaches. So good Axis strategy is to attack from multiple axes (ha) - southern Greece. Putting the MTN corps in southern Greece protects the two ports from automatic surprise impulse landings, but allows one east of Kalamai. Once the Italians are ashore there, the Greeks will have a more difficult time keeping the Italians out of the hexes adjacent to Athens.

If a Greek corps is set up a hex to the north-east, at the head of the Gulf of Corinth, Kalamai port is surrendered to a possible landing, but the Greeks can march to ZOC block Italian divisions from marching to the all-important hex adjacent to Athens. The Italians best move would be to land their mountain division in southern Greece, but that would mean they have given up the mobility of the MTN corps on the approach from Albania, via breaking down the MTN corps at-start.

I would also set up the Greek MTN corps in Athens (& thus the INF at Corinth), to cover the beaches on the surprise impulse, and then to advance to the resource hex on the first Greek impulse, which the INF corps can not do as well from Athens. I think that defence gives the Greeks the best chance of using their units to block the Italians from the Athens' approaches, until the turn ends, the Athens MIL appears, and hopefully some Allied reinforcements, and solid defense of all 3 mountain hexes adjacent to Athens. On average, Nov/Dec should be a short turn, possibly with the Axis burning their first impulse to position forces.

All that is actually operational / tactical I think.

Edited to correct a port name....

[paulderynck]

IMO good Axis strategy is not to DoW Greece in ND39.

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

IMO good Axis strategy is not to DoW Greece in ND39.

I agree on this. The Italians are better used in trying to grab Tunesia, Algeria and Morocco before the fall of France. That's a better strategy than getting involved in a Balkan war...

[brian brian]

yes, terrible strategy. trying it in a real game would reveal that quickly.

[Extraneous]

Thanks Orm.

COM = Current on map minor country air and land units.
MCL = minor country air and land units that can leave or perform air missions outside the minor country.
MCR = minor country air and land units that cannot leave or perform air missions outside the minor country.


First of all minor country naval units are exempt from this rule.

So the formula for the number of minor country unit that can leave or perform air missions outside the minor country is:

The number of minor country air and land units that can leave or perform air missions outside the minor country is equal to half the current number of on map minor country units rounded up.

The current on map minor country air and land units / 2 = the number of minor country air and land units that can leave or perform air missions outside the minor country (rounded up).

COM / 2 = MCL (rounded up).

And the formula for finding the number of minor country units that cannot leave or perform air missions outside the minor country is:

The number of minor country air and land units that cannot leave or perform air missions outside the minor country is equal to the current number of on map minor country units minus the number of minor country unit that can leave or perform air missions outside the minor country.

The current number of on map minor country air and land units - the number of minor country unit that can leave or perform air missions outside the minor country = the number of minor country air and land units that cannot leave or perform air missions outside the minor country.

COM - MCL = MCR.


Since we are dealing with a hypothetical situation established by Orm with his set up.

With the Bulgarians able to take Solonica I couldn't land Italian units there because the Italians and Bulgarians do not co-operate.

The Alpini MTN (5-4) would still move east 2 hexes and establish the rail supply line through Bulgaria.

There would be no need for an invasion with the Italians at sea and they would shift one box down to the 3-sea box and remain at sea.

Orm it's your turn.

brian brian let me help you brush up on your geography.
World Atlas ~ Map of Balkan Peninsula
The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed. | 2012 | ~ Balkan Peninsula
Encyclopedia Britannica ~ Balkan Peninsula

As for the Italian units in North Africa that depends on what and where the French units are and what they do.

I didn't say the DoW of Greece in 1939 was a good strategy but it is a possibility and I'm sure we haven't checked out all the repercussions yet.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

There would be no need for an invasion with the Italians at sea and they would shift one box down to the 3-sea box and remain at sea.

No they wouldn't. Naval units with cargo must RTB at the end of the turn.

[Centuur]

But Extranous: look at the puny Italian forces. They aren't capable of grabbing Greece in the ND 1939 turn, except when you are very, very lucky. Repercussions are very, very grave for the Axis, if they aren't lucky. I've played once in an allied team against an Italian/Japanese player who wanted to see if the Italians could grab Greece in MA 1940, with the CW in France in force to bolster it's defenses. The German player was really mad that his ally did this (as Hitler was also, historically), because it did really harm the conquest of France. The reaction of my CW ally was (with my full agreement as French/USSR player in that game) to withdraw two corps from France and transfer those, together with another one into Greece in that same turn.
Since next turn, the CW was going to be able to get a fourth corps into Greece (thus giving them the possible alignment of Yugoslavia) the German player was really mad about this and had to withdraw forces from France to be able to DoW Yugoslavia, since he wasn't able to get units into Greece (Rumania not being aligned...).

I was very happy of this lack of cooperation between the Axis and was able to keep France from getting Vichyfied until MA 1941 in that game...

[Extraneous]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

There would be no need for an invasion with the Italians at sea and they would shift one box down to the 3-sea box and remain at sea.

No they wouldn't. Naval units with cargo must RTB at the end of the turn.

End of impulse is not end of turn. This is only the first Axis impulse not the end of the first turn.

Are you confused by "Orm it's your turn" meaning his turn to post a reply?

ORIGINAL: Centuur

But Extranous: look at the puny Italian forces. They aren't capable of grabbing Greece in the ND 1939 turn, except when you are very, very lucky. Repercussions are very, very grave for the Axis, if they aren't lucky. I've played once in an allied team against an Italian/Japanese player who wanted to see if the Italians could grab Greece in MA 1940, with the CW in France in force to bolster it's defenses. The German player was really mad that his ally did this (as Hitler was also, historically), because it did really harm the conquest of France. The reaction of my CW ally was (with my full agreement as French/USSR player in that game) to withdraw two corps from France and transfer those, together with another one into Greece in that same turn.

Since next turn, the CW was going to be able to get a fourth corps into Greece (thus giving them the possible alignment of Yugoslavia) the German player was really mad about this and had to withdraw forces from France to be able to DoW Yugoslavia, since he wasn't able to get units into Greece (Rumania not being aligned...).

I was very happy of this lack of cooperation between the Axis and was able to keep France from getting Vichyfied until MA 1941 in that game...

This is Nov/Dec 1939 not Mar/Apr 1940. The repercussions to CW production have yet to come into effect.

I thought you were an advocate of a strong Axis offence against the French.

It seams to me that the CW wanting to put troops in a backwater like Greece and a few less French corps in France would be to the Germans advantage.

Remember I have only advocated for one German MTN unit.

Will the CW send troops (and from where) will the French strip North Africa?

Its Orm's turn to reply.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

There would be no need for an invasion with the Italians at sea and they would shift one box down to the 3-sea box and remain at sea.

No they wouldn't. Naval units with cargo must RTB at the end of the turn.

End of impulse is not end of turn. This is only the first Axis impulse not the end of the first turn.

Are you confused by "Orm it's your turn" meaning his turn to post a reply?

Are you confused by what advantage would be gained by shifting down one box as you stated? You would need to waste another naval move to do that. The only reasonable time you stay at sea and shift down a box is at the end of the turn - which is what you obviously meant.

[Centuur]

What's the best defence for France? That is an alignment of Yugoslavia on the Allied side. Greece isn't a backwater because of this. Germany can't ignore an Italian war in Greece if the CW can get 4 corps into it, especially since the Italians are not capable of conquering the Greeks in one turn if the turn is short (and it is going to be short in ND 1939), even with the German MTN at their side...
I'll gladly leave France alone as the Western allies to get those corps into Greece. An alignment of Yugoslavia is a problem for the Germans, because of the long borders that country has on Axis controlled area's. German controlled forces can't defend all positions there and keep a large force against the French at the same time.
If Germany ignores the Italian/Greek war and goes all out for France in N/D 1939, I'm not going to be to worried. That turn is short and the French should hold long enough for the CW to align the Yugoslavians and start moving Yugoslavian units into all kind of places the Axis don't want those units to appear. How nice it is to destroy oil fields in Austria, or factories in Munich. In M/A 1940 those CW corps will leave Greece and return to France...
I would suggest you look at the map and imagine what the two Yugoslavian corps with can leave that country can do as "kamikazes" against the Axis war effort...

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

What's the best defence for France? That is an alignment of Yugoslavia on the Allied side. Greece isn't a backwater because of this. Germany can't ignore an Italian war in Greece if the CW can get 4 corps into it, especially since the Italians are not capable of conquering the Greeks in one turn if the turn is short (and it is going to be short in ND 1939), even with the German MTN at their side...
I'll gladly leave France alone as the Western allies to get those corps into Greece. An alignment of Yugoslavia is a problem for the Germans, because of the long borders that country has on Axis controlled area's. German controlled forces can't defend all positions there and keep a large force against the French at the same time.
If Germany ignores the Italian/Greek war and goes all out for France in N/D 1939, I'm not going to be to worried. That turn is short and the French should hold long enough for the CW to align the Yugoslavians and start moving Yugoslavian units into all kind of places the Axis don't want those units to appear. How nice it is to destroy oil fields in Austria, or factories in Munich. In M/A 1940 those CW corps will leave Greece and return to France...
I would suggest you look at the map and imagine what the two Yugoslavian corps with can leave that country can do as "kamikazes" against the Axis war effort...

Aren't you assuming that Hungary is in the war? Otherwise it wouldn't take much to defend the German and Italian border with Yugoslavia.