New to the game - Basic Questions

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Finally: I suggest that you do some reading in the rule books regarding the possibility to align minor countries to both sides. It's not that much, but it is quite important to know...

Roger That. [;)]

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Of course, Mr. Orm is right. However, I can understand that you don't want to play with CVP's, since they make things more difficult. Pilots, however, is an optional rule which is quite good to use. It gives you the opportunity to decide after you build a plane to actually use it (and there are a lot of crappy planes being build which you might not want to use). Pilots saves you build points in those cases.

So I suggest that you leave the CVP's out but include the pilots.

Also: use HQ support. It is a really easy rule to have but it adds to the HQ's usefullness.

Now, if you use Amphibious rules, I suggest that you also use SCS transport, since it becomes really tough to make invasions.

Now, on the rules regarding planes: why not include Fighter-Bomber, Twin engined FTR, Large ATR, Bomber and no paradrop ATR and Tank Busters? All these rules don't add much difficulty to the game, but makes things, let we say, more interesting and historical. Most of the things these rules do is generated automatically by the program and I believe you are ready for those too.

So here's the set that I leaning towards right now for a second try at the global war scenario. It includes all your suggested air rules and pilots. I'm also learning towards NOT including amphibious rules, SCS transports, cruisers in flames as well as carrier pilots. I really enjoyed how the naval portion of my first full global war played out so why change it? Unless, there's some balance issue addressed by one or more of these rules?

My last question is what about Chinese attack weakness? Right now I'm leaning towards including that one. My reason was that I found that after US entry the Chinese push against the Japanese in China was relentless. The Chinese were able to push the Japanese not only out of China but also out of French Indo-China, Manchuria and Korea. Maybe it was my poor play instead of a deficiency with the rules?

[paulderynck]

We arrived at the same conclusion after several RAW7 games. Without the Chinese Attack Weakness rule, it gets very difficult for Japan.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Of course, Mr. Orm is right. However, I can understand that you don't want to play with CVP's, since they make things more difficult. Pilots, however, is an optional rule which is quite good to use. It gives you the opportunity to decide after you build a plane to actually use it (and there are a lot of crappy planes being build which you might not want to use). Pilots saves you build points in those cases.

So I suggest that you leave the CVP's out but include the pilots.

Also: use HQ support. It is a really easy rule to have but it adds to the HQ's usefullness.

Now, if you use Amphibious rules, I suggest that you also use SCS transport, since it becomes really tough to make invasions.

Now, on the rules regarding planes: why not include Fighter-Bomber, Twin engined FTR, Large ATR, Bomber and no paradrop ATR and Tank Busters? All these rules don't add much difficulty to the game, but makes things, let we say, more interesting and historical. Most of the things these rules do is generated automatically by the program and I believe you are ready for those too.

So here's the set that I leaning towards right now for a second try at the global war scenario. It includes all your suggested air rules and pilots. I'm also learning towards NOT including amphibious rules, SCS transports, cruisers in flames as well as carrier pilots. I really enjoyed how the naval portion of my first full global war played out so why change it? Unless, there's some balance issue addressed by one or more of these rules?

My last question is what about Chinese attack weakness? Right now I'm leaning towards including that one. My reason was that I found that after US entry the Chinese push against the Japanese in China was relentless. The Chinese were able to push the Japanese not only out of China but also out of French Indo-China, Manchuria and Korea. Maybe it was my poor play instead of a deficiency with the rules?

I would include Combat Engineers, Bottomed Ships and Internment to your list. I think that they all add flavour to the game without adding much complexity.

Mastering on how to best use the combat engineers might take a while but it is easy enough to learn the concept.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: Orm

I would include Combat Engineers, Bottomed Ships and Internment to your list. I think that they all add flavour to the game without adding much complexity.

Mastering on how to best use the combat engineers might take a while but it is easy enough to learn the concept.

Done. [:)]

Now I think I'm ready for a second go at the Global War scenario. No AAR this time, so the game should play a lot faster. Though, I still have seven turns left to post in my current AAR. [;)]

[rkr1958]

From page 109 of the Rules as Coded.

13.7.1. CONQUEST

TERRITORIES
To conquer (Clarification: or liberate) a territory, you must control every city and port in that territory. If it has no ports or cities, you need to control every hex instead. You can also conquer a territory if you control every port and coastal city in every sea area the territory has a coastal hex in.

My question is isn't the condition in the last sentence, "You can also conquer a territory if you control every port and coastal city in every sea area the territory has a coastal hex in." a subset of the condition in the first sentence, "To conquer (Clarification: or liberate) a territory, you must control every city and port in that territory."? Or is the RAC saying that to conquer a territory all you need to do is to control all of its coastal cities and ports (assuming it has them). But to liberate the territory you need to do that plus control all inland cities?

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

From page 109 of the Rules as Coded.

13.7.1. CONQUEST

TERRITORIES
To conquer (Clarification: or liberate) a territory, you must control every city and port in that territory. If it has no ports or cities, you need to control every hex instead. You can also conquer a territory if you control every port and coastal city in every sea area the territory has a coastal hex in.

My question is isn't the condition in the last sentence, "You can also conquer a territory if you control every port and coastal city in every sea area the territory has a coastal hex in." a subset of the condition in the first sentence, "To conquer (Clarification: or liberate) a territory, you must control every city and port in that territory."? Or is the RAC saying that to conquer a territory all you need to do is to control all of its coastal cities and ports (assuming it has them). But to liberate the territory you need to do that plus control all inland cities?

There is no difference in how to liberate or conquer territories. The last part is just a way to conquer/liberate all small islands in a sea area without having to enter every hex of them with a land unit. If you get all the coastal cities and ports in a sea area then you get the small islands as well.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

From page 109 of the Rules as Coded.

13.7.1. CONQUEST

TERRITORIES
To conquer (Clarification: or liberate) a territory, you must control every city and port in that territory. If it has no ports or cities, you need to control every hex instead. You can also conquer a territory if you control every port and coastal city in every sea area the territory has a coastal hex in.

My question is isn't the condition in the last sentence, "You can also conquer a territory if you control every port and coastal city in every sea area the territory has a coastal hex in." a subset of the condition in the first sentence, "To conquer (Clarification: or liberate) a territory, you must control every city and port in that territory."? Or is the RAC saying that to conquer a territory all you need to do is to control all of its coastal cities and ports (assuming it has them). But to liberate the territory you need to do that plus control all inland cities?

There is no difference in how to liberate or conquer territories. The last part is just a way to conquer/liberate all small islands in a sea area without having to enter every hex of them with a land unit. If you get all the coastal cities and ports in a sea area then you get the small islands as well.

Thanks. My confusion is that the first and third sentence seems to contradict. Do I completely conquer a territory if I conquer all it's ports and coastal cities? Or do I need to conquer all it's cities?

[paulderynck]

You need to conquer all its cities, but you make a good point as to the wording. The last sentence was added for the purpose Orm mentioned.

On the WiF map I don't think there are any territories that contain an inland city as well as several islands. In other words, on the WiF map the two conditions are synonymous. I'd have to check the MWiF map to see if the same applies.

[rkr1958]

The situation is the first impulse of the game and the German invasion of Poland. The Polish setup had its one CP in Gdynia and its heavy cruiser in Dazing. In previous games, as the Germans I didn't put a nav out into the Baltic and any Polish naval unit that wasn't destroyed or captured could rebase to England. However, in this game I got a message that there was no port for them to rebase to and would be destroyed. My question is is this correct? Does the nav air prevent the Polish navy from leaving the Baltic?

[Courtenay]

No. What should happen is that the when moving the Polish naval units, you should be able to cntl-left click on the Baltic Sea. The Germans should be able to intercept. If any Polish naval unit survives, it should be able to rebase to Britain.

The program will not let you sail straight to England -- you must cntl-left click in the Baltic first. This has worked in the past in other, similar situations. I do not know if if has worked in this situation, as I have not tried it.

[Ur_Vile_WEdge]

I have a few rules questions, actually more with AiF, but they're all based on WiF rules.

1)Does Limited Overseas Supply supplement the general supply rule, or replace it? If I have a convoy point and nothing else in a sea zone, and my opponent sends an SCS into the seazone, can I trace supply even if he doesn't find the convoy? Especially concerning is the question as to whether or not I can scramble planes to help defend it, which I might not be able to if they're out of supply.


2) A-bombs. The A-Bomb "replaces" the naval value for a port attack, or the strat value for a strategic bombing attempt with its own value of 25. If I fly a bomber at extended range and/or at night, do I get halved or quartered? Or is it "The bomber is halved, but the a-bomb isn't?"

3) Bounce Combat. A DC result in the bounce combat itself doesn't cause further bounces, does it? That's the way the example plays, but not a strict reading of the rule itself.

[Courtenay]

1) LOS replaces the supply rule, so if you have a CP in the area, you have supply, even if the other side has planes with an air-to-sea factor, an SCS or a CV with planes in the sea area, and you don't.

SiF option 11: an escorting combat unit is not necessary; only a convoy, TRS, or AMPH is needed.

2) A-bombs are affected by terrain, weather, and night. The rules do not say whether they are affected by extended range. My guess is that they are not affected by extended range, but that is a guess.

A-bomb factors are modified for terrain, weather or night missions like all other bombers.

3) Yes, a literal reading of the rule would imply that bounce combat could chain, but since the example makes clear that it does not, it does not.

[Dabrion]

@bounce combat: "These two aircraft fight one round of air-to-air combat." (RAW7 Option 22 §2) "After the bounce combat, you resume the air-to-air sequence of play." (RAW7 Option 22 §3).

No, a literal reading of the rule would not imply that bounce combat could chain, if we can agree upon the meaning of "one".

[Ur_Vile_WEdge]

The problem is that it also says

When the result of any air-to-air combat is a "DC", the defender may choose to implement it normally (see 14.3.3) or may instead convert the result into a "bounce" combat.

The bounce combat can result in a DC, which is the result of "Any" air to air combat.


And even going solely by your line, you can have the DC generated in the bounce combat to make a second bounce, which could be against a totally different target, which therefore has no impact on the one round they're committed to each other.

[Dabrion]

Well you disagree on the notion of "one", did I see that coming ?

p.s: I think it is customary (lex specialis, although not sure if it is mentioned in the rules) to assume that options and/or more deeply nested rules are superseding/overruling those written before, esp. if conflicting.

[Ur_Vile_WEdge]

But there's nothing in

These two aircraft fight one round of air-to-air combat.

that precludes a possible DC being applied in such a way to permit a further bounce. After all

The results of the bounce combat are applied as per the Air Combat table, but can only affect the two planes involved.

, (which, incidentally is further down than they fight one round, so should take greater priority, yes?) could be read to mean that you apply the DC as normal, which creates the possibility of a second bounce, and then you'd have to fight that round out (only between those two planes, because it can only affect the ones involved), and you keep the recursion going until you run out of DCs.


I didn't think that's what it meant, as it adds a lot of bookkeeping and is generally a pain, as well as subverting what I think is supposed to be the idea, namely to let someone other than just the front fighters slug it out, but you could very well make the case as to being that's what it says, if not for the example.

[Dabrion]

The results of the bounce combat are still just that, the results of a combat that lasts for one round of air-to-air combat between the chosen aircrafts. The passage you are quoting lays out what happens to the aircrafts involved should they survive the bounce (which also weakly implies the combat is over).

Perhaps, if you agree with your opponent you could of course spend the rest of the war playing out bounce combats

"Good. Out of the door. Line on the left. One cross each. Next."

[composer99]

The rules have to be read with attention to context, including the examples of play.

Given the example of play of a bounce combat precludes a second bounce combat (the DC result that player Boris rolls is said to have "no effect", even though in a regular air combat it could trigger a bounce combat), we can safely say that recursive bouncing is off the table.

[rkr1958]

Here's the situation, Germany allowed both the USSR's claim on Bessarabia and Hungary's and Blugaria's demands on Rumania. My question is on the condition(s) for Germany to align Rumania. Is the "or" that I've underlined and bolded in the statement below from the "Rules as Codes" a true logical "OR"? That is, if any one of the three conditions, such as Germany declaring war on the USSR, is met then Rumania aligns with Germany?

If Germany allows their claims:

Germany can declare Rumania aligned with Germany during any Axis declaration of war step if Germany has declared war on the USSR (not if the USSR has declared war on Germany), is at war with Yugoslavia, or controls Belgrade.