Cosmetic. Show Unused Convoys

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

But that is what I find so perplexing about this rule. It would need no exceptions - it would be the same for all major powers. All naval units are treated as though they were units of the major power. Give me one instance where the Germans, British, Japanese et al did not put captured/aligned ships to use in their navy. The only barrier to their use was for reasons such as lack of spare parts (e.g. Littorio's) lack of repair resources/fuel (French fleet and the Italians/Germans) the ships were too obsolete to be of any practical use (some of the Norwegian/Danish/Yugoslav ships to name but three). Even here though, where appropriate the Germans put them in service as AA ships etc.

Because you are fixating on naval units when the main rule here is Cooperation between Majors and Minors and affects how all units (land, air and naval) must abide. So making naval units any more different is where the exception would lie. I say "any more" because the rules already treat naval units different on Conquest.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: warspite1

But that is what I find so perplexing about this rule. It would need no exceptions - it would be the same for all major powers. All naval units are treated as though they were units of the major power. Give me one instance where the Germans, British, Japanese et al did not put captured/aligned ships to use in their navy. The only barrier to their use was for reasons such as lack of spare parts (e.g. Littorio's) lack of repair resources/fuel (French fleet and the Italians/Germans) the ships were too obsolete to be of any practical use (some of the Norwegian/Danish/Yugoslav ships to name but three). Even here though, where appropriate the Germans put them in service as AA ships etc.

Because you are fixating on naval units when the main rule here is Cooperation between Majors and Minors and affects how all units (land, air and naval) must abide. So making naval units any more different is where the exception would lie. I say "any more" because the rules already treat naval units different on Conquest.

warspite1

Fixating? No I would not use that word. It is simply that the naval situation WAS different to land and air units. I could understand complicating rules to make something historically accurate. But to create complicated rules to make something historically inaccurate seems strange. As the CW I expect my TRS to go anywhere the CW wants it to go. It can go to a CW Home country but it cannot go to Egypt (where I have a major naval base for the Mediterranean Fleet) and it cannot go to Trincomalee (where I have a major naval base for the Eastern Fleet).

These rules are not going to be changed, but venting frustration is allowed.

[paulderynck]

OK "focusing" instead. [;)]

"I could understand complicating rules to make something historically accurate. But to create complicated rules to make something historically inaccurate seems strange." My point is it would take more rules to be added to fix the issue, the existing Cooperation rules were not put there in the first place to do as you say, they were put there to cover interactions between majors and minors. A by-product of the main rule is causing you angst, and it would take further rule-making to solve your issue, not rule removals.

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

OK "focusing" instead. [;)]

"I could understand complicating rules to make something historically accurate. But to create complicated rules to make something historically inaccurate seems strange." My point is it would take more rules to be added to fix the issue, the existing Cooperation rules were not put there in the first place to do as you say, they were put there to cover interactions between majors and minors. A by-product of the main rule is causing you angst, and it would take further rule-making to solve your issue, not rule removals.

I partially agree. However: should World in Flames not be based on what did historically happen during WW II? Than comes the next question: is it so strange to make the following changes in RAW on cooperation?:

Units that don’t co-operate cannot:
1. stack in the same hex, at any time that stacking limits apply, unless they are minor country naval units, controlled by the same major power.

and:

A minor country unit that ends any step in the home country of an
aligned minor country on the same side is destroyed unless:
• it started the step there; or
• it started the step elsewhere and the unit satisfies the foreign
troop commitment limit; or
- it is a naval unit.

That would make this rule far more right, historically speaking...

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Centuur
I partially agree. However: should World in Flames not be based on what did historically happen during WW II? Than comes the next question: is it so strange to make the following changes in RAW on cooperation?:

Units that don’t co-operate cannot:
1. stack in the same hex, at any time that stacking limits apply, unless they are minor country naval units, controlled by the same major power.

and:

A minor country unit that ends any step in the home country of an
aligned minor country on the same side is destroyed unless:
• it started the step there; or
• it started the step elsewhere and the unit satisfies the foreign
troop commitment limit; or
- it is a naval unit.

That would make this rule far more right, historically speaking...

I've sent your suggestion to the RAW8 rules process.

But in reviewing it to make it bullet-proof, I changed the first part to: "Units that don’t co-operate cannot:
1. stack in the same hex, at any time that stacking limits apply, unless they are minor country naval units, controlled by the same major power and no other major power's controlled naval units are present."

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Centuur
I partially agree. However: should World in Flames not be based on what did historically happen during WW II? Than comes the next question: is it so strange to make the following changes in RAW on cooperation?:

Units that don’t co-operate cannot:
1. stack in the same hex, at any time that stacking limits apply, unless they are minor country naval units, controlled by the same major power.

and:

A minor country unit that ends any step in the home country of an
aligned minor country on the same side is destroyed unless:
• it started the step there; or
• it started the step elsewhere and the unit satisfies the foreign
troop commitment limit; or
- it is a naval unit.

That would make this rule far more right, historically speaking...

I've sent your suggestion to the RAW8 rules process.

I think it needs one more rule change in regards of the naval unit entering another minor country.

[paulderynck]

Isn't that handled by the second part already?

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Isn't that handled by the second part already?

I thought that 19.3 needed changing as well but I see when I look at it I see that it references back to 18.2.



19.3 Who can enter the minor
Your units can enter hexes controlled by a minor country if:
• you are at war with it or with the major power that controls it; or
• it is conquered by you or another active major power on your side; or
• it is aligned with any active major power on your side and the unit entering is controlled by an active major
power (subject to the foreign troop commitment rules ~ see 18.2); or
• it is aligned with a neutral major power on your side and the unit entering is one of that major power’s unit.

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Centuur
I partially agree. However: should World in Flames not be based on what did historically happen during WW II? Than comes the next question: is it so strange to make the following changes in RAW on cooperation?:

Units that don’t co-operate cannot:
1. stack in the same hex, at any time that stacking limits apply, unless they are minor country naval units, controlled by the same major power.

and:

A minor country unit that ends any step in the home country of an
aligned minor country on the same side is destroyed unless:
• it started the step there; or
• it started the step elsewhere and the unit satisfies the foreign
troop commitment limit; or
- it is a naval unit.

That would make this rule far more right, historically speaking...

I've sent your suggestion to the RAW8 rules process.

But in reviewing it to make it bullet-proof, I changed the first part to: "Units that don’t co-operate cannot:
1. stack in the same hex, at any time that stacking limits apply, unless they are minor country naval units, controlled by the same major power and no other major power's controlled naval units are present."

Well, not exactly what I had in mind, since I believe the Dutch, the CW and the US did base in the same port (Surabaya comes in mind). But I leave that on to the rules committee.