4 player E-mail: AAR

[Mayhemizer_slith]

ORIGINAL: Orm

Note that the Italian submarines are included as in the previous rounds.

Didn't remember submarines, I was not following that well yesterday.

If possible, can you go back and use 4 points to submarine combat?

[Orm]

I am already at the spend surprise points for air to air combat form. I can go back but then I have to restart from the latest autosave. That works for me but then it will not be this evening. It is up to you how to proceed.

[AllenK]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

And how long did it take you to get the results you wanted. I sometimes spend more than half a day and still are not able to get things right. And that's not a fun thing at all.

No: convoy routing should give you an optimized automatic result which is correct according to the rules. If MWIF can't get that right, that part of the program is not behaving as it should.

I hate the "compute" button. And I mean I hate that button, because I have to press it and see that MWIF again makes a mess of things during the calculation that it is making...

I agree, MWiF should give you an optimized automatic result according to the rules in force at the time. It gives you optimized routes but not necessarily according to the rules. Unfortunately, the deviations aren't obvious and take time to discover. Trying to get a computer to do something it isn't programmed to do will always end up in frustration.

[Dabrion]

In a board game you would determine two quantities per industry isle: 1) amount of factories, 2) amount resources that reach. Take the min of both and there you have your production points. Depending on the multiplier and preference you might want to save some of the oil. End of story.
Routing the iron resource from Tashkent to the blue Leningrad factory is a nice fluff information. It adds nothing to the game though. Well.. except problems..


When your convoys get sunk, the thinnest part of the pipe determines how much you can ship from a to b, dictating an upper limit for 2).


To be honest, the "CP used" metric is a bit of a red herring. That information is good in it self, but in times of war you want to have reliable shipping that you can guard. Your priority should be to route far away from the sub staging bases and where this is unrealistic, with optimal projection for retaliation. E.g. you don't route through Biscay after GE has access to Brest, although that is still the optimal route in terms of "CP used" (if you do it will soon become the optimal route for "CP lost" as well..). Same goes for the Med, China Sea for Japan etc.

[Mayhemizer_slith]

I think he wanted to go with submarines and that's why they are included. So, if possible, we would like to choose submarine combat.

[Orm]

Right then. With no answer on how to proceed I am making a decision myself. [:)]

I will now cancel the MWIF activity for this evening. Action will proceed tomorrow with either naval, submarine, or air combat depending on what you decide.

[AllenK]

Orm, thanks for your patience and tolerance.

Go with 4 points to select sub combat. 4 points should boost Allied damage to X, 2D, 2A. 3 points to select first target. Leaves 2 points to reduce losses to the subs. X goes on the Trans loaded with the Fighter.

Thanks

[ashkpa]

The process that took time was determining what MWiF was actually doing, rather than what it was supposed to be doing.

It would be nice to have that documented somewhere, so the rest of us don't have to discover it as well. Could it be written down?

[AllenK]

ORIGINAL: ashkpa

The process that took time was determining what MWiF was actually doing, rather than what it was supposed to be doing.

It would be nice to have that documented somewhere, so the rest of us don't have to discover it as well. Could it be written down?

Well, as far as I could tell, MWiF was allowing US CP's to be part of the convoy chains transporting CW and French resources to the CW factories but wasn't allowing them to transport lend-lease US BP's to France. I'm not sure about lend-lease resources as I didn't particularly test that aspect.

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: AllenK

ORIGINAL: ashkpa

The process that took time was determining what MWiF was actually doing, rather than what it was supposed to be doing.

It would be nice to have that documented somewhere, so the rest of us don't have to discover it as well. Could it be written down?

Well, as far as I could tell, MWiF was allowing US CP's to be part of the convoy chains transporting CW and French resources to the CW factories but wasn't allowing them to transport lend-lease US BP's to France. I'm not sure about lend-lease resources as I didn't particularly test that aspect.

That is a bug. This is the tekst of the option:

32. US refutes Naval War zones - The USA may use its own convoy points to ship any resources and/or builds points that the USA is lend-leasing to any allied major power. These convoy points may be attacked by Axis units even if they are not at war with the USA.

The rule here is clear. US convoys may only transport US lend leased build points and/or resources. The US isn't allowed to transport French or CW resources (or build points).
I think you need to put this one with a gamesave in the tech support part of the forums...

Also: look into this ruling in the FAQ on this option:

Q:
Once the US refutes Naval War zones, I know they can only ship their own stuff, but can they be part of a convoy chain? The rule on chains says a Neutral Major cannot be part of a chain unless the rules specifically allow it. Then it cites the nonexistent rule 5.1.1 (we assume 5.1 - Trade Agreements - is meant of course) and rule
13.3.2 Option 9. No mention of 13.3.2 Option 32. So this could mean that for several turns, a chain of CW and Russian CP are taking US lends to Russia, but once the US refutes Naval War zones and wants to use US CPs to ship them, then
no longer can the CW and Russian CP participate in shipping any of the US lends that traversed any distance on US CPs! It also could mean that aside from Trade Agreements, the only chain the US can participate in while neutral, must be
resources to China?

A:
No (13.6.1 specifies which 2 circumstances neutral major powers may share convoy chains). Date 23/12/2007

13.3.2 Option 32: US refutes Naval War zones - The USA may use its own convoy points to ship any resources and/or builds points that the USA is lendleasing to any allied major power.
13.6.1: Neutral major powers can only contribute to convoy chains with other major powers if the rules specifically allow it (see 5.1.1 and 13.3.2, option 9). Neutral major powers’ convoys can not transport resources or build points to other major powers unless the rules specifically allow it (see 5.1.1 Japan-USA, 13.3.2, options 9, 15, 17, 19, 27 and 30).

This means that if the US wants to send BP's to France with this option, the whole convoy chain should be made up of US convoy points. If that isn't the case, the build points has to delivered by a convoy chain consisting only of CW and French convoys.

[AllenK]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

ORIGINAL: AllenK

ORIGINAL: ashkpa


It would be nice to have that documented somewhere, so the rest of us don't have to discover it as well. Could it be written down?

Well, as far as I could tell, MWiF was allowing US CP's to be part of the convoy chains transporting CW and French resources to the CW factories but wasn't allowing them to transport lend-lease US BP's to France. I'm not sure about lend-lease resources as I didn't particularly test that aspect.

That is a bug. This is the tekst of the option:

32. US refutes Naval War zones - The USA may use its own convoy points to ship any resources and/or builds points that the USA is lend-leasing to any allied major power. These convoy points may be attacked by Axis units even if they are not at war with the USA.

The rule here is clear. US convoys may only transport US lend leased build points and/or resources. The US isn't allowed to transport French or CW resources (or build points).
I think you need to put this one with a gamesave in the tech support part of the forums...

Also: look into this ruling in the FAQ on this option:

Q:
Once the US refutes Naval War zones, I know they can only ship their own stuff, but can they be part of a convoy chain? The rule on chains says a Neutral Major cannot be part of a chain unless the rules specifically allow it. Then it cites the nonexistent rule 5.1.1 (we assume 5.1 - Trade Agreements - is meant of course) and rule
13.3.2 Option 9. No mention of 13.3.2 Option 32. So this could mean that for several turns, a chain of CW and Russian CP are taking US lends to Russia, but once the US refutes Naval War zones and wants to use US CPs to ship them, then
no longer can the CW and Russian CP participate in shipping any of the US lends that traversed any distance on US CPs! It also could mean that aside from Trade Agreements, the only chain the US can participate in while neutral, must be
resources to China?

A:
No (13.6.1 specifies which 2 circumstances neutral major powers may share convoy chains). Date 23/12/2007

13.3.2 Option 32: US refutes Naval War zones - The USA may use its own convoy points to ship any resources and/or builds points that the USA is lendleasing to any allied major power.
13.6.1: Neutral major powers can only contribute to convoy chains with other major powers if the rules specifically allow it (see 5.1.1 and 13.3.2, option 9). Neutral major powers’ convoys can not transport resources or build points to other major powers unless the rules specifically allow it (see 5.1.1 Japan-USA, 13.3.2, options 9, 15, 17, 19, 27 and 30).

This means that if the US wants to send BP's to France with this option, the whole convoy chain should be made up of US convoy points. If that isn't the case, the build points has to delivered by a convoy chain consisting only of CW and French convoys.

Centuur, thanks for the clarification. It nicely answers the question I raised a few posts back about how these various rules interact.

I posted the game save on tech support but I think it may be okay after all. The simple reason it appeared US CP's were not working to send the 3 French BP's was there weren't 3 US CP's in each of the 4 sea zones between US and Libreville. Gulf of Guinea only had CW/French. It was by swapping the US CP's for CW ones that the chain worked.

Regarding US CP's in combined chains shipping CW/French resources, without further examination, I think it may be that with the swapping around of US and CW CP's, Orm and myself were able to set things up so that there were enough in each zone to ship everything correctly but the zones all appeared very mixed.

[Orm]

How will Italy allocate the results on their submarines?


Picture from Mar/Apr '41 Impulse #6 (Allied) - Naval Combat

[AllenK]

D on the 3 factor sub. 1st A if damaged. If aborted then 1 A to each of the remaining subs, thanks,

[Orm]

One submarine damaged and aborted, another aborted.


Picture from Mar/Apr '41 Impulse #6 (Allied) - Naval Combat

[Orm]

One transporter damaged and two convoy points sunk.


Picture from Mar/Apr '41 Impulse #6 (Allied) - Naval Combat

[Orm]

Allies stay in the sea area. I assume that Axis will stay as well. The question now is whether Italy will continue to include their submarine force, or not?

[AllenK]

Stay but no sub, thanks.

[Orm]

Axis rolls ten and Allies two. But with no submarines included and severe losses among the carrier aircraft the RN select the safe course and avoid combat.


Picture from Mar/Apr '41 Impulse #6 (Allied) - Naval Combat

[Orm]

Will Italy abort their submarine to La Spezia?

[AllenK]

Yes thanks.

I'm going to be offline for a couple of hours now. Mayhemizer can take the reins if necessary.