New to the game - Basic Questions

[paulderynck]

Also the RAC is derived from several sources: 2004 RAW7, 2008 Errata, and 2009 FAQ. I think these all can be downloaded from the ADG site.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

ORIGINAL: Azorn01

Regarding breaking down corps. If Russia breaks down the 4-3 4th Russian infantry army into 2 division. Does the 4th russian infantry return to the pool of units I can build with during the production phase? Leaving the 2 new division on the map? Basically, is this a way to infinitely increase the number of units a country can create? Build unit, break down then build again?

thanks

No. The 4-3 goes into a separate pool (the "breakdown pool") and remains there until you either recombine the two divisions into a corps or until both divisions are destroyed, at which point the corps will return to your build pool. In the mean time, if one of the divisions is destroyed but not the other, it also goes into the breakdown pool until such time as both are there.

Although there is a bug that will occasionally trigger giving you unlimited divisions in your build pool when that happens. It used to be common but has been mostly killed - only occurs rarely these days.

When you are playing with divisions but without the unlimited breakdown rule, you can break down corps/armies if you have divisions in your forcepool. If you do so, than the corps is returned to the force pool and it can be rebuild.

But then of course you are also limited because there are not that many Divs in the standard force pools.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Azorn01

A clarification please on various rules.... I am a little confused and unclear on the various location and purposes of the rules.

there are the printed manuals that come with this computer game (I dont have those)

the rules as coded

the rules as written

the players manual vol. 1

the players manual vol. 2

I am only now starting to think about this as I have just been browsing them all looking for answers. Can someone put these maybe in order or provide some sort of explanation for them? Hope that makes sense?

Rules as Written are the 'official' rules for Australian Design Group (ADG) for the board game. Those rules have been evolving since 1985 and there are numerous versions, including special rules for each Add-on to the original game. The rules from ADG continue to be modified to this day, and there is no reason to expect that to change - ADG just keeps on changing the rules for the board game.

Rules as Coded are the rules used in MWIF. As Paul noted, they are an amalgamation of various rule sets into a single document. For the most part, they are the rules from ADG as of 2009. Rewriting code to keep up with ADG's rule changes grew tiresome after several years - so I made a cut-off date are (pretty much) stopped making changes for "new and improved" rule sets from ADG. I made a serious attempt to NOT change the text from Rules as Written - although that was painful for me to do - what with me majoring in English in college.

Because the 'Rules' are written in a legalistic style, leaving the player to infer the implications of each sentence/phrase/word, I wrote the Players Manual (with a lot of advice and input from other experienced players) to present the elements of the simulated world in a narrative style. The organization of the Players Manual has some intentional redundancy to make access to information easier to find.

The 3 printed books are RAC and the 2 volumes of the Players Manual, split into 3 books for ease of printing and use. While Rules as Written was 80 pages of double column, small font text, the 3 printed manuals came in at over 700 pages.

[IBender]

How do I get England to land a second HQ into Egypt? Everyone is at war with everyone but I cant seem to land the HQ. I know there are rules about foreign troops, but they dont seem to keep me from moving an HQ into the area?

thanks

[paulderynck]

Should not be a problem. Maybe you have exceeded action limits. It takes a land move to debark, and if you took a Combined and moved three units prior to the debark phase then you are stymied.

Same for air transport, invasions and paradrops.

[IBender]

Thanks you were correct.

Few more questions that are bugging me from my current game.

1. Am I right (generally speaking) that I can trace supply from homeland city to hq 4 spaces away and that I can leap from anther hq 4 more spaces out from that and then have units 4 from from that front hq? I ask because in Africa I noticed England hit a supply problem with units moving past 4 spaces from I think it was Alexandria. They were out of supply. I believe this would be resolved by having a HQ at 4 spaces from the city, then my units going from spaces even more from the hq? Hope that makes sense.

2. I notice that during the part of the game where it asks to remove airplanes from game and get a pilot back, that some planes never have that option. One that stands out is a german float plane that starts at beginning of game. Strength 2 I believe. It is never an option to remove. Why?

3. I notice that England is getting some strong strategic bombers early in the game...in 1941. However, as I start to build American bombers ...ie B-17 I notice that they seem to have a pretty weak strategic strength in comparison. This strikes me as odd, any thoughts regarding this?

Thank you

[paulderynck]

1. Generally yes. From the last HQ or secondary supply source you can go unlimited by rail to a home city as well. But desert hexes cost two each. So in desert you need an HQ every two hexes to extend the supply line, if all the hexes are desert.

2. They have to be in home country cities. You need to rebase it to Stettin or Kiel or Konigsberg or such like first.

3. Luck of the draw, there are some fairly poor CW bombers too, although the US ones are outstandingly poor early in the game and should be avoided until they can be scrapped.

[joshuamnave]

1> Egypt isn't a home country. This one threw me once too until I realized it. You still need to trace a supply line back to a home country city - in the case of Egypt this means through multiple sea zones. Often the easiest path is the back way, through the red sea and the arabian sea to India. How that supply path works depends on which rules you are playing with.

3) the US Strat bombers have much higher air to air ratings, which was their big advantage. They weren't called flying fortresses for nothing! But yes the early ones are quite weak, and they do get better.

[IBender]

This helped a great deal thank you

[brian brian]

Neutral Major Powers can scrap units that are four years old, including at Set-Up for Global War, when only Japan and China are Active Major Powers.

Active Major Powers can scrap units that are three years old.

[Courtenay]

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

3) the US Strat bombers have much higher air to air ratings, which was their big advantage. They weren't called flying fortresses for nothing! But yes the early ones are quite weak, and they do get better.

Note that high air-to-air ratings for bombers become much more important if using the optional rule for bounce combat, which is unfortunately not yet coded. Horrible things tend to happen to Stukas late war if using this rule.

[IBender]

I got in the mail today the final edition world in flames. I am using it to supplement the computer version. My question is "is this the best forum to post questions regarding this? or is there another that is strictly for the board game that I should post on? I dont have plans to play the board version at this time, but I can see I already have questions regarding what I see in the box.

Thanks

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Azorn01

I got in the mail today the final edition world in flames. I am using it to supplement the computer version. My question is "is this the best forum to post questions regarding this? or is there another that is strictly for the board game that I should post on? I dont have plans to play the board version at this time, but I can see I already have questions regarding what I see in the box.

Thanks

warspite1

Why not start a new thread in the main section below the stickies? I think it sensible to stay on this forum - after all there are many board game players (past and present) here [:)]

[rkr1958]

Situation. USA is neutral and France has been Vichey. Both the USA and Free France are trading (i.e., giving) 1 non-oil RP, each, to China. The Burma Road has been both closed by Japan and then re-opened by the USA. Option 32, US refutes naval war zones has NOT been selected.

Can the two routes sending RPs to China use a combination of US and CW CP's?

[paulderynck]

No they have to be one or the other while one of the parties is neutral.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

No they have to be one or the other while one of the parties is neutral.

Thanks. MWiF is mixing them for a USA RP from the Philippines to China. Should I post a saved game in the tech forum or is this a known bug?

Follow-up. For the USA RP can only USA CPs transport the RP while the USA is neutral? Or could a CP route of all CW CPs transport it?

[paulderynck]

There was a ruling from Harry (I think in the FAQ) that a lent resource may be declared to be the property of the lender or the recipient either before it leaves the lending country or when it arrives at the recipient country. If that interpretation is coded then one or the other - but only one or the other while USA is neutral - can transport it as long as both China and the CW are active.

(The CW could because the resource would be declared Chinese owned at the lending end.)

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

There was a ruling from Harry (I think in the FAQ) that a lent resource may be declared to be the property of the lender or the recipient either before it leaves the lending country or when it arrives at the recipient country. If that interpretation is coded then one or the other - but only one or the other while USA is neutral - can transport it as long as both China and the CW are active.

(The CW could because the resource would be declared Chinese owned at the lending end.)

So, if it's declared to be the property of the USA then only USA CPs can transport the RP to China? Alternately, if declared the property of China, then CW CPs can transport it? If that's correct, why can't US CPs, while the USA is still neutral, be used to transport traded USA RPs (e.g. oil) to Great Britain? These CPs would be immune to attacks by German or Italian subs.

[brian brian]

I've been wondering about resources received via Trade Agreement. Specifically, let's say the USA picks Entry Option 15, Resources to Western Allies, and the next turn loand an Oil point to France.

Could the USA simply deliver one of the Oil resources coming in from Venezuela to the French port of Martinique?

With it's CP?

With a CW CP?

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

There was a ruling from Harry (I think in the FAQ) that a lent resource may be declared to be the property of the lender or the recipient either before it leaves the lending country or when it arrives at the recipient country. If that interpretation is coded then one or the other - but only one or the other while USA is neutral - can transport it as long as both China and the CW are active.

(The CW could because the resource would be declared Chinese owned at the lending end.)

So, if it's declared to be the property of the USA then only USA CPs can transport the RP to China? Alternately, if declared the property of China, then CW CPs can transport it? If that's correct, why can't US CPs, while the USA is still neutral, be used to transport traded USA RPs (e.g. oil) to Great Britain? These CPs would be immune to attacks by German or Italian subs.

Because the rules say that specifically. China is one of the few exceptions. With entry option 32 you bypass that restriction.