Is there a reason subs aren't included in intercept combat here?

[jjdenver]

Try moving the group of 2BB+1CV from Canaries through CSV. use German FTR or IT SUB to intercept. Roll a 4 for axis intercept, which should include NAV+2SUB in 3 box. Roll an 8 for allied search which means axis gets 8 surprise.

There is never any option given to commit axis subs. Why? I even tried doing the intercept with IT subs instead of what the Axis player preferred which is flipping the FW-190 to intercept. Is it a bug or some rule we are missing?

[Joseignacio]

I have not downloaded the save yet, but just a clue in case it may help you... Is IT at war with CW? It seems a nonsense but happens sometimes that we forget that.

This are the rules for Choosing Combat type at RAW7:

The choice

Both sides will fight the same type of combat. You make the choice according to this priority:

1. You can choose the combat type if you spend 4 surprise points. You can even choose a combat type not normally allowed (e.g. SUB combat even if no enemy convoy points are included);

2. You can choose to make it a naval air combat (active side decides first) if you have an aircraft unit or undamaged CV (CVPiF/SiF option 56: with a carrier plane) included and the weather in the sea area is neither storm nor blizzard;

3. If it is not a naval air combat, you can choose to make it a submarine combat (active side decides first) if you have a SUB included and your opponent has any convoy points included; or

4. If it is neither a naval air combat nor a submarine combat, it is a surface combat.
You can choose a combat type that won’t produce a combat. For example, you can choose a naval air combat (priority 2 above) even if you only have an FTR and your opponent has no aircraft present. You might do this to prevent an unfavourable combat type occurring.

So, it should be for Axis to decide whether it's an air to sea combat (2) unless you pay 4 surprise to make it some other combat as per (1), or you can select (4) freely if you decline to have (1) or (2).

Tell you more when I check it, unless somebody else can give you more insight.

[jjdenver]

Thanks for the reply. IT is at war, has been since 39 and this is 42.

The problem isn't about choosing combat type - it's that axis subs (both GE & IT) are not even asked if they want to commit. One note - if you play this through the first intercept round as an air combat then on the 2nd round of combat subs are asked if they want to commit properly.

[Joseignacio]

Are the subs active?

If they are not, they cannot be asked to intercept but if the interception by the plane is successful they can join the combat. But what I am understanding is something else... I will check it in a couple of hours.

[davidachamberlain]

ORIGINAL: jjdenver

Try moving the group of 2BB+1CV from Canaries through CSV. use German FTR or IT SUB to intercept. Roll a 4 for axis intercept, which should include NAV+2SUB in 3 box. Roll an 8 for allied search which means axis gets 8 surprise.

There is never any option given to commit axis subs. Why? I even tried doing the intercept with IT subs instead of what the Axis player preferred which is flipping the FW-190 to intercept. Is it a bug or some rule we are missing?

The key problem is that your search roll is too high (a 4) for the subs to participate - they are in the 3 box. The only unit in the 4 box is the IT NAV. Also note that there is a message "There is only one unit capable of initiating the naval combat. Use this one unit to initiate the combat?" That is the NAV. Note that the German subs in the 2 and 3 boxes are inactive (must have been used previously), but the IT sub was not used. I am not sure why it could not search. There is probably a reason from the earlier Axis impulse, such as not taking any Naval actions, but there was probably a Naval Air (for the NAV).

I had a similar problem, but in the subsequent search after the Air battle, the Commit Subs option was available. Both the Ger and IT subs participated on a 3 search roll.

So, something is not right regarding the initial participation of the Subs, but after the first successful search by the NAV, they were available in subsequent rounds.

I noticed that this save file is version 2.7.1. You should have tested with 2.9.1.4 to see if that version has the problem

That is more than a year out of date. It is pretty hard to expect that the old version will get any updates when there is a newer version out there. You will no doubt encounter other problems that have been fixed by newer versions.

Dave

[Joseignacio]

The IT NAV makes all of them be in the 4 box. There are 3 units able to activate for search, the FTR, the NAV and the IT sub,

but for naval combat the three of them in box 4 (=3+1) should be fighting if he wishes to.




AFAIK there is no rule that you need to have had naval or combined to be able to intercept in the opponent's naval move.

[Joseignacio]

I made the move and I didn't select any of the possible land based planes to join. The game rolled a 1 and all the units were involved in the battle (as they should be), however, if you check it, you'll see that in this image … the IT sub looks disorganized maybe or is it the FTR (this symbols make me crazy)?




I am betting, now, that maybe you forgot in one of the interception screens to click on "include subs" box.

[Joseignacio]

Down there in the form.

That would explain too why only the nav could start the search. Although I always thought that the units could start a search and not be committed, and I still believe it unless proven otherwise.

[Joseignacio]

As you can see, when I select the subs as well, the game lets me select the IT sub to activate the search:

[Joseignacio]

A question... 3(0) means they can intercept on a 3 and no modifiers? Cause IMO it's a 3(1) both in this case (3+1) because of the naval affecting it's stack.

[gw15]

amazingly because I have played many hours on this game, I just learned about that include subs check box yesterday. I never noticed before.

[paulderynck]

Me too probably. This is how MWiF meets the rule in RAW7 that you must commit subs to an interception in advance.

Now start the normal combat sequence (see 11.5.1). The only differences are in the first round:
ï your opponent’s interception roll counts as his/her search roll; and
ï your opponent has already announced whether his/her SUBs were committed; and...

Mind you I think a pop-up question, if your subs are present, - right after you click on intercept - would be better because you can still flip a sub to initiate the search without committing it, and that comes next. That may avoid a confusion where you miss the checkbox, flip a sub, and then wonder why it's not in the fight.

Sometimes the excitement of an important intercept makes people rush to hit the Intercept button, without thinking about their subs. I can't count the number of times over the board when an opponent and I have discussed and agreed on whether subs would or would not have been committed - after a successful intercept roll.

[Joseignacio]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Me too probably. This is how MWiF meets the rule in RAW7 that you must commit subs to an interception in advance.

Sometimes the excitement of an important intercept makes people rush to hit the Intercept button, without thinking about their subs. I can't count the number of times over the board when an opponent and I have discussed and agreed on whether subs would or would not have been committed - after a successful intercept roll.

So true, I usually solve it by saying: "until said otherwise my subs are always committed" or the opposite.

[jjdenver]

ORIGINAL: davidachamberlain
I noticed that this save file is version 2.7.1. You should have tested with 2.9.1.4 to see if that version has the problem

FYI I tested with 2.8.9.4 and got same problem before I posted. I almost always test with a more recent version first.

The reason we are using 2.7.1 is that (2.8.9.4 I thought was the most recent version before you pointed out 2.9.1.4 (thank you)) Steve started making changes for netplay after 2.7.1 and so many other nasty bugs came out to ruin games. So 2.7.1 seems like the most stable version for PBEM currently. If I'm wrong please correct me on this one as our main objective is to play a game without game stopping bugs. From my perspective netplay is the root of a lot of evil (and time-wasting) in the MWIF world. I just want a stable base game.

[jjdenver]

That checkbox is a crazy find - thank you!

[davidachamberlain]

ORIGINAL: jjdenver

FYI I tested with 2.8.9.4 and got same problem before I posted. I almost always test with a more recent version first.

The reason we are using 2.7.1 is that (2.8.9.4 I thought was the most recent version before you pointed out 2.9.1.4 (thank you)) Steve started making changes for netplay after 2.7.1 and so many other nasty bugs came out to ruin games. So 2.7.1 seems like the most stable version for PBEM currently. If I'm wrong please correct me on this one as our main objective is to play a game without game stopping bugs. From my perspective netplay is the root of a lot of evil (and time-wasting) in the MWIF world. I just want a stable base game.

I do understand looking for stability, but you realize that there were lots of bugs fixed since the older versions. Finding them is really kind of pointless unless they are unresolved in the newest version.

Netplay is not the cause of the problem. However, anytime, any bug gets fixed, there is a risk that something else will get broken. Playing with Netplay has found quite a few otherwise unfound bugs and those have been fixed as a result. Yes, there has been some really nasty game changers come out of that process - especially related to Vichy and Production, but at least serious progress has occurred to fix them.

Hopefully, things are converging on a new state of stability for Steve's v3.0 and then a focus on the remaining 2 single map scenarios, desirable optional rules, maybe AI and maybe support for more than 2 players in Netplay.

All in good time, hopefully. However, some of those changes will result in new bugs or old bugs to resurface and those will need to get fixed, as well.

Dave