A few questions about the rules

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio
A fleet is blocked in a port where all his exits to sea/s are blocked by enemy ships, outside his home country. Thus, it's unsupplied. A new ship of the same nationality of that fleet appears from another port and gets in one of these seas. Now the fleet in prot is supplied.

Could the fleet inside the port move normally? We have been playing like it can, however, I think maybe it's not correct since all the naval movements need to be done in the naval phase, and so they would be simultaneous. If they are simultaneous, the new ship cannot supply the fleet before they move.

Yes. If you put in supply a previously out of supply unit, it is suddenly in supply and can move.

[Joseignacio]

Thanks a lot.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

No.

First of all, for an air unit at sea to fly an air mission to a land hex (e.g., ground strike) it must be either: (1) an organized carrier air unit on-board a carrier or (2) an organized carrier when you are playing without the optional rule Carrier Air Units. In the latter case, MWIF generates a 'temporary' carrier air unit to fly the mission. What we are talking about here are carrier air units at sea flying missions to land hexes.

The sea box section the carrier is in has no effect on determining the range of the air unit.

Some land hexes are considered 'adjacent' to a sea area even though the land hex is not adjacent to an all sea hex dot. For example, London, Hamburg, ... If you count the number of hexes from the closest all sea hex dot to the target hex it can be 2, 3, 4 or more(?). In those situations, even air units without sufficient range (counting from the closest all sea hex dot) are permitted to fly the air mission (to and from) if the target hex is 'adjacent'.

Steve, this is not correct for RAW and I hope not implemented the way you say in MWIF. The rule was only for port strikes on maps where the first hex adjacent to a hexdot cost more than 2 movement points for planes if playing with CVPs or cost more than the CV's nominal air component range if playing without CVPs. Since MWIF is universal one-hex scale, then ranges are what they are and many air missions cannot be flown farther than the range of the aircraft - except port strikes.

Edit: upon further reflection the original rule in RAW was to always allow a port strike if the target hex was adjacent to a sea dot. But if it was more than a hex away then you counted range. So a CVP or a 'nominal' CVP could make a port strike on a port adjacent to its sea area even if on the America mini-map where you'd normally count 6 to a ground strike target for example. But in MWIF, all adjacent ports to a sea dot will automatically be a range of one from the carrier, so this rule is not needed at all in MWIF. Any port that is more than one hex away from a sea dot should require a range check if a port strike is attempted.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

No.

First of all, for an air unit at sea to fly an air mission to a land hex (e.g., ground strike) it must be either: (1) an organized carrier air unit on-board a carrier or (2) an organized carrier when you are playing without the optional rule Carrier Air Units. In the latter case, MWIF generates a 'temporary' carrier air unit to fly the mission. What we are talking about here are carrier air units at sea flying missions to land hexes.

The sea box section the carrier is in has no effect on determining the range of the air unit.

Some land hexes are considered 'adjacent' to a sea area even though the land hex is not adjacent to an all sea hex dot. For example, London, Hamburg, ... If you count the number of hexes from the closest all sea hex dot to the target hex it can be 2, 3, 4 or more(?). In those situations, even air units without sufficient range (counting from the closest all sea hex dot) are permitted to fly the air mission (to and from) if the target hex is 'adjacent'.

Steve, this is not correct for RAW and I hope not implemented the way you say in MWIF. The rule was only for port strikes on maps where the first hex adjacent to a hexdot cost more than 2 movement points for planes if playing with CVPs or cost more than the CV's nominal air component range if playing without CVPs. Since MWIF is universal one-hex scale, then ranges are what they are and many air missions cannot be flown farther than the range of the aircraft - except port strikes.

Edit: upon further reflection the original rule in RAW was to always allow a port strike if the target hex was adjacent to a sea dot. But if it was more than a hex away then you counted range. So a CVP or a 'nominal' CVP could make a port strike on a port adjacent to its sea area even if on the America mini-map where you'd normally count 6 to a ground strike target for example. But in MWIF, all adjacent ports to a sea dot will automatically be a range of one from the carrier, so this rule is not needed at all in MWIF. Any port that is more than one hex away from a sea dot should require a range check if a port strike is attempted.

The adjacent to the sea area check is only for port attacks. It is just 3 lines of code, so if Patrice agrees, I'll remove them.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
The adjacent to the sea area check is only for port attacks. It is just 3 lines of code, so if Patrice agrees, I'll remove them.

RAW 14.4 :
******************************
A carrier plane can fly a mission to any hex in range. Measure the range from any hex-dot in the CV’s sea area (it’s usually best to pick the hex-dot closest to your target). A carrier plane can fly, and return from, a port attack mission that is out of range, if the port is adjacent to any hexdot in the sea area.
******************************

But for sure, if the port is adjacent to a sea dot, it is in range of any CVP with the use of the MWiF map.
So I think I agree.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
The adjacent to the sea area check is only for port attacks. It is just 3 lines of code, so if Patrice agrees, I'll remove them.

RAW 14.4 :
******************************
A carrier plane can fly a mission to any hex in range. Measure the range from any hex-dot in the CV’s sea area (it’s usually best to pick the hex-dot closest to your target). A carrier plane can fly, and return from, a port attack mission that is out of range, if the port is adjacent to any hexdot in the sea area.
******************************

But for sure, if the port is adjacent to a sea dot, it is in range of any CVP with the use of the MWiF map.
So I think I agree.

The point here is for the second sentence not to end up allowing out-of-range port strikes in MWIF. Steve has indicated MWIF is currently coded to allow them.

This rule is unnecessary in MWIF and ANY mission more than one hex from a sea dot will need a range check.

Do you agree with this Patrice?

[gogol1st]

Hi guys.

i have a question about the rules too.
my question is simple :

if i attack a stack of 2 units in which one is face up and the other is face down, do i still have a +1 DRM to my attack roll ?


thank you

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: gogol1st

Hi guys.

i have a question about the rules too.
my question is simple :

if i attack a stack of 2 units in which one is face up and the other is face down, do i still have a +1 DRM to my attack roll ?


thank you

Welcome to the forum.[:)]

The Die Roll Modifiers you are asking about are different depending on whether you are using the 1D10 (standard) or the 2D10 land combat results tables.

However, in both cases the DRMs are per unit. So the answer is Yes.

[gogol1st]

hi and thank you Shannon
 
i play the 1D10 (standard)
 
Does your answer mean that if i attack a stack with 2 facedown units i have a +2 DRM  ??

[gogol1st]

and if yes :   when i INVADE a hex with 2 facedown units, then i should have a +3 DRM right ?  (1 for the facedown ``virtual unit``)
 
wow, if yes, that s a lot !
 
 
thank you.  And yes i have the game rule book but i sometime prefer to ask people

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: gogol1st

and if yes :   when i INVADE a hex with 2 facedown units, then i should have a +3 DRM right ?  (1 for the facedown ``virtual unit``)

wow, if yes, that s a lot !


thank you.  And yes i have the game rule book but i sometime prefer to ask people

Yes. That is why ignoring the notional unit is a choice that the defender gets to make. Sometimes the +1 to the die roll penalty is not worth the additional strength point.

[gogol1st]

Thanks a lot.
 
i am noob.  i bought the boardgame about 8 years ago, but i needed to read the rules about 20 times to start to understand something lol.
i am used to wargames but this one is so different that it is hard to get in.  But once you re in, it s marvelous.
i can't wait for the Matrix release
 
but i still find some weird things. For example, it seems that you can never attack ships in port with ships ?
 

[Mike Parker]

ORIGINAL: gogol1st

but i still find some weird things. For example, it seems that you can never attack ships in port with ships ?

There are not alot of examples of ships attacking ships in port during WWII. The examples I could remember are

Mers el Kebir 3 July 1940

Dakar, 24 September 1940

Casablanca 8 Nov 1942

All of these involve French Naval assets under Vichy control. The first two were attempts to prevent fleet units being reflagged as German. The last I include for completeness, it was an unfinished vessel used as a gun platform.

I am not sure its entirely proper to have a surface engagement against ships in port in WWII. I could have missed some examples but the only ones I knew about were these, and when I looked them up for details I didn't find any other such engagements.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: gogol1st

Thanks a lot.

i am noob.  i bought the boardgame about 8 years ago, but i needed to read the rules about 20 times to start to understand something lol.
i am used to wargames but this one is so different that it is hard to get in.  But once you re in, it s marvelous.
i can't wait for the Matrix release

but i still find some weird things. For example, it seems that you can never attack ships in port with ships ?

True.

[paulderynck]

deleted

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: gogol1st

hi and thank you Shannon

i play the 1D10 (standard)

Does your answer mean that if i attack a stack with 2 facedown units i have a +2 DRM  ??

Yes.

[IKerensky_alt]

ORIGINAL: Mike Parker

ORIGINAL: gogol1st

but i still find some weird things. For example, it seems that you can never attack ships in port with ships ?

The first two were attempts to prevent fleet units being reflagged as German. The last I include for completeness, it was an unfinished vessel used as a gun platform.

In due respect for the hundreds of french sailors killed in thoses unwarranted attacks by an ex ally, I wanted to point out thoses ships weren't in the process of getting under german nor italian control but were under neutral french control in mediterranean french controlled ports, out of German reach.

That is the very Catapult operation that enforce the regrouping of the french navy in metropolitan ports and its later scuttling when the german try to overrun it to prevent its escape.

The very events at Oran, Alexandria and later Toulon are proofs enough that the french navy weren't going to take part into WWII after 1940, was it against its former allies nor in violation of the Armistice France sign with the Axis. Please respect thoses peoples that dies uselessly to protect their honor, that's all they deserve.

[Mike Parker]

ORIGINAL: Greywolf

ORIGINAL: Mike Parker

ORIGINAL: gogol1st

but i still find some weird things. For example, it seems that you can never attack ships in port with ships ?

The first two were attempts to prevent fleet units being reflagged as German. The last I include for completeness, it was an unfinished vessel used as a gun platform.

In due respect for the hundreds of french sailors killed in thoses unwarranted attacks by an ex ally, I wanted to point out thoses ships weren't in the process of getting under german nor italian control but were under neutral french control in mediterranean french controlled ports, out of German reach.

That is the very Catapult operation that enforce the regrouping of the french navy in metropolitan ports and its later scuttling when the german try to overrun it to prevent its escape.

The very events at Oran, Alexandria and later Toulon are proofs enough that the french navy weren't going to take part into WWII after 1940, was it against its former allies nor in violation of the Armistice France sign with the Axis. Please respect thoses peoples that dies uselessly to protect their honor, that's all they deserve.

I should say, the ostensible reason the UK attacked was to prevent these assets from falling into Axis hands. As for if this were possible or likely, I am unsure.

The whole Vichy thing is a mystery to me, and by that I mean the politics of it in relationship to their former allies the UK. I am not prepared to say the actions of the British were dastardly in these cases, just as I will agree there is nothing to suggest these vessels were destined to fall into Nazi hands.

I will agree that the French sailors that lost their life should be honoured, as they were just doing their duty, like most soldiers on both sides of that war.

[brian brian]

I think Churchill forced that decision through over some pretty strident objections by Royal Navy admirals.


The even sadder part is that the surface ships in question just weren't that important any more due to the new supremacy of air-power, which wasn't completely understood yet.

[gogol1st]

Ok guys i now understand why we don't attack ships in port with ships.
 
now, talking about aircraft, i have another question about the rules :
we can rebase aircrafts in any controlled HEX right ?   i find weird that there is at least one airfield in each Hex.
i would assume that we could only rebase them in a city or port. But maybe i missed something