Clarification about Vichy

[Extraneous]

To those of you who are new to the forums it has been awhile since we have had a heated debate about the rules. But it does happen from time to time.

These options all limit the number of units that can be escorts.

ORIGINAL: WiFFE-RAW-7.0.pdf
11. US east coast escorts (Ge/It) (There is a 70% chance that a USA (Ge/It) entry pool chit will be moved to the USA (Ge/It) tension pool)
Once you choose this entry option, up to 5 US CVs or SCS (you choose which and there is no limit after the US is at war with Germany or Italy) in the 0 section of the US East Coast sea area, can take part in any combat round in which Allied convoys are included, even though you remain neutral. There is no US entry effect for fighting.

20. US land-based air escort (Ge/It) (There is a 60% chance that a USA (Ge/It) entry pool chit will be moved to the USA (Ge/It) tension pool)
The USA may commit land-based air units to escort Allied convoy points in the 0 box in any sea zone where the USA is allowed to escort convoy points.

29. North Atlantic escorts (Ge/It) (There is a 90% chance that a USA (Ge/It) entry pool chit will be moved to the USA (Ge/It) tension pool)
Once you choose this entry option, up to 5 US CVs or SCS (you choose which and there is no limit after the US is at war with Germany or Italy) in the 0 section of the North Atlantic sea area, can take part in any combat round in which Allied convoys are included, even though you remain neutral.

38. Arm merchantmen (either) the USA plays this against either (Ge/It) entry pool and tension pool or (Ja) entry pool and tension pool
(There is a 90% chance that a USA entry pool chit will be moved to the USA tension pool)
Once you choose this entry option, up to 5 US CVs or SCS (you choose which and there is no limit after the US is at war with Germany or Italy) in the 0 section of sea area, can take part in any combat round in which Allied convoys are included, even though you remain neutral. There is no US entry effect for fighting. You can’t any choose this entry option unless you have already chosen entry option 29. North Atlantic escorts.

50. Unrestricted naval warfare (either) the USA plays this against either (Ge/It) entry pool and tension pool or (Ja) entry pool and tension pool.
(2 USA entry pool chits and a 50% chance that anther will be moved to the USA tension pool)
USA naval and aircraft units at sea can freely attack, and be attacked by, any Axis naval and aircraft units. You still can’t port attack, shore bombard, ground strike, strategically bombard, carpet bomb, or fly ground support.

You can escort Allied convoys in any sea area with any number of SCS or CVs.

You can now move any number of ships together as 1 naval move, instead of counting each ship as a naval move.

You can only choose this entry option if you have already chosen entry option 38. Arm merchantmen.

I have never contended the options stop the US from fighting while neutral.

I am saying a neutral US cannot initiate a naval combat in a sea zone. But...


Once a Axis player initiates a naval combat in a sea zone.
Then and only then can a neutral US player that has played any of these options:
Use US naval and/or air attack factors against the Axis players naval and air units (IE. attack); and
Have the Axis players naval and air attack factors used against the US naval and/or air units (IE. and be attacked).

In that sea zone during that naval combat when the chosen US entry options allow it.

Initiating a naval combat is an act of war while escorting a convoy is not.


These options don't say that a neutral US can initiate naval combat and the FAQ supports my opinion.

[Ur_Vile_WEdge]

I don't see how the FAQ can be said to support your opinion. It doesn't address option 50 at all. I'm afraid I'm throwing my hat in with the majority, that the words

can freely attack, and be attacked by.

imply the ability to search. If nothing else, for the most expensive and supposedly powerful option in the game, it seems decidedly puny if you can only fight if you have another allied vessel along to flip for the search, or you get to only fight when and if the Axis think it's in their favor.

[Extraneous]

So you belive the US should be the only major power in the game able to attack active or neutral naval units at any time without a DoW?

You belive controlled is the same as alighned in reguards to Vichy France?

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

So you belive the US should be the only major power in the game able to attack active or neutral naval units at any time without a DoW?

I believe that the intention with unrestricted naval warfare is for US to fight (and initiate combat) against active nations naval forces on the other side. And that USA is the only nation that is allowed to do so.

But maybe this should be a question for ADG?

[Extraneous]

As to the cost of option 50. There is no option higher than 50.

50 points just sitting there in an entry pool is a lot of points.

Why isn't the US at war? Because the tension level is to low.

Yes 2 markers go to the tension pool which brings you closer to the US being able to DoW.

Isn't that what you want to happenn?

[Ur_Vile_WEdge]

Or the entry is hugely unbalanced. Especially possible if the U.S. is racing for an embargo, and Japan responds by attacking the NEI; it leads to an enormous number of chits in the Japan pool with virtually nothing in the Ge/IT pool. I've had one game of solitaire where the U.S. got option 50 before option 34, and you're not attacking anyone without the war appropriations bill.

But yes, I believe that once option 50 is chosen, anything the Axis have on the water is fair game to the U.S. I admit, I hadn't really considered the possibility of a neutral axis power, since I don't really see why there would be a distinction between Axis power at war with nobody, and axis power at war with someone other than the U.S. But there you have it, that's my position.

[Extraneous]

So far this is what I have learned from our discussion.

Scenario 24.4.7 The Global war: Sep/Oct 1939 ~ Jul/Aug 1945

Sep/Oct turn:
China and Japan are already at war.
The US player places 3 markers in the Ge/It entry pool and 0 markers in the Ja entry pool.
The US player doesn't bother with the setting up their portion of the Japan/US trade agreement convoy line.
Because the US player knows the Japanese player will just sink them.

1st Impulse: Germany DoW's Poland.
In the Pacific Japan sinks Commonwealth and French naval units that are at sea.
Because Japan just has to be at war to initiate naval combat.

2nd Impulse: The Commonwealth and France DoW Germany.

3rd Impulse: Germany DoW's Denmark and the Netherlands. Japan aligns Siam.
In the Pacific Japan sinks Netherland, Commonwealth, and French naval units that are at sea.
Because Japan just has to be at war to initiate naval combat.

4th Impulse: The USSR claims Eastern Poland and Bessarabia. Germany allows the claim to Bessarabia.


End of turn:
Poland, Denmark, and the Netherlands are conquered.
The US is in default of the Japan/US trade agreement and can never go to war with Japan.

Due to the nonexistent Ja entry level the US cannot choose the entry options: Chinese build aircraft, Embargo on strategic materials, Lend lease to China, Freeze Japanese assets, Re-open Burma Road, Relocate fleet to Pearl Harbor, or Oil embargo.

On the bright side the US can initiate naval combat against Japan when the US:
DoW's Ge/It because then the US is no longer neutral; or
Gets 50 entry points in the Ge/It entry pool.

[Ur_Vile_WEdge]

EDIT: Decided to go through this step by step. My comments in red.


Scenario 24.4.7 The Global war: Sep/Oct 1939 ~ Jul/Aug 1945

Sep/Oct turn:
China and Japan are already at war.
The US player places 3 markers in the Ge/It entry pool and 0 markers in the Ja entry pool.
The US player doesn't bother with the setting up their portion of the Japan/US trade agreement convoy line.
Because the US player knows the Japanese player will just sink them.

Option 50 is not yet chosen, so Japan can't attack U.S. convoys willy-nilly. It is foolish to not set up the convoys, but it is a theoretically possible play.

1st Impulse: Germany DoW's Poland.
In the Pacific Japan sinks Commonwealth and French naval units that are at sea.
Because Japan just has to be at war to initiate naval combat.

No, Japan must ordinarily be at war with someone who has units in the sea zones to initiate naval combat. If there was a chinese convoy and a bunch of CW convoys, it's open season. Japan may not sink French and CW naval units without a DoW.

2nd Impulse: The Commonwealth and France DoW Germany.

3rd Impulse: Germany DoW's Denmark and the Netherlands. Japan aligns Siam.
In the Pacific Japan sinks Netherland, Commonwealth, and French naval units that are at sea.
Because Japan just has to be at war to initiate naval combat.

Again, without Japan being at war with any of these people, they cannot initiate combat.

4th Impulse: The USSR claims Eastern Poland and Bessarabia. Germany allows the claim to Bessarabia.


End of turn:
Poland, Denmark, and the Netherlands are conquered.
The US is in default of the Japan/US trade agreement and can never go to war with Japan.

Due to the nonexistent Ja entry level the US cannot choose the entry options: Chinese build aircraft, Embargo on strategic materials, Lend lease to China, Freeze Japanese assets, Re-open Burma Road, Relocate fleet to Pearl Harbor, or Oil embargo.

On the bright side the US can initiate naval combat against Japan when the US:
DoW's Ge/It because then the US is no longer neutral; or
Gets 50 entry points in the Ge/It entry pool.

At this point, the U.S. can only initiate naval combat against Japan once option 50 gets into play. Merely being at war with Germany and Italy would be insufficient. (I was under the impression that a DoW against either axis player would be enough to get in the unaligned entry options, but some other people have been saying differently, and I'm a lot less sure of my footing there.) However, once option 50 is chosen, Americans can initiate searches against Japanese, and the Japanese can initiate searches against the U.S.



Option 50 is the exception to the general rule that you can only initiate naval combat if you're at war with someone in the sea zone. it allows combat to be initiated with and against an otherwise neutral major power, the U.S. If we played some kind of alternate WiF where the U.S. starts with option 50 in play, you could see something where the Japanese attack the convoy chain on the first impulse.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

So far this is what I have learned from our discussion.

Scenario 24.4.7 The Global war: Sep/Oct 1939 ~ Jul/Aug 1945

Sep/Oct turn:
China and Japan are already at war.
The US player places 3 markers in the Ge/It entry pool and 0 markers in the Ja entry pool.
The US player doesn't bother with the setting up their portion of the Japan/US trade agreement convoy line.
Because the US player knows the Japanese player will just sink them.

1st Impulse: Germany DoW's Poland.
In the Pacific Japan sinks Commonwealth and French naval units that are at sea.
Because Japan just has to be at war to initiate naval combat.

2nd Impulse: The Commonwealth and France DoW Germany.

3rd Impulse: Germany DoW's Denmark and the Netherlands. Japan aligns Siam.
In the Pacific Japan sinks Netherland, Commonwealth, and French naval units that are at sea.
Because Japan just has to be at war to initiate naval combat.

4th Impulse: The USSR claims Eastern Poland and Bessarabia. Germany allows the claim to Bessarabia.


End of turn:
Poland, Denmark, and the Netherlands are conquered.
The US is in default of the Japan/US trade agreement and can never go to war with Japan.

Due to the nonexistent Ja entry level the US cannot choose the entry options: Chinese build aircraft, Embargo on strategic materials, Lend lease to China, Freeze Japanese assets, Re-open Burma Road, Relocate fleet to Pearl Harbor, or Oil embargo.

On the bright side the US can initiate naval combat against Japan when the US:
DoW's Ge/It because then the US is no longer neutral; or
Gets 50 entry points in the Ge/It entry pool.

I agree with Ur_etc that Japan cannot attack US CPs if the US is neutral - until Option 50 is passed.

But there is a strategy that was discussed in the 2008 Annual in which the Allies intentionally drive US Entry against Japan negative by taking turns with France, the CW, and Russia DoWing Japan and ideally each getting a surprise impulse (although if the Japanese player has read the article, he'd preemptively DoW whoever is left after the first one when he sees the US can no longer DoW Japan... Still he could get caught on a double move, possibly... And if he does DoW the others, he's putting chits back in the US Entry pool and helping the US to DoW Ge/It quicker, plus pass Option 50.

Anyway... the article goes on to show how even though the US cannot ever DoW Japan, it can eventually pass Option 50 and then get her navy involved in all kinds of shenanigans in the Pacific (i.e. can attack the Japanese navy).

Anything in an Annual is approved by Harry Rowland as it is an ADG publication, so clearly Harry Rowland thinks Option 50 means the US can initiate naval combats once Option 50 is passed. QED.

Still, I'm with Orm in feeling a neutral Vichy should not be able to attack or be attacked once Option 50 is passed. I think the current wording just didn't anticipate that possibility. And the issue has indeed now been forwarded to the rules group.

Or maybe Extraneous wants to email Harry directly again?

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Still, I'm with Orm in feeling a neutral Vichy should not be able to attack or be attacked once Option 50 is passed. I think the current wording just didn't anticipate that possibility. And the issue has indeed now been forwarded to the rules group.

Or maybe Extraneous wants to email Harry directly again?

My position is that US can not fight against neutral major powers with option 50. This is not limited to Vichy. Italy, for example, can still be neutral and I to me it is just plain wrong if a neutral US was allowed to attack neutral Italian ships and convoys.

[Ur_Vile_WEdge]

I'm not entirely sure I like the idea that option 50 only allows combat with active major axis major powers. For starters, there's nothing in the option itself that mentions the active status of the other major power.

Secondly, it opens up a situation like this:

Japan's really aggressive in China and at war with no other major powers, they're beating the crap out of the Chinese. U.S. passes option 50 with the last two printed Chinese factories being Kunming and Cheng-tu. The next turn, Japan attacks and takes both cities, and at the end of the turn, they fully conquer China. Now they're neutral again, and suddenly, their ships are off-limits again. To me at least, that just seems weird, and wrong, especially if the chits from all those cities being taken provided the major impetus to get the option up in the first place.

[Orm]

I am sorry but I can't really picture the US navy acting like pirates by attacking neutral ships.

[AxelNL]

ORIGINAL: Orm

I am sorry but I can't really picture the US navy acting like pirates by attacking neutral ships.

There are enough historical precedences how this could be achieved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privateer

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: AxelNL

ORIGINAL: Orm

I am sorry but I can't really picture the US navy acting like pirates by attacking neutral ships.

There are enough historical precedences how this could be achieved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privateer

And what do you think the reaction from the US public would be?

Remember that this is not helping CW against their enemies but rather fighting a naval war on their own against a neutral country.

[Ur_Vile_WEdge]

Well, in the Japan example above, I could see the public going for it, if it was framed right. (And let's not forget, with a 50 USE in the pool, there's probably already quite a bit of public animus directed at whomever) The U.S. was relatively friendly with China, and a sort of punitive set of raids in force to show the Japanese their actions have consequences wouldn't really be seen as piracy, I don't think.


Mostly though, I think it's weird that you could have a situation where an Axis major power escapes its attacks by conquering its adversary(ies)

[Centuur]

Look at US behaviour in the last century regarding things happening around the world. I don't think you realise it in the US proper, but the US politicians like to interfere everywhere around the world if things aren't done the way they like. Now, I'm not going to make any political comments on this, but I feel that if the US, for whatever reason, wasn't drawn into the war with the Japanese attacking them, they would very slowly have started to attack German SUB's and Japanese ships, simply because they would have supported the CW that way and they would not allow the Japanese to attack the NEI and the CW freely (but would probably take longer to go into an official war, do to internal political reasons).

Things like the Lend Lease laws and the opening of the US shipyards for free repairs of CW and Free French ships was already somekind of DoW against the Axis Powers, as was the fact that Stilwell was in China before there was war between Japan and the US...

[Orm]

In regards to Japan conquering China and becoming neutral I say that USA should be forced to DOW Japan. US gets bonuses to do so if China is conquered. For me option 50 is not about US fighting a war but helping CW (and other Allies) with the naval war. To me this just seems gamey.

And if this is used to fight neutral Vichy or, even worse, a neutral Italy then it is even worse. If this was ruled then I would consider the rule broken but fortunately this should not occur often.

A USN submarine sights a Italian troop transport and sink it. But in reality it was a luxury cruiser transporting hundreds of civilian passengers on their way to USA. And then it is discovered that among the passengers there are about 30 US citizens including the US ambassadors family. And then the Vatican State announce that two cardinals were on the ship and killed on their way to USA on a diplomatic mission. I doubt that the US public would not have a reaction to this scenario...

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Orm

My position is that US can not fight against neutral major powers with option 50. This is not limited to Vichy. Italy, for example, can still be neutral and I to me it is just plain wrong if a neutral US was allowed to attack neutral Italian ships and convoys.

And just plain wrong that they would be able to attack US naval forces.

"can freely attack, and be attacked by"

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Look at US behaviour in the last century regarding things happening around the world. I don't think you realise it in the US proper, but the US politicians like to interfere everywhere around the world if things aren't done the way they like. Now, I'm not going to make any political comments on this, but I feel that if the US, for whatever reason, wasn't drawn into the war with the Japanese attacking them, they would very slowly have started to attack German SUB's and Japanese ships, simply because they would have supported the CW that way and they would not allow the Japanese to attack the NEI and the CW freely (but would probably take longer to go into an official war, do to internal political reasons).

Things like the Lend Lease laws and the opening of the US shipyards for free repairs of CW and Free French ships was already somekind of DoW against the Axis Powers, as was the fact that Stilwell was in China before there was war between Japan and the US...

For one thing the political climate in the US in 1940 was very pro-isolationist. Several authors have said that the only way the US public would have supported an all-out war would have been if a foreign power made a sudden and deliberate attack on the US...

These same authors state that Roosevelt was advised to DoW Germany at the same time as Japan but was still reluctant to do so because he felt the US public would not feel that DoW was "justified". Luckily for him, idiot Hitler DoW'd the US first. Also note how quick Churchill was to DoW Japan to try and ensure the US was dragged into the war as a full partner.

Yes things have changed a great deal with how the US conducts its relations since 1940. But WiF is based on that era, not this one.

Secondly as Orm pointed out, not only Vichy but also Italy might not be active powers when Option 50 is passed. Can you imagine either of those countries deciding now would be a good time to start torpedoing US ships? In that alternate reality I'm sure they'd both be doing their utmost to stay the H away from US ships.

[joshuamnave]

As far as Vichy goes, I think a good compromise would be to allow the US to attack Vichy naval units once option 50 has been chosen (either by choosing the option, or by going to war with both Japan and the European Axis powers) but such an attack would make Vichy hostile to the US. That seems like a reasonable tradeoff.