Conquest hex control

[Courtenay]

I agree that the word "its" here could have one of two meanings. However, if it meant just the hexes that minor controlled, then ADG would not have needed to say that hexes owned by major powers on the conquering side retain those hexes. Furthermore, the fact that ADG had to add four words to the rule so that it is only the major powers on the conquering side that don't lose control indicates that major powers on the other side do lose control. If no major powers were to lose control, then ADG could have left out those four words. As ADG does not like to spend words, I feel that those four words are important.

[brian brian]

Note that those four words 'by another Major Power' migrate and are added to a new sentence in RaW8 and apply to all powers. In RaW7 in use here, they are not applied to the side of the country being conquered, only to the conquering side. Only the definition of which hexes are "its" is in my question. The rules exempt some hexes "already" controlled, as in before the conquest step, a control determined in 2.5.

And believe it or not, questions between rules are sometimes settled by the author of the rules by referring to the very first rules sentence in rule 1.1, which I would wager few can remember or have read in a very long time: "We have arranged these rules in sequence-of-play order." That is a rule, too. Rule 2.5 gives hexes to an MP taking them from another MP and rule 13 does not take them away without explictly declaring so, leading back to what is considerd "its" in a conquered country.

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

No I hardly think a country attacked by the Axis would just look at an Allied country coming to help them as some sort of occupying force. Gee, the Germans attacked us while Neutral (and fire-bombed our largest city) and now those evil British came to fight for us so we had better request some German troops come protect us from the British Army back here behind their front? Preposterous. Though that would be a bit different if it were an Axis MP or far, far different if it were the USSR involved. But even if it were Germany intervening in a Portugal attacked by the CW I doubt Portugese behind the German lines would say similar. The rule has to cover all possible game situations though, not just Good Guy/Bad Guy examples.

True, but you underestimate the effects of the collapse of a government on civil servants of such a country. Where there was order one day, there is disorder the next, since nobody knows what he or she needs to do anymore. If you don't have a fighting force in such an area, you are faced with the fact that you need men and equipment to fix that. I believe the conquest rule the way it is coded in MWIF simulates this.
It's not the fact that those hexes have suddenly Germans there, but more the fact that there is no law and order in such a hex at this stage and that you need to move through such a hex again, to restore order.

It's the same with hexes in the USSR. You tend to see a lot of hexes behind enemy lines which remain Soviet (or later German) controlled. It's no secret that Stalin was fighting in the USSR during 1945 and 1946 to get rid of all kind of armed troops who didn't want his rule to continue. And that were no Germans or their allies...

[brian brian]

But you also underestimate an Army's ability to control it's rear areas with units below the scale of this game - the notional units. No Army would advance into a country and then just fail to secure it's logistical connections behind it. There might be chaos among the civilian population, but that wouldn't translate into an Army ceding outright control of its lines of communication to its enemy. (How would enemy forces get there, by the way? What would Churchill do?) This does happen already to an Army operating by agreement in the minor country, in WiF, and sometimes that is probably against the grain of reality, though not in Italy, and would be hard to change in the rules. It does not happen to hexes that Army took from an enemy at least. WiF treats them differently.

[paulderynck]

We really don't need historical (or whatever) scenarios here. The rules are clear. If you want to play the "rules are in sequence-of-play order" card, then the conquest bullets in 2.5 come after the one you base your argument on, but that is unnecessary. 2.5 gives the conditions that change hex control and they apply when they apply and thus hex control can change several times in a turn. If you read carefully, (at least in RAW8) you'll see that in conquest, you can't take hexes from a major power on your own side whether or not you are the conqueror or an ally of the conquered. (BTW now in RAW8 this is initial conquest only. Subsequent conquests are different - all hexes have to be walked thru.)

But the wording in RAW8 for initial conquest is: "it loses control of every hex in its home country or territory;"

Are you claiming that a hex in Denmark, now controlled by the CW, is no longer in the Danish home country?

A final point here. Whether we are talking France or Denmark or any other country that gets conquered, think about hexes that did NOT get taken back from the Axis. If they are allied occupied, they change to the control of that ally as per the conquest rules referenced by the bullet in 2.5. There's no consistency in applying the conditions for changing control of hexes from the conquered side due to the conquest of a country if you claim that hexes in that country taken back from the conqueror pre-conquest are treated any differently than those occupied by an ally.

[brian brian]

So how could a country simultaneously lose control of _all_ of its hexes except for the ones 'already controlled by another Major Power' ? The CW 'already' controls some hexes and they are not subject to this test even though they are in Denmark, using RaW8 language, and are not "its" in RaW7. 2.5 gave them to the CW, not back to Denmark. Denmark loses control of "its" hexes, the CW does not. There are Danish hexes, and CW hexes. If there are French hexes, they are treated the same.

RaW8 extends the explicit exclusion of previously controlled hexes, that is clear. I say the same concept is implicit in RaW7, and should be used. It is a rare situation to be sure

Why does 2.5 give control of hexes you take anywhere if the underlying control of the country controlling the hex at the start of the game pre-dominates later anyway?

RaW8 extends the explicit exclusion of previously controlled hexes, that is clear. I say the same concept is implicit in RaW7, and should be used. It is a rare situation to be sure.

Let's say the hex in question is Milan. A Free French force takes it from Italy. The Germans march down from the Alps and take it back, with only one unit surviving to advance into the city, and none left adjacent. The French counter-attack but roll a magic 14 and every unit in the area is now vaporized. The Germans control Milan, not Italy. Then the turn ends and the USA conquers Italy. Because there are no units 'on the board' does this mean the Germans abandon the city of Milan? Every single one of their soldiers was wiped out and are now unable to resist an American force also not represented by a counter?

[Orm]

The rule is general.

For example: When Finland went to peace with the Soviet Union in '44. In order to get that peace Finland agreed to push the German forces in Finland out. And the Lapland War began.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: brian brian
Let's say the hex in question is Milan. A Free French force takes it from Italy. The Germans march down from the Alps and take it back, with only one unit surviving to advance into the city, and none left adjacent. The French counter-attack but roll a magic 14 and every unit in the area is now vaporized. The Germans control Milan, not Italy. Then the turn ends and the USA conquers Italy. Because there are no units 'on the board' does this mean the Germans abandon the city of Milan? Every single one of their soldiers was wiped out and are now unable to resist an American force also not represented by a counter?

This is indeed what the rules say. (proviso - only initial conquest in RAW8). It matters not who controls Milan at this time, Milan is still (and will always be) a hex within the Italian home country. All hexes in the Italian home country are tested per the criteria listed under the "Effects of Conquest".

[brian brian]

OK, I am wrong on this one. I got the word from Australia:

"no, major powers don't control hexes in aligned minors, their minor does so any hex the CW retakes become Danish, not CW hexes."

So 2.5 becomes a bit less clear and "its hexes" = all of the ones inside the original border. Its is not possessive, it is territorial only.


I would say this question will come up in the new rules unless 2.5 is cleared up, because now the test of 'already controlled by another MP' is given to the conquered side as well.

And as well as this rule works in Italy, it creates reality problems elsewhere.

In the example in Italy, the rules are saying that the USA's invisible force is stronger than the invisible force the Germans still have in Milan. Combat losses in WiF are binary at times, 100% of the force is there, or none of the force is there. Much simpler but not how real war works.

[Centuur]

Again: you underestimate the consequences of a collapsing government. As I stated, it's not the fact that there are suddenly American soldiers behind German lines in Italy if the US conquers Italy. No, it's the effect of the confusion within the civil servants and local governmental organisation.

One local maire might resist you, the other will become totally passive, doing nothing and a third will support you. Most will do nothing, until one of the sides will get enough troops on the ground to start giving orders...

Fact is: if you don't have the necessary forces in the region (ZOC or unit occupying the hex) means that you are at least 100 kilometers away. Thus you need to regain control of that hex and move a unit through it.

It's totally different when you are conquering (or liberating) a nation. Than you know that you have hostile local governments to work with, so you will need to replace key officials. However, if an army is moving through friendly territory, why sack the maire, the local police commander or take command over the local train station. That, you don't do, since you are convinved that those officials will support your cause. You need the troops on the frontlines, not in the villages far, far behind the frontlines...

[brian brian]

The rule works well in Italy. The Italians wanted out of the war. It would work well in many situations involving a toxic combination of a western power, the USSR, an Axis power, and many of the 'young' countries on the map with multiple ethnicities living with new borders (eastern Europe).

In other places, it doesn't work. The price of a simple rule is problems with realism sometimes.

The Danes in Jutland would hardly invite the Germans in behind the British lines nor would the British Army allow this. No amount of nothing-to-see-here defense of the status quo is going to change my opinion here. Just ask yourself this about the need for order and the civil authorities - would Dutch authorities request German troops behind British lines after the fire-bombing of Rotterdam? Clearly, NO. That is the position you are suggesting, in real life. Sometimes this simple rule breaks.

As for the hypothetical in Milan, the hex changes to the conqueror of Italy as no power has A ZoC there. That's how the rule works and prevents other gaminess if done differently.

Here is a different example of how that works. The Germans attack The Netherlands, they take Amsterdam with one unit from the south-east surviving to advance in. The British land in Rotterdam and along the North Sea coast. Some bad weather comes along and the Germans have other fish to fry; they are busy elsewhere and can't reinforce the Netherlands with no Reserves ready. The British move one unit to the German border off the coast to block German reinforcements. The Allies counter-attack Amsterdam from Rotterdam and the hex to the east, but all units on both sides are removed from the map in a bloody urban infantry struggle. The turn ends and Germany controls Amsterdam (their only hex in the country at this point) so The Netherlands is conquered, Rotterdam is a German hex even though the Brtish have the only units in the country, on the board at least, and those units are now out-of-supply.


What does any of this mean for MWiF? Not a whole lot. From what I have learned trying to sort through a very un-realistic game situation is that the only time the concept of minors controlling their own hexes is only really of any use is when the controlling Major Power is not at war with an MP attacking the controlled minor. And even then it is of very little use. Since the controlled minor co-operates with the controlling MP things work fine; the example given in the rules is for when that minor takes hexes outside of the minor - the controlling MP does not control those hexes until it goes to war with the MP that attacked the minor, useful with certain other rules in very rare situations.

The conquest control change test applies to every hex. In RaW7, only the attacking side's hexes are exempted.

And thus if you intervene to help a minor, you must garrison your supply lines with divisional or greater sized units just as an occupying hostile power would, though the attacking power has far less need to do so as the possibility of Partisans is far less than the finality of conquest hex control change. If the capital city you are trying to reach falls to the enemy the countryside behind your forces throws in with the enemy.

[Centuur]

Your last sentence isn't exactly what happens during a conquest (or liberation), but you get close to it. In Greece, the Greeks blamed the British when their government collapsed. Greek authorities even ordered the British to leave Greek soil in april 1941. Bye bye, cooperation and supply lines...
In Belgium, the capitulation of the Belgian army made supply even more difficult for the British and French, because local civil servants didn't obey the orders they were given by the British and the French. They simply left their posts and went home, since for them, the war was lost and over. In Italy after the collapse of the Mussolini government, there were all kind of uprisings and sabotage in area's where German troops were not nearby enough to intervene.

If you don't have a ZOC in such a hex, you haven't got the necessary forces available to maintain order. As I said, it's not that the other side really occupies the hex, it's more like that the locals are simply waiting for any side to restore order and therefore the hex isn't under your control anymore. That it belongs to the other side, can be fixed quite simple, by moving a unit through that hex, which, since it is behind the frontlines, shouldn't be so difficult, should it?
And it is right to force you to do so, from a historical perspective.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: brian brian
Here is a different example of how that works. The Germans attack The Netherlands, they take Amsterdam with one unit from the south-east surviving to advance in. The British land in Rotterdam and along the North Sea coast. Some bad weather comes along and the Germans have other fish to fry; they are busy elsewhere and can't reinforce the Netherlands with no Reserves ready. The British move one unit to the German border off the coast to block German reinforcements. The Allies counter-attack Amsterdam from Rotterdam and the hex to the east, but all units on both sides are removed from the map in a bloody urban infantry struggle. The turn ends and Germany controls Amsterdam (their only hex in the country at this point) so The Netherlands is conquered, Rotterdam is a German hex even though the Brtish have the only units in the country, on the board at least, and those units are now out-of-supply.

This successfully proves the old adage (I just made up) [:)] that with enough time, trouble, devotion, creativity, and desperation, it is possible to construct a scenario that makes any rule in the game look incorrect.

ORIGINAL: brian brian
What does any of this mean for MWiF? Not a whole lot.

At last, something we can agree on. [:)]

ORIGINAL: brian brian
The conquest control change test applies to every hex. In RaW7, only the attacking side's hexes are exempted.

If you mean the same side cannot take hexes from the conqueror, that is untrue. If Italy has taken hexes in a conquered country prior to when conquest by Germany occurs, providing Italy still has units or an undisputed ZoC present in them, she keeps them. From RAW7: "Every one of its hexes occupied by a land or aircraft unit (most combat factors if more than one), or in the uncontested (by any other major power) ZoC of a land unit, becomes controlled by that unit’s controlling major power; unless already controlled by another major power on the same side."

If Italy doesn't have a unit or a ZoC in those hexes, she loses them to Germany just like the Allies would do.

ORIGINAL: brian brian
And thus if you intervene to help a minor, you must garrison your supply lines with divisional or greater sized units just as an occupying hostile power would,

It's a bit ironic that this whole discussion began with you having done the right thing to keep all the hexes you had in Denmark.

[brian brian]

By exempt I meant the Power(s) conquering the country aren't subject to needing a unit/ZoC, as on the defending side of the front. Defending powers are exempted in Raw8, curiously perhaps not the aligning power. Overall, the new rule will generate questions on that. The Initial Control rule allows for minors to control all their hexes to start and allows for enemy control after the minor joins the war. That rule is silent on what happens when the minor's hexes are re-taken.

There would certainly be chaos behind the front in a collapsing minor to be sure. But WiF doesn't create chaos in that situation, it creates out-right enemy control, quite different.

And I wanted to note that an Allied minor could, should, would, and did act in it's interests - and possibly surrender. And possibly ask the Allied forces to withdraw. A minor that turned to the Axis or the USSR would be ignored. But even when an Allied minor exited the war, an Allied army wouldn't give up it's supply lines as in WiF.

The Netherlands example was too much, yeah. This could happen in any country. It would be more important in a bigger country.

Here is an example from history. After the brutal battle for Budapest in I believe Feb. 1945, would the Russians be able to suddenly control the western hexes of Hungary, absent ZoC? In history I mean.

And yes, I spread forces all over Denmark on anticipation of this. And now I am probably going to pay a price as I don't have a third unit in a key hex where it was destined to be. I used it on administrative duties that the game wouldn't require actual German units for.

When the aircraft bug hit is when I remembered that many of the hexes in Denmark were taken back from the Germans, a slightly different thing than original Danish hexes.

Really what the USA does in Italy is more akin to Liberation than conquest. I hope the Conquest continues to improve. The rule as written favors the conquering power a bit much when other powers are present, because I believe it was written to handle Italy and then used for every situation. For example when PARAs take a capital - you now run the entire country, every hex, thanks to your parachitists. That's the simple, binary nature of WiF. Note that RaW8 tightens up the Liberation rule considerably.


It's too bad we all live so far apart, because it would have only taken, oh, about one pint's worth of time to sort this one out and we could have talked over something else with a second pint.

[paulderynck]

That wouldn't be fair, my opinions become more and more malleable as the pint count goes up.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

My only question here is whether I can have a saved game of the Commonwealth air unit being forced to rebase - so I can make sure any changes I make so it doesn't have to rebase work correctly.

[Jagdtiger14]

I'm having this same problem in Madagascar in the game I'm in now (2.3.4). A port hex occupied by a CW air unit (and a CA, Queens) is changing to Jap control, forcing the air unit and naval units to rebase. Land units that have moved on from that port are in the interior.

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

I'm having this same problem in Madagascar in the game I'm in now (2.3.4). A port hex occupied by a CW air unit (and a CA, Queens) is changing to Jap control, forcing the air unit and naval units to rebase. Land units that have moved on from that port are in the interior.

Any chance of a gamesave?

[Majorball68]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

I'm having this same problem in Madagascar in the game I'm in now (2.3.4). A port hex occupied by a CW air unit (and a CA, Queens) is changing to Jap control, forcing the air unit and naval units to rebase. Land units that have moved on from that port are in the interior.

Any chance of a gamesave?

Centuur, here is the save just prior to the conquest phase. Would really appreciate if the save could be corrected to not re base the CW Naval and Air in Madagascar on conquest

[Centuur]

This should do the trick: