Matrix Games Forums

With the new CS23, this problem has been solved, as the units who had a duplicate name are changed to other names.

If the units are in the game but don't have duplicate names, then that implies they are all used. But in the examples I gave I'm sure I found in your spreadsheet that not all are supposed to be used. Thus we thought we were giving some powers an advantage by allowing them more Divs then they should have had.

Sorry, but now I'm more confused then I thought I was. [X(]

I think you actually could play with a number of duplicate divisions (French MECH divs come to mind for some reason).
 
But that has been cleared up.
 
Speaking of the new counter sheets & all - I got my brand new WiF with the lot at the post office (I had to pick it up from there to pay customs) on Tuesday.

But in the examples I gave I'm sure I found in your spreadsheet that not all are supposed to be used.

Yes, I had marked them in "my" spreadsheet (that is not mine) as not used, because I found not logical to play with 2 GGFF DIV, 2 50 MOT DIV, etc...
Moreover, the first came out in a CS made in 1995 (CS23), when FE was not even out, and the next came out in 1997 with the FE (on CS15). For me the latter were replacements for the former, especially when you think that the first CS15 published (1994) had other divisions on it, and that they were changed on purpose as duplicates of those of CS23 (look at http://perso.orange.fr/froon/WiF/counters/CSH15.html for a history of CS15).
Whatever, Harry cleared this whole mess by finally updating this old / out of date / anachronic countersheet 23 with a new more current one.

I am still trying to puzzle out duplicate names for naval units when the Cruisers in Flames units are added to the list of units. This comes up because I am working on getting the country setups correct for all the scenarios.

As a simple case, Rumania starts Barbarossa with
1 - a CA Destroyer Flotilla when playing without Cruisers in Flames and
2 - a CL Destroyer Flotilla instead when playing with Cruisers in Flames.

The counter sheets only have one counter for this, so I assume that in the first instance the unit is treated as a CA and in the second instance as a CL. None of the numbers would change(?). Do I need to change the unit type internally, or doesn't that make any difference?

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I am still trying to puzzle out duplicate names for naval units when the Cruisers in Flames units are added to the list of units. This comes up because I am working on getting the country setups correct for all the scenarios.

As a simple case, Rumania starts Barbarossa with
1 - a CA Destroyer Flotilla when playing without Cruisers in Flames and
2 - a CL Destroyer Flotilla instead when playing with Cruisers in Flames.

The counter sheets only have one counter for this, so I assume that in the first instance the unit is treated as a CA and in the second instance as a CL. None of the numbers would change(?). Do I need to change the unit type internally, or doesn't that make any difference?

I think that there is a misunderstanding here, about Light Cruisers.

WiF FE Classic had Cruisers on CS1-6. These never were part of CWiF nor MWiF, as they included SiF in a mandatory way.
CLiF introduced CL to the game. These were added to MWiF, and are part of the game if the player chooses the option.

Now to Rumania. Rumania had a CL in WiF FE Classic, but it never was part of the Computer game. Rumania has no CL on the CLiF sheet (CS36). Rumania has a Destroyer Flotilla (as a CA) on SiF, and this is this counter that is included in MWiF, and only this one.

There is no "Destroyer Flotilla" counter on CS36 (CLiF).

So, to answer the question, Rumania starts the Barbarossa scenario with the Destroyer Flotilla counter whatever the CLiF option is, as this is not a CLiF counter.

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I am still trying to puzzle out duplicate names for naval units when the Cruisers in Flames units are added to the list of units. This comes up because I am working on getting the country setups correct for all the scenarios.

As a simple case, Rumania starts Barbarossa with
1 - a CA Destroyer Flotilla when playing without Cruisers in Flames and
2 - a CL Destroyer Flotilla instead when playing with Cruisers in Flames.

The counter sheets only have one counter for this, so I assume that in the first instance the unit is treated as a CA and in the second instance as a CL. None of the numbers would change(?). Do I need to change the unit type internally, or doesn't that make any difference?

I think that there is a misunderstanding here, about Light Cruisers.

WiF FE Classic had Cruisers on CS1-6. These never were part of CWiF nor MWiF, as they included SiF in a mandatory way.
CLiF introduced CL to the game. These were added to MWiF, and are part of the game if the player chooses the option.

Now to Rumania. Rumania had a CL in WiF FE Classic, but it never was part of the Computer game. Rumania has no CL on the CLiF sheet (CS36). Rumania has a Destroyer Flotilla (as a CA) on SiF, and this is this counter that is included in MWiF, and only this one.

There is no "Destroyer Flotilla" counter on CS36 (CLiF).

So, to answer the question, Rumania starts the Barbarossa scenario with the Destroyer Flotilla counter whatever the CLiF option is, as this is not a CLiF counter.

I realize that there is no CL counter in the CLIF countersheet for the Destroyer Flotilla. However, the WIF FE set-ups (Section 30) for Germany lists both CL-Dest Flot (R) and CA - Dest Flot (R), with the latter for when playing with SIF. There is a badly worded rule that also seems to relate to this in Section 24.1.6: "(not in SIF)".

I realize that there is no CL counter in the CLIF countersheet for the Destroyer Flotilla. However, the WIF FE set-ups (Section 30) for Germany lists both CL-Dest Flot (R) and CA - Dest Flot (R), with the latter for when playing with SIF. There is a badly worded rule that also seems to relate to this in Section 24.1.6: "(not in SIF)".

This also comes from the fact that CLs in the Setup charts are not distinguished whether they come from WiF FE Classic or from CLiF.
I always assumed that all WiF FE Classic CLs were included also in CLiF, but this is wrong with the Destroyer Flotillas of Rumania, Portugal & Poland.

For MWiF, I think that there simply should be no CL setup in games where the players ruled CLiF option out, and they should be setup if the option is chosen. For the case where you find in the setup charts a duplicate name like here, you should just check in the countermix of MWiF (I do that if you want) if the counter is really a duplicate or not. I believe that there are no more duplicate names now in the MWiF countermix.

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I realize that there is no CL counter in the CLIF countersheet for the Destroyer Flotilla. However, the WIF FE set-ups (Section 30) for Germany lists both CL-Dest Flot (R) and CA - Dest Flot (R), with the latter for when playing with SIF. There is a badly worded rule that also seems to relate to this in Section 24.1.6: "(not in SIF)".

This also comes from the fact that CLs in the Setup charts are not distinguished whether they come from WiF FE Classic or from CLiF.
I always assumed that all WiF FE Classic CLs were included also in CLiF, but this is wrong with the Destroyer Flotillas of Rumania, Portugal & Poland.

For MWiF, I think that there simply should be no CL setup in games where the players ruled CLiF option out, and they should be setup if the option is chosen. For the case where you find in the setup charts a duplicate name like here, you should just check in the countermix of MWiF (I do that if you want) if the counter is really a duplicate or not. I believe that there are no more duplicate names now in the MWiF countermix.

I'll just make the executive decision to ignore references to CL in the setup charts for WIF exclusive of Cruisers in Flames (e.g., CL Java). In all the cases that I have encountered so far, there is a CA with the same name (e.g., CA Java) that is in the coutner mix for WIF (sans Cruisers in Flames).

--------------
Besides the Dutch, there are Danish and Norwegian naval units assigned to the CW in later scenarios. Given that Iceland is Danish, then Denmark is incompletely conquered. But Norway is completely conquered (I believe).

Besides the Dutch, there are Danish and Norwegian naval units assigned to the CW in later scenarios. Given that Iceland is Danish, then Denmark is incompletely conquered. But Norway is completely conquered (I believe).

Iceland & Greenland are both Territories, so Denmark is completely conquered when Copehaguen falls.
Norway controls no Minor Country, so Norway is always completely conquered when Oslo falls.


Minor Countries that control other Minor Countries :
Portugal --> Angola, Mozambique, Portuguese Guinea
Spain --> Spanish Sahara, Spanish Morocco (Er Rif)
Netherlands --> Netherland East Indies, Dutch Guyana
Belgium --> Belgian Congo

Only those can be incompletely conquered.

maybe the 'Classic' ships can be identified with both ship names, so the Vainamoinen, 'Classic' version, could be the 'Vainamoinen/Ilamoinen' (apologies on the spelling, don't have it in front of me, and I'm of Finnish descent even). Similary, the Arizona could be the 'Arizona/Oklahoma' (if that's the combo) and then each and every ship counter would again have a unique name. ???

(I was just staring at the Finnish ships on Patrice's website the other day, I think one factor does change on the 'Classic' counter, maybe AA?)

Simple question: can you choose Bounce combat during Bounce combat?

Would this chain of event be correct?

The Inactive side is CW, and he has a single LND (A2A value 0) in the air combat. The active side is Germany with a lone FTR (A2A value 4 - and 5 in Bounce combat).

1. The inactive side (CW) rolls two dice and adds them together getting 11.
2. Locate the result on the air-to-air combat table and implement it. This gives a DC in the -4 column. The German player chooses Bounce combat. This interrupts the normal sequence of combat ("you interrupt the air-to-air combat sequence to immediately fight a bounce combat") and you fight a separate bounce combat.

Bounce Combat I
2.1 The Inactive side (CW) rolls two dice and adds them together, rolling 11 again.
2.2 Locate the result on the air-to-air combat table and implement it. This gives a DC in the -5 column. The German player chooses Bounce combat. This interrupts the normal sequence of combat ("you interrupt the air-to-air combat sequence to immediately fight a bounce combat") and you fight a separate bounce combat.

Bounce Combat II
2.2.1 The Inactive side (CW) rolls two dice and adds them together, rolling 2.
2.2.2 Locate the result on the air-to-air combat table and implement it. This gives a DX. The German FTR is shot down and the Pilot survives.
2.2.3 The active side (Germany) rolls two dice and adds them together. Germany rolls 12.
2.2.4 This gives no effect in the +5 column.
2.2.5 Germany does not want to abort
2.2.6 CW does not want to abort

2.3 The active side (Germany) rolls two dice and adds them together. Germany rolls 12.
2.4 This gives no effect in the +5 column.
2.5 Germany does not want to abort
2.6 CW does not want to abort

3. The active side (Germany) rolls two dice and adds them together. He rolls 12.
4. This gives no effect in the +4 column.
5. No abort.
6. CW naturally does not want to abort.

ORIGINAL: Frederyck

Simple question: can you choose Bounce combat during Bounce combat?

I'd say no, but the rule does not say neither yes nor no.
A litteral reading will conclude it say yes, but given what a bounce is, I'd say that bouncing planes are already bouncing, so they can't bounce nothing more.
Bouncing means that the planes found an opening in the enemy defensive screen, and fell upon enemy planes taking them offguard.

That is how we play it, but I re-read the rules last night for clarity and found no mention of it not being allowed.

Part of the rule says that the results of bounce combat only affect the two air units engaged in the bounce combat. So, if there were a bounce within a bounce, it would mean that those 2 air units engage in combat a second time.

But the bounce rule also says "These two aircraft fight one round of air-to-air combat." From that I would gather that the intent of the rule is that bounce comabt is a single round of combat between these two air units, and that a bounce within a bounce would violate the intent of the rule and perhaps the legalese interpretation as well.

Given the passage Steve has cited, my own opinion would be that you fight your one round of bounce combat and that's it.
 
The "two aircraft fight one round of air-to-air combat" seems pretty unambiguous to me, although I agree that perhaps adding a line in parantheses about further bounce combats resulting from the actual bounce combat being prohibited would make certain there is no room for misinterpretation.

ORIGINAL: composer99
The "two aircraft fight one round of air-to-air combat" seems pretty unambiguous to me, although I agree that perhaps adding a line in parantheses about further bounce combats resulting from the actual bounce combat being prohibited would make certain there is no room for misinterpretation.

And no room neither in your bookcase, with the WiF FE complete and unambiguous rules taking 10 volumes of 1000 pages each [:D].
The human mind is such that what will be attempted to be complete and unambiguous will be understood another way by someone, who will then ask for another bit to be added, etc, etc, ad infinitum...

I believe that a lot of common sense must be used when playing wargames, WiF FE included, and that we must not confuse the rulebook with a text of law. Our rulebook has to have a page number small enough for the game to be published and played, which is not an issue for law writters.

Given the real life explanation of what a bounce is in air to air combat (I see it as a group of fighters piercing the defenses of the escorting fighters and taking enemy aircrafts offguard, taking advantage of surprise to inflict damage, and run before the defenders are there), there is IMO not ambiguity that a bounce within a bounce is not logical.

Yes, a fully written WiF rulebook with every loophole attended to would be pretty massive. As it is, we just have to get by on our own "Oral Law" tradition, relying on the occasional "hadith" from Harry.
 
Now was that syncretist, or what? [;)]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
And no room neither in your bookcase, with the WiF FE complete and unambiguous rules taking 10 volumes of 1000 pages each [:D].

I'd buy it. 10 volumes a 1000 pages is a mere 10 000 pages. I'll just have to chuck my wife's David Eddings collection and there would be ample space for the rules.

[:D]

I have been reading the code for ATRs vis-a-vis optional rules (part of my quest to determine which optioanl rules have been coded, document them, and build a list of optional rules yet to be coded).

Currently the code interprets the deselection of Bombers-as-ATRs (i.e., the option is not in effect) to eliminate the No Para symbols from all ATRs. The result is that all ATRs can perform paradrops when the Bombers-as-ATRs option is turned off.

This doesn't seem correct to me. Your opinion and/or advice?

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I have been reading the code for ATRs vis-a-vis optional rules (part of my quest to determine which optioanl rules have been coded, document them, and build a list of optional rules yet to be coded).

Currently the code interprets the deselection of Bombers-as-ATRs (i.e., the option is not in effect) to eliminate the No Para symbols from all ATRs. The result is that all ATRs can perform paradrops when the Bombers-as-ATRs option is turned off.

This doesn't seem correct to me. Your opinion and/or advice?

I think the selected option you are talking about is:

Units other than ATR’s can Air Transport and Paradrop, and some ATR’s cannot paradrop.


Please note by selecting this option "some ATR’s cannot paradrop" comes into effect.

Deselection would mean all ATR's (and only ATR's) can perform Air re-supply, Air transport, and Paradrop missions.