Rules Clarification List

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Here is a question I've never thought of before. I was re-reading the Neutrality Pacts rules (9.5) to make up a fun solitaire game, and I noticed this:

"You may break a neutrality pact, any turn after the calendar year following its signing, provided you have...."


So with the main neutrality pact in the game being signed in August, 1939, does that mean you can't even break it until 1941?
The calendar year following its signing could be 1940. Or you could read it to mean that following it's signing, like the next day
or something I guess, the calendar year is 1939 of course, so on any turn after 1939 you can break it. Holy junior high school
sentence diagramming conundrum!

The calendar year following its signing is 1939. I'm not a native english speaker, and this is the only meaning I see here.

The part about "Double the defensive value of your units in the calendar year after the neutrality pact was made." pretty
much shows the intent, that you could break it the following calendar year (1940 for the German-Russian pact), or there is no point to the doubling.

That is how we have always played it but I could see someone reading it the other way.

There are always people to read things in the most bizarre way possible. Especially in the WiF FE community.

What they did wrong was to use both 'after' & 'following' which makes it look like you wait two years. Better would have been:
".. any turn after the calendar year in which the pact was signed, provided ...", or
".. any turn in a calendar year following the year in which the pact was signed, provided ..."

[brian brian]

OK so I got everything spread out and dived in to some solitaire Global War WiF. And discovered an odd little situation I had never seen before either. Again I think I know how to work it out, and already did actually, but I'm just wondering how others would read it, and in this case I could see it causing a coding conflict inside a computer program...

Sep/Oct 39 - On Impulse 3, the weather roll is a 9, making impulses advance by 2. On Impulse 7, the Germans overrun all ports in Denmark. 2 Tankers and 3 CP were set up in Greenland. So far, pretty normal. Except the Germans roll a 1 and the turn ends before the CW can move the merchant shipping. Now Denmark is completely conquered. Greenland and Iceland, being territories (i.e. without their own capitals), become neutral. Any remaining naval units are controlled by the controlling major power, the CW in this case, but they are now in a 'neutral' hex. "Any naval units in an enemy controlled hex are now treated as if they are overrun", say the rules. But what do you do with units controlled by a Major Power now in a neutral hex?

Again this is mostly for Steve's benefit in case the programming has checks on friendly units being in hexes not controlled by that side...

[brian brian]

p.s. this can also happen in Crete I think. Basically, somewhat new political entities are created in these cases.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

OK so I got everything spread out and dived in to some solitaire Global War WiF. And discovered an odd little situation I had never seen before either. Again I think I know how to work it out, and already did actually, but I'm just wondering how others would read it, and in this case I could see it causing a coding conflict inside a computer program...

Sep/Oct 39 - On Impulse 3, the weather roll is a 9, making impulses advance by 2. On Impulse 7, the Germans overrun all ports in Denmark. 2 Tankers and 3 CP were set up in Greenland. So far, pretty normal. Except the Germans roll a 1 and the turn ends before the CW can move the merchant shipping. Now Denmark is completely conquered. Greenland and Iceland, being territories (i.e. without their own capitals), become neutral. Any remaining naval units are controlled by the controlling major power, the CW in this case, but they are now in a 'neutral' hex. "Any naval units in an enemy controlled hex are now treated as if they are overrun", say the rules. But what do you do with units controlled by a Major Power now in a neutral hex?

Again this is mostly for Steve's benefit in case the programming has checks on friendly units being in hexes not controlled by that side...

The Conquest 'phase' occurs during the end of turn and within that 'phase' are 'subphases', one of which is to perform forced naval rebases. In this regard it is handled the same way forced movement occurs during the establishment of Vichy. The presence of naval units in neutral ports warrants a forced naval rebase.

[ezzler]

I can't find the original thread on the problems of CV aircraft  being too large for thier carriers and the rule on scrapping air units. Also I can't seem to find the aircraft scrap rules on ADG.
 I may have remembered incorrectly but if an Aircraft is destroyed and the owner wishes to scrap this a/c , the owner has to scrap ALL of the same type.
EG a spit 1 is destroyed . to scrap it both Spitfire 1 counters need to be scrapped?
 Can anyone help me on this rule..

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: ezz

I can't find the original thread on the problems of CV aircraft  being too large for thier carriers and the rule on scrapping air units. Also I can't seem to find the aircraft scrap rules on ADG.
I may have remembered incorrectly but if an Aircraft is destroyed and the owner wishes to scrap this a/c , the owner has to scrap ALL of the same type.
EG a spit 1 is destroyed . to scrap it both Spitfire 1 counters need to be scrapped?
Can anyone help me on this rule..

This (scrap all of the same type) is a ghost of WiF past and this rule does not exist any more in Final Edition.

[ezzler]

That's good news.
Has the CV problem also been resolved Froonp ?

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: ezz

That's good news.
Has the CV problem also been resolved Froonp ?

What is the "CV problem" ?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: ezz

That's good news.
Has the CV problem also been resolved Froonp ?

What is the "CV problem" ?

As I recall this has to do with randomly drawing carrier air units and then not having enough that are small enough to fit on the given carriers. For example, drawing a 3 and two 2's carrier air units to fit on three carriers of size 2.

[brian brian]

This is a common question. You have to keep some of the CV planes you _could_ scrap, and then you should draw enough that fit on your CVs. It's a tricky balance. The best example is the CW at start...it helps to remember that they might not have enough pilots to staff all their CVs until 1940 possibly, and a few of the planes change classes then. But there is still only one Ark Royal...gets even trickier if that gets sunk. It is important for the CW to build out their CV plane pool by Nov/Dec at the latest, the new CV planes each year take a while to trickle down to the Courageous and Illustrious class CVs.

[ezzler]

Yes exactly this. Rather than having to build the entire forcepool couldn't the 'size class' of some units be changed. Sorry i do not have specific examples , I just remember many times planes built for carriers that can't fit on the decks , obsolete aircraft in production just because the new ones are 'too good' to use.

[bredsjomagnus]

Yes. It is kind of strange that for exampel CW spends money and resources on stuff they can´t use. It wouldn´t happen in real life. This is IMHO a annoying bug in WiF.
 
 
/Magnus

[Froonp]

So, this "CV problem" now that I have understood what it was, that you perceive as a problem is still as is in the WiF FE game and in MWiF.

I for one don't perceive that as a big problem, only a harder / finer management.
I play the CW a lot, and even if I may curse my bad luck when I draw too much class 3 or 4 carrier planes, I live with it. There are also a lot of Class 1 carrier planes, that you can scrap and should not (I only scrap those with a 1 or 0 factor), so that you can keep your class 2 carriers occupied.

[lomyrin]

With the optional 2 CVP's on a carrier it makes even more sense to not overscrap class 1 CVP's. Two class 1 CVP on a Class 2 Carrier makes good use of them.
 
Lars

[ezzler]

I accept that there may be ways to play around a flawed rule. However wouldn't it make more sense to correct it rather than have a recurring 'bug report' once the game is released.


 i would suggest asking for examples of house rules out there that get round this issue and  see what comes up. This problem does seem specific to CW players so it might be possible to look at the CVs and CVPs and make a few counter changes.

[brian brian]

It happens to the Germans too...

one converse of how the cv planes work is the countries that build new CVs that are bigger classes than they start with (Blue - CW, Purple - Japan, Green - Germany) could end up with brand new CVs with no planes to put on them...

err, cutting-edge new plane designs that is.

the trick really is to get your CV plane orders in before Jan/Feb when the new ones roll out

[paulderynck]

It would not be a bug unless the inability to place the CVPs caused the program to crash. If you draw oversize planes you must put them in the reserve pool and/or set them up in a city so that in the reinforcement step of Sep/Oct 39, they can be removed to the reserve pool. The set-up does not require them to be on board a CV.

[ezzler]

I meant it would appear to new players as a bug .. ' My cvp do not fit on my carriers'
Actually it is absurd when you think of it ..

[Dave3L]

I always thought of CVPs as just more than a set number of planes, but as a doctrine for use of the planes you had as well.  So while the Ark Royal doesn't change size, developing tactical doctrines allow for her to pack a bigger Sunday Punch in the same space.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: ezz

I meant it would appear to new players as a bug .. ' My cvp do not fit on my carriers'
Actually it is absurd when you think of it ..

I have this feeling of deja vu, ... perhaps we discussed this a year or so ago?

I agree that getting carrier air units that are too big doesn't make a lot of sense (if any). If you draw some that are small than the carriers, well, I can accept that a lot of mistakes were made by the planners early in the war. But not having enough carrier air units to put at least one on each carrier, ... that doesn't seem right.

Especially since this only happens when playing with carrier air units. Without that optional rule, all the carriers perform at maximum effectiveness.