AI for MWiF - Commonwealth

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

The information on page 5 is from 2007 and is out of date.

Example: Froonp says ship CW oil from Venezuela to the USA and then rail it to Canada.

This requires permission from the Neutral major power the USA.

Steve has said permissions are not allowed in MWiF.

ORIGNINAL: Froonp

Venezuela (3 OIL) to Canada (Oil saved to Canada) Carribean --> USA --> Canada = 3 TK

The maps showing the convoy lines are nice but there is no indication “from where what is being shipped” or “where it is being shipped to”.

There is no mention of any Tankers that would be on the maps.

There is no mention of where the main fleet, the reserve fleet, or the escorts would be located.

There is no mention of the composition of the main fleet, the reserve fleet, or the escorts.

Permission from enemy major powers is never given in MWIF. Permission from friendly major powers is always given. That is what I meant when I wrote that the question for permission to ship resources/units through a country is not part of MWIF => there is no form for even asking this question. Of course there are rules related to this actions that are still in effect.

[Extraneous]

Are "friendly major powers" the same as "Allied major powers" (Active major powers on your side)?
 
If so the USA and USSR begin the Global War as "Neutral major powers" and are friendly to neither side.
 
 
 
If not what are "friendly major powers" this term is not in the RAW. 
 
 
 

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

Are "friendly major powers" the same as "Allied major powers" (Active major powers on your side)?

If so the USA and USSR begin the Global War as "Neutral major powers" and are friendly to neither side.



If not what are "friendly major powers" this term is not in the RAW. 

All major powers labeled Axis are on the Axis side. They are friendly to each other.

All major powers labeled Allied are on the Allied side. They are friendly to each other.

[paulderynck]

And it is in RAW - in the Glossary: "Friendly [a major power or minor country on your side]"

and: "Side [there are two sides in World in Flames, the Axis and the Allies]"

[Extraneous]

Then Steve should have used the term "friendly" or "on your side" not ""friendly major power".

As this would include minor powers "aligned to" or "conqured by" a major power that is "friendly" or "on your side". Is this also true?

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

And it is in RAW - in the Glossary: "Friendly [a major power or minor country on your side]"

and: "Side [there are two sides in World in Flames, the Axis and the Allies]"

"[a major power or minor country on your side]" is the definition of "Friendly".

"[there are two sides in World in Flames, the Axis and the Allies]" is the definition of "Side".


There is no definition or reference to "Friendly Major Power" only "Friendly" and "Side (or Sides)" in the RAW.


Since Steve has redefined some WiF terms the definition of "Friendly Major Power" needed to be addressed.

[composer99]

???

It is perfectly clear: a major power or minor country on your side is friendly.

The USA and USSR, neutral or active, are part of the Allied side. They are also major powers.

Therefore, they are friendly major powers to any other Allied major power or (aligned) minor country. Conquered minor countries are either incompletely conquered (in which case they remain enemy minor countries) or completely conquered in which case they are out of the game.

It seems to me that these conclusions flow logically from the glossary terms (and the conquest rules) and do not require any "redefinition" on anyone's part.

The placement of operational fleet, convoy escorts, reserves, etc. is a decision for the AIO to make at the point of set-up and should be based on rules and guidelines rather than be some hard-coded decision. Some games, the CW AIO will put operational fleets in Scapa Flow and Gibraltar; in others Plymouth and Gibraltar; in others Plymouth and Alexandria; etc., based on its knowledge of enemy dispositions (rather limited since Japan and Germany are not set up when the CW does its setup), its convoy deployment and its early-war strategic/tactical plans.

[Extraneous]

ORIGINAL:  composer99

???

It is perfectly clear: a major power or minor country on your side is friendly.

The USA and USSR, neutral or active, are part of the Allied side. They are also major powers.

Therefore, they are friendly major powers to any other Allied major power or (aligned) minor country. Conquered minor countries are either incompletely conquered (in which case they remain enemy minor countries) or completely conquered in which case they are out of the game.

It seems to me that these conclusions flow logically from the glossary terms (and the conquest rules) and do not require any "redefinition" on anyone's part.

The placement of operational fleet, convoy escorts, reserves, etc. is a decision for the AIO to make at the point of set-up and should be based on rules and guidelines rather than be some hard-coded decision. Some games, the CW AIO will put operational fleets in Scapa Flow and Gibraltar; in others Plymouth and Gibraltar; in others Plymouth and Alexandria; etc., based on its knowledge of enemy dispositions (rather limited since Japan and Germany are not set up when the CW does its setup), its convoy deployment and its early-war strategic/tactical plans.

Please read my Post #340 specifically This requires permission from the Neutral major power the USA


When the developer specifies “Friendly Major Power” this automatically excludes “Minor Powers” aligned or conquered by that “Friendly Major Power”.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

[font=arial]Permission from enemy major powers is never given in MWIF. Permission from friendly major powers is always given.[/font]

This should read: In MWIF permission from an enemy side is never given but permission from a friendly side is always given. This ruling doesn’t exempt units from the Foreign troop commitment rules.



The Conquest (incomplete and complete) rules have already been discussed and defined in another thread.

Who said they required any "redefinition"?



“The placement of operational fleet, convoy escorts, reserves, etc. is a decision for the AIO to make at the point of set-up and should be based on rules and guidelines rather than be some hard-coded decision.”

You can’t tell me “from where what is being shipped”, “where it is being shipped to”, or where Tankers would be on the maps?

Then why should we trust these proposed setups?

[morgil]

You know Extraneous, I really can't decide if you're trolling or if you are practicing to be a lawyer, or maybe its both ?
But could you please stop ? Cause you see, its not really helpful to spend days debating what words to use for any given situation, when everybody that wants to will easily understand it.
For the most part it seems you are not even understanding the game mechanics you are criticizing nor actually reading the posts before commenting on them, like in post #340.
Because Mr. O`Keets has ruled out the coding of gamey houserules, some time in the past, you believe he has changed RAW, when it should be made crystal clear from the word GO, that this would not happen in any way, shape or form.
And partly based on your faulty assumptions that RAW has been changed, you go on to criticize the Convoy setup maps, as a totally bogus exercise, because the individual convoy points are not labled with a from/to note, there is no note of what is a tanker, and that it doesn't include the setup of the fleet.
If you had read the premise for the task at hand, setting up convoys, it deals with the setup of convoys, not deplyment of the fleet. That is a seperate task. You dont lable the individual points. When you get to the production phase, you see what resources you own, where they need to go, and what convoys you have in place to do so. Its logistics, not rocket science.
And the point about tankers, its really easy when you have first decided what resource to ship, to put on the map what needs to be a tanker and what needs not to be a tanker.

So here is a hot tip;
Read the premise for the task being undertaken, and read the RAW, and if someone uses a phrase not found in the RAW, but instead sounds very similar to RAW though it isn't, you should apply fuzzy logic and assume that it is identical.

[composer99]

Extraneous, it's not my (or anyone else's) job to tell you from where or to where resources are being shipped or where tankers are going to be used (assuming one is playing with the tankers optional rule). Learn where the CW begins the game with resources and oil, learn where it wants to ship them (mostly the UK), and you can deduce from there the logic of the convoy setups (and which convoys will be tankers).

As you can see if you actually read the previous pages of this thread, there has been a lot of discussion on how the CW AIO should deploy fleets, strategically and tactically, based on its offensive goals and defensive requirements. Hopefully what is there is enough for the AIO to work with. Also discussed, well before the graphic convoy setups were posted, were detailed convoy setups - describing in detail the routes that shipped which resources/oil where and whether tankers were called for, I might add.

Finally, the USA may be neutral, but it is on the Allied side by definition (check the Scenario booklet, which is also part of RAW). So it being neutral has no bearing on whether it is friendly to other Allied powers. Personally speaking, whenever I have played an Allied major power in the Global War scenario I have always allowed other Allied powers to ship resources through hexes I control and never allowed Axis powers to do so (and vice-versa when I am playing the Axis). I consider this optimal play since WiF is a 2-sided game, and I would expect the AIO to behave in the same manner.

[Extraneous]

What my profession is irrelevant and if I’m a troll as you suggest why did I even bother doing the Naval Threat Assessment and update it as requested?
 
My original post asked for one thing. I was then directed to page 5, which I read.
This led to my post 340 in which I made further requests. Steve replied being a neutral major power has a bearing in WiF but is different in MWiF.
paulderynck posted the terms were in the Glossary. If you will note in my post 345 I mention that there is only mention in the RAW of  "Friendly" and "Side (or Sides)". How did I know this with out searching the RAW?
I have to assume that when you mention the “Scenario booklet” you mean “RAW7sceanario.pdf” rule 24.1.2 (yes I checked the “Scenario booklet”). I found this to irrelevant to the discussion along with Allied friction 11.16.5 and Allied support 13.7.2
 
 

ORIGINAL: composer99
 
As you can see if you actually read the previous pages of this thread, there has been a lot of discussion on how the CW AIO should deploy fleets, strategically and tactically, based on its offensive goals and defensive requirements. Hopefully what is there is enough for the AIO to work with. Also discussed, well before the graphic convoy setups were posted, were detailed convoy setups - describing in detail the routes that shipped which resources/oil where and whether tankers were called for, I might add.

 
Where? Supply the link; don’t just make a bald statement the information exists somewhere. I supply my links you should also.
 
 
 
Here are some hot tips for you:
 
Any post by the developer (Steve) is his rule on how the game will be released. Computers don’t use “fuzzy logic” unless programmed to do so.  So direct statements by the developer must be taken as verbatim unless he posts otherwise to clarify.
 
This tread of this forum is “AI for MWiF - Commonwealth”.  We are discussing how the game AI will address various issues in MiF.
 
 
How can you post maps showing convoy lines with out explaining WHY they are being set up this way?
 

ORIGINAL: morgil
 
When you get to the production phase, you see what resources you own, where they need to go, and what convoys you have in place to do so.

 
When you wait for the production step to find out where the convoy lines needed to be it’s a little late.
 
How can you post maps showing convoy lines with out explaining which ones would contain tankers for users planning to use option 76?
 
 
 

[morgil]

Both....[:-]

[composer99]

@Extraneous:

[X(][X(][X(] What an astonishing display of bloody-minded literalness.

What my profession is irrelevant [...]

Morgil was making a snide reference to the 'rules lawyer', a type of gamer who, because of hair-splitting nitpicking and inexhaustible requirement for explicit rules, is not especially popular among other types of gamers. The last few posts seem to demonstrate that you possess such characteristics to some degree. So your profession IS irrelevant, but IMO you don't seem to have picked up on the metaphor.

This led to my post 340 in which I made further requests. Steve replied being a neutral major power has a bearing in WiF but is different in MWiF.
paulderynck posted the terms were in the Glossary. If you will note in my post 345 I mention that there is only mention in the RAW of "Friendly" and "Side (or Sides)". How did I know this with out searching the RAW?
I have to assume that when you mention the “Scenario booklet” you mean “RAW7sceanario.pdf” rule 24.1.2 (yes I checked the “Scenario booklet”). I found this to irrelevant to the discussion along with Allied friction 11.16.5 and Allied support 13.7.2

Let's dissect a little bit of post #340:

This requires permission from the Neutral major power the USA.

Steve has said permissions are not allowed in MWiF.

(1) We already have a clarification from Steve as per post 341.

(2) That the USA is neutral is 100% absolutely irrelevant. Let me cite the relevant passage from RAW about the restrictions on transiting resources by rail:

From RAW 13.6.1: The move can only pass through:
ï hexes you control;
ï hexes in neutral minor countries; and
ï hexes controlled by another major power, but only if it allows you.
Allied major powers (except the USSR) may only trace resources through Soviet controlled hexes while the USSR is at war with Germany.

As you can see, there is no mention whatsoever that is matters that "another major power" is neutral or active, only that it must allow you to move your resources through hexes it controls.

According to Steve, the policy (not a re-write of the rules, I might add, only an implementation) in MWiF is that major powers on the same side will always allow each others' resource shipment through their hexes (in the case of your post #340 and relevant to the CW AIO, the Venezuelan oil going through USA to Canada). The only restriction is that even if the USSR allows other Allies to transit resources through its hexes they may not do so unless the USSR is at war with Germany.

(3) In case there was any confusion about what "side" the USA is on, the relevant passages include:
RAW 1. Introduction. The USA is explicitly identified as being an Allied power.
24.1.2 (Scenario Booklet). Notice how the USA is always - ALWAYS - listed among the Allied powers when being divided among players? Doesn't that mean something? I sure hope so. You dismiss this as irrelevant. I don't understand why as it explicitly pools the USA among the Allies.
9.4 US entry. "The USA can declare war on Germany and Italy in the same step but it can’t attempt to declare war on Japan in the same step as it attempts to declare war on either of the others." Notice how the USA can declare war on Axis powers. Since per 9.2 "[y]ou can't declare war on: any major powers or minor countries on your side" the USA must therefore be an Allied major power.

With the glossary definitions provided about friendly and side (post #344), we can conclude that (a) the USA is on the Allied side and (b) the USA is friendly to other Allied powers. Whether it is neutral or not is still 100% irrelevant to whether it is friendly.

Where? Supply the link; don’t just make a bald statement the information exists somewhere. I supply my links you should also.

You claim you read page 5 of this thread, which is where a lot of the discussion about the subject you wanted information about is found or follows from.

While I suppose I should supply links, what I usually do when following thread is to read over the rest of the thread before offering comment - and especially before raising a stink about something. Your comments suggest to me that you did not do this. Maybe you should think about doing so in the future.

All the same, here are some posts with convoy lines: 151 (lines explicitly spelled out); 195 (totals, no convoy lines); 215 (text 'sketch' of lines); 272; 275 (includes a map); 280 (totals, lines not spelled out); and most importantly, post 292 which has a written description of each individual convoy route and summarizes the mapped routes shown after (the ones you have been so stridently complaining about).

I trust the above will actually be clear enough for you (I have my doubts).

@ Everyone else: I beg your forgiveness for the public rant.

[Extraneous]

In response to your comment on snide remarks: I refrain from commenting at this time (I had 3 responses but decided not to sink to your level).
 
Turn about is fair play lets dissect your post 352
 
(1) Did you read my post #347?
 
(2) Does the USA start as an Active or Neutral major power in Global War? I am calling it what it is why are you hung up on my calling it what it is?
 
(3) Why are you hung up on my calling it what it is?
 
 
3 Oil (Burma, Canada, and Port of Spain)
6 Oil in trade agreements (2 in NEI, 1 in Persia, and 3 in Venezuela)
 
21 Non-oil Resources (3 in Australia, 1 in British Guyana, 5 in Canada, 1 in Cyprus, 4 in India, 2 in Malaya, 1 in North Rhodesia, 2 in South Africa, and 2 in UK)
 
 
Please be advised this the only one I have done so far:
 
This is one of your examples not mine Page 10 Post #292
 

ORIGINAL: peskpesk
 
Cyprus (1 RP) By Sea: E Med > W Med > Cape St Vincent > Bay of Biscay = 4 CP
South Africa (2 RP) By Rail: Rhodesia > N Rhodesia > Belg Congo > By Sea: Gulf of Guinea > Cape Verde > Cape St Vincent > Bay of Biscay = 8 CP
Northern Rhodesia (1 RP) By Rail: Belg Congo > Gulf of Guinea > Cape Verde > Cape St Vincent > Bay of Biscay = 4 CP
Canada (5 RP / 1 OIL) (2 PP produced there) By Sea: E Coast > N Atlantic > Bay of Biscay = 12 CP / 9 CP 3 TK
Venezuela (3 OIL) By Sea: Carribean > E Coast > N Atlantic > Bay of Biscay = 12 CP/12 TK
Port of Spain to UK (1 OIL) Carribean > E Coast > N Atlantic > Bay of Biscay = 4 CP/4 TK
British Guyana (1 RP) By Sea: Mouth of the Amazon > Cape Verde Basin > Cape St Vincent > Bay of Biscay = 4 CP
NEI to India By Sea: E Indian Ocean > Bay of Bengal = 4 CP/ 4 TK
India (4 RP) (2 PP produced here with local RP) 2 By sea Arabian Sea > Azanian Sea > Mozambique Channel > Cape Basin > Gulf of Guinea > Cape Verde > Cape St Vincent > Bay of Biscay = 16 CP
Persia to Kuwait (1 OIL) By rail to Egypt
Australia (3 RP) (1 PP produced here with local RP)
Burma (1 Oil) saved in Burma

 
9 Oil, 17 Non-oil Resources
 
 
This is the same in all the maps above or which map does this go with? Don’t you see some problems?
 
Hints:
 
You don’t want the 2 resources in Malaya?
Persia to Kuwait (1 OIL) By rail to Egypt (What rail line?).
NEI (2 OIL) to India By Sea: E Indian Ocean > Bay of Bengal = 4 CP/ 4 TK
 

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous


This is the same in all the maps above or which map does this go with? Don’t you see some problems?

Hints:

You don’t want the 2 resources in Malaya?
Persia to Kuwait (1 OIL) By rail to Egypt (What rail line?).
NEI (2 OIL) to India By Sea: E Indian Ocean > Bay of Bengal = 4 CP/ 4 TK

This rail line to Egypt.

It had previously been considered shipping the Persia oil to Kuwait in some convoy setups and it was left in the text by mistake.

CW needs 15 resources, or oil, shipped to Great Britain to produce with all factories at the beginning of the game. CW has 23 resources (or oil) around the world not used at the local factories. After transporting 15 resources Great Britain there is no need to transport the last 8 resources, or oil, to Great Britain. Oil can be stored at many CW cities around the world.

Rather than transporting more than needed the to Great Britain the CP not used can be in reserve for future use or replacements.

The 2 resources in Malaya needs alot of CP to be transported to Great Britain. And in turn 2 CW might want to give some resources to other countries. If CW is allowed to give resources to China the Malayan resources can be transported to China with only 1 CP / resource.

[Extraneous]

ORIGINAL: This is one of your examples not mine Froonp Post #151
There was an error in the counting of the NEI Tankers (the total was good 64 / 15), so I repost it

Here is one example of CW Convoy route. The latest I used.
This is one that uses 79 CP (shows Tankers too).
It avoids the Med and have food in flames conditions satisfied (1 Indian / Australian / South African RP to UK).

CP = Convoy Points
TK = Tanker Points

UK (2 RP) = 0 CP
Cyprus (1 RP) Eastern Med --> Western Med --> Cape St Vincent --> Bay of biscay = 4 CP
South Africa (2 RP) Rhodesia --> Northern Rhodesia --> Belgian Congo --> Gulf of Guinea --> Cape Verde --> Cape St Vincent --> Bay of Biscay = 8 CP
Northern Rhodesia (1 RP) Belgian Congo --> Gulf of Guinea --> Cape Verde --> Cape St Vincent --> Bay of Biscay = 4 CP
Canada (5 RP / 1 OIL) (2 PP produced there, 1 with Australian RP 1 with local RP. 1 Oil can be saved here or used for Reorg). East Coast --> North Atlantic --> Bay of Biscay / Faeroes = 12 CP / 3 TK
Venezuela (3 OIL) to Canada (Oil saved to Canada) Carribean --> USA --> Canada = 3 TK
Port of Spain to UK (1 OIL) Carribean --> East Coast --> North Atlantic --> Bay of Biscay / Faeroes = 4 TK (this one can be avoided, and so 4 more reserve CP gained, so this oil would be stored / used where it is produced and not stored in England)
British Guyana (1 RP) Mouth of the Amazon --> Cape Verde Basin --> Cape St Vincent --> Bay of Biscay = 4 CP (this one avoids the Central Atlantic purposedly, to avoid having 1 more sea area to guard)
NEI to India / Australia (2 OIL) East Indian Ocean --> Bay of Bengal OR East Indian Ocean --> Cape Naturaliste = 4 TK
India 2 RP to UK around Africa (4 RP) (2 PP produced here with local RP) Arabian Sea --> Azanian Sea --> Mozambique Channel --> Cape Basin --> Gulf of Guinea --> Cape Verde --> Cape St Vincent --> Bay of Biscay = 16 CP
Persia to Kuwait (1 OIL) Persian Gulf = 1 TK
Australia 1 RP to UK through Panama (3 RP) Tasman Sea --> New Zealand Coast --> South Pacific --> Austral --> Capricorn --> Gulf of Panama --> Carribean --> East Coast --> North Atlantic --> Bay of Biscay / Faeroes = 10 CP
Australia 1 RP to Canada (3 RP) Tasman Sea --> New Zealand Coast --> South Pacific --> Austral --> East Pacific --> Mexican Coast --> USA --> Canada = 6 CP

Total = 64 CP / 15 TK (79)

This setup brings 14 RP and 2 Oil to UK, where you only need 15 resources to produce at full.

But it only leaves 2 CP as a reserve which is few and dangerous.
You can save some CP by not shipping both Indian RP to UK (shipping only 1), thus saving 8 CP. You will open this route when you'll have enough CP.
You can instead save some CP by not shipping one of the Canadian RP, saving only 3 CP.
This setup also does not cover the Red Sea, which is dangerous at some point in the game.

Anyway, this is only an initial setup, as the CW is supposed to build some (as Christopher advised, and with which I agree), and gain some by Minor Country alignements :
- Belgium : 2 CP
- Denmark : 4 CP 2 TK
- Netherlands : 4 CP 6 TK (not always)
- Poland : 1 CP
- Yugoslavia : 1 CP.

And sometimes :
- Greece : 6 CP 4 TK

There are also some resources that are not shipped :
- Malaya

And some resources that will soon be erratically shipped:
- Cyprus

There are also some new RP sources that will open up as the game evolves :
- Belgian Congo : 1 RP who needs 4 CP to ship
- Dutch Guyana : 1 RP who needs 4 CP to ship (avoiding Central Pacific)
- Portugal (eventualy) : 1 RP who needs 1 CP to ship
- Sardinia : 1 RP who needs 3 CP to ship
- Algeria : 1 RP who needs 2 CP to ship
- Senegal : 1 RP who needs 3 CP to ship

For each (well not each, it depends on the number of Oil that the CW actualy brings to the UK, here it is 2, but it can be more later) of those RP that the CW ships to UK, this is one more Oil that the CW can save.

Do I have this right?


Australia to Canada (1 RP) Tasman Sea --> New Zealand Coast --> South Pacific --> Austral --> East Pacific --> Mexican Coast --> USA --> Canada = 6 CP

Australia to UK (1 RP) through Panama (3 RP) Tasman Sea --> New Zealand Coast --> South Pacific --> Austral --> Capricorn --> Gulf of Panama --> Caribbean --> East Coast --> North Atlantic --> Bay of Biscay / Faeroes = 10 CP
British Guyana to UK (1 RP) Mouth of the Amazon --> Cape Verde Basin --> Cape St Vincent --> Bay of Biscay = 4 CP (this one avoids the Central Atlantic purposely, to avoid having 1 more sea area to guard)
Cyprus to UK (1 RP) Eastern Med --> Western Med --> Cape St Vincent --> Bay of Biscay = 4 CP
Canada to UK (4 RP / 1 OIL) East Coast --> North Atlantic --> Bay of Biscay / Faeroes = 12 CP / 3 TK
India to UK (2 RP) around Africa (4 RP) (2 PP produced here with local RP) Arabian Sea --> Azanian Sea --> Mozambique Channel --> Cape Basin --> Gulf of Guinea --> Cape Verde --> Cape St Vincent --> Bay of Biscay = 16 CP
Northern Rhodesia to UK (1 RP) Belgian Congo --> Gulf of Guinea --> Cape Verde --> Cape St Vincent --> Bay of Biscay = 4 CP
Port of Spain to UK (1 OIL) Caribbean --> East Coast --> North Atlantic --> Bay of Biscay / Faeroes = 4 TK (this one can be avoided, and so 4 more reserve CP gained, so this oil would be stored / used where it is produced and not stored in England)
South Africa to UK (2 RP) Rhodesia --> Northern Rhodesia --> Belgian Congo --> Gulf of Guinea --> Cape Verde --> Cape St Vincent --> Bay of Biscay = 8 CP

shipped to UK 2 Oil, 14 Resources.

Canada 2PP produced here (1 Australian RP 1 Canadian RP).
India 2PP produced here (2 India RP).
UK 2PP produced here (2 UK RP).
NEI to India or Australia (2 OIL) (Oil saved in India or Australia) East Indian Ocean --> Bay of Bengal OR East Indian Ocean --> Cape Naturaliste = 4 TK
Persia to Kuwait (1 OIL) (Oil saved in Kuwait) Persian Gulf = 1 TK
Venezuela to Canada (3 OIL) (Oil saved in Canada) Caribbean --> USA --> by rail to Canada = 3 TK


3 Oil (Burma, Canada, and Port of Spain)
6 Oil in trade agreements (2 in NEI, 1 in Persia, and 3 in Venezuela)

21 Non-oil Resources (3 in Australia, 1 in British Guyana, 5 in Canada, 1 in Cyprus, 4 in India, 2 in Malaya, 1 in North Rhodesia, 2 in South Africa, and 2 in UK)

24 Factories (2 Australia, 2 Canada, 3 India, UK 17)


Errors: Burma (1 Oil) I have to assume this will be saved in Burma, Canada has only enough CP's allocated to ship 4 resources and 1 oil to the UK, 2 factories in India are unused, the UK has 17 factories not 15.



Lets just say Orm Post #215 needs work

But it did say rail to Egypt.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous
Lets just say Orm Post #215 needs work

But it did say rail to Egypt.

Thanks for supplying the link. It allowed me to see that Orm's post is 100% correct.

[Extraneous]

ORIGINAL:  composer99
 
All the same, here are some posts with convoy lines: 151 (lines explicitly spelled out); 195 (totals, no convoy lines); 215 (text 'sketch' of lines); 272; 275 (includes a map); 280 (totals, lines not spelled out); and most importantly, post 292 which has a written description of each individual convoy route and summarizes the mapped routes shown after (the ones you have been so stridently complaining about).

composer99 did say it was a 'sketch' of convoy lines.

[Extraneous]

Froonp Post #132 shows no factory in Ottawa, Canada or Victoria, Canada while Froonp Post #138 does. This is also true for [font=arial]Karachi, India.[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
Is this correct?[font=arial][/font]

[brian brian]

oh I can't resist. Extraneous, you forgot that England has two resources so if you get 16 resources to England you can actually save an oil and fill 17 factories. ERROR Same for India filling it's two factories with no shipping required, and your Canada quibble has another ERROR because the Canada line does list 3 tankers. And it's pointless worrying about each and every oil, several of them have to be spent on units each turn as the majority of players use the optional requiring that. And I can see that you listed the internal English production a few lines up from that. But quibbling over these tiny points is a complete waste of time.

Anyway Extraneous, we would be glad to answer any question you have about the game any time. But not if you want to argue about what the definition of "is" is though I think you might be too young to know that quote and anyway only politically aware Americans would catch that reference from the late mid 90s. Seriously, just relax and discuss the game like the rest of us instead of trying to comb out some tiny mistaken mistake in everyone else's posts.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

Froonp Post #132 shows no factory in Ottawa, Canada or Victoria, Canada while Froonp Post #138 does. This is also true for [font=arial]Karachi, India.[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
Is this correct?[font=arial][/font]

The green factories that appear on some paper maps are only in use in after WW2 scenarios (AiF & PatiF). They don't exist in MWiF (for the moment) because MWiF for the moment only have the WiF FE scenarios, and not the AiF & PatiF ones.