What Do You Think Needs to be in World In Flames PC Game

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

What is your source in the rules for this requirement?

See post #374, rule 13.7.3.

Ok.

[Ullern]

It's important to recognise that the rule 13.7.3 is the only rule that allows a permanent trade agreement to be established. Therefore, as already pointed out, a new trade agreement also is a new neutrality pact.

Example: In my last board game Germany ask USSR to renegotiate the USSR-German trade agreement winter 41. USSR declined exactly because this also meant setting the date for the USSR-German neutrality pact to 1941. (USSR is not likely to be able to break the pact before game end with such a late neutrality pact date.)

Ullern

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: ullern

It's important to recognise that the rule 13.7.3 is the only rule that allows a permanent trade agreement to be established. Therefore, as already pointed out, a new trade agreement also is a new neutrality pact.

Example: In my last board game Germany ask USSR to renegotiate the USSR-German trade agreement winter 41. USSR declined exactly because this also meant setting the date for the USSR-German neutrality pact to 1941. (USSR is not likely to be able to break the pact before game end with such a late neutrality pact date.)

Ullern

Neutrality Pacts and Trade Agreements occur at different points in the sequence of play. NPs can be created or renewed during any DOW phase, which occurs every impulse. TAs are created during the Lending Phase which occurs once per turn. Effectively, this means that an NP has to have been established prior to the turn.

[composer99]

Actually, neutrality pacts, as 9.5 states, are negotiated during the Peace Step, which is when 13.7.3 (Mutual Peace) takes place.
 
So in any given turn, during the peace step, two major powers may negotiate a neutrality pact including a trade agreement. The turn after (since peace happens after production) is when the trade agreement actually takes effect and has an impact on their production.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: composer99

Actually, neutrality pacts, as 9.5 states, are negotiated during the Peace Step, which is when 13.7.3 (Mutual Peace) takes place.

So in any given turn, during the peace step, two major powers may negotiate a neutrality pact including a trade agreement. The turn after (since peace happens after production) is when the trade agreement actually takes effect and has an impact on their production.

Ah, my mistake.

NPs are reconfirmed during a DOW subphase, and are automatically created during a Peace subphase when a mutual peace is agreed to by the countries involved. Mutual peace includes the optional rule for USSR-Japan compulsory peace.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: composer99

Actually, neutrality pacts, as 9.5 states, are negotiated during the Peace Step, which is when 13.7.3 (Mutual Peace) takes place.

So in any given turn, during the peace step, two major powers may negotiate a neutrality pact including a trade agreement. The turn after (since peace happens after production) is when the trade agreement actually takes effect and has an impact on their production.

Technically, trade agreements are only those that are in effect at the start of a scenario.

However, CWIF and MWIF use the label TA to apply to other lending arrangements. The small benefit is that the players can enter how many turns they want a TA to last, thereby saving themselves the need to reenter the same information every turn. Regardless, the TA is defined during the Lending phase not the Peace phase.

[Froonp]

The Trade Agreements defined during the Lending phase are those between friendly countries

Those Trade Agreements that are defined in the Peace step as the result of a Neutrality Pact are between enemies, and you can't modify them once they are decided, contrarily to those defined between friendly countries that can be adjusted from turn to turn. To change those you made from Neutrality Pact, you need to break the Neutrality Pact.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

The Trade Agreements defined during the Lending phase are those between friendly countries

Those Trade Agreements that are defined in the Peace step as the result of a Neutrality Pact are between enemies, and you can't modify them once they are decided, contrarily to those defined between friendly countries that can be adjusted from turn to turn. To change those you made from Neutrality Pact, you need to break the Neutrality Pact.

From whence cometh this rule? I do not see it in the version I am using.

[lomyrin]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Froonp

The Trade Agreements defined during the Lending phase are those between friendly countries

Those Trade Agreements that are defined in the Peace step as the result of a Neutrality Pact are between enemies, and you can't modify them once they are decided, contrarily to those defined between friendly countries that can be adjusted from turn to turn. To change those you made from Neutrality Pact, you need to break the Neutrality Pact.

From whence cometh this rule? I do not see it in the version I am using.

Paragraph 9.5 - Other Major Powers - details the setting up of new Neutrality Pacts which is different from variable length trade agreements.

Lars

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Froonp

The Trade Agreements defined during the Lending phase are those between friendly countries

Those Trade Agreements that are defined in the Peace step as the result of a Neutrality Pact are between enemies, and you can't modify them once they are decided, contrarily to those defined between friendly countries that can be adjusted from turn to turn. To change those you made from Neutrality Pact, you need to break the Neutrality Pact.

From whence cometh this rule? I do not see it in the version I am using.

I suppose that this is an assumption made that mimics how 5.1 Trade Agreements are dealt with.

Trade Agreements listed in 5.1 are mandatory, until a specific event arrive (war, breaking of pact) and so the Trade Agreements agreed upon between enemies or with a Neutrality pact signing are assumed to work the same.

That is, when for example USSR has gained peace fro Japan and announced that they will make a Trade Agreement with Japan of 2 BP they receive for 2 OIL they give, this trade agreement is assumed to become as one of those of 5.1.

Harry has made clear that 5.1 trade agreements are mandatory.

It would be strange to have a trade agreement that would let one side of the trade agreement able to cancel it at will in the future. Only breaking pacts of declaring war can make that.

[Froonp]

Well, indeed, those Trade Agreements between enemies can only be achieved through the signing of neutrality pacts (9.5 Other Major Powers + clarification from Harry quoted in post #374 as Q180-2 and 13.7.3 quoted in post #374 + clarification quoted in post #374 as Q180-1), and neutrality pacts can't be broken at will, so goes the trade agreement.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Well, indeed, those Trade Agreements between enemies can only be achieved through the signing of neutrality pacts (9.5 Other Major Powers + clarification from Harry quoted in post #374 as Q180-2 and 13.7.3 quoted in post #374 + clarification quoted in post #374 as Q180-1), and neutrality pacts can't be broken at will, so goes the trade agreement.

I find this all to be very fuzzy thinking.

First sentence in 5.1: "Trade agreements are agreements automatically in place between countries at the start of each game. "

So, Trade agreements are not created during the course of game play.

Harry's 'clarification' goes completely against the primary definition of Trade Agreement. This clarification did not make it into RAW 2004 August, since the first sentence of section 5.1 is as I quoted it above.

I am willing to permit players on opposite sdes to make lending agreements with each other during the Lending Phase and insert the condition that they have a Neutrality Pact in existence prior to doing so. I am also willing to automatically renew those lending agreement every turn. However, I am reluctant to define these arrangements as Trade Agreements with political consequences such as they can only be broken by going to war. That is a leap with a very tenuous connection. For instance, if Harry had used the term "Lending Agreement" instead of "Trade Agreement" none of the associated items in 5.1 would have applied. And if you want to argue that they should apply, what about that first sentence?

As I see it, lending arrangements between major powers on opposite sides are the same as those for major powers on the same side. They are agreed to at the start of a turn, but can be cancelled at the start of the next turn.

[lomyrin]

A Neutrality pact can be broken if the garrison numbers are sufficient to do so but there is no need to also go to war. One can remain at peace after a neutrality pact is broken.
 
Lars
 
 

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

A Neutrality pact can be broken if the garrison numbers are sufficient to do so but there is no need to also go to war. One can remain at peace after a neutrality pact is broken.

Lars

Ah, Thanks.

[paulderynck]

Such a TA cannot be modified or canceled but can include a time table of what is lent when. Come to think of it, the WiF term "on any terms mutually acceptable" is impossible to program.

Perhaps MWiF will have to pin something down instead of "any terms", or have a phase and facility to manually lend resources/oil/BPs to countries with whom a neutrality pact exists on each and every turn.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Such a TA cannot be modified or canceled but can include a time table of what is lent when. Come to think of it, the WiF term "on any terms mutually acceptable" is impossible to program.

Perhaps MWiF will have to pin something down instead of "any terms", or have a phase and facility to manually lend resources/oil/BPs to countries with whom a neutrality pact exists on each and every turn.

Yes. And that is how it is set up for lending stuff to allies during the Lending Phase.

And you are right, "any terms" could include an exchange of money. I do not intend to set up a cash transfer capability between players in MWIF (though taking a percentage of each such transaction might make me change my mind).

[composer99]

Perhaps the opposing powers can, when defining a trade agreement that results from a neutrality pact, also define when it is up for re-negotiation: any number of turns, or not at all (i.e. the trade agreement goes only when the pact is broken). At each re-negotiation point, they can cancel the agreement or alter its terms.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: composer99

Perhaps the opposing powers can, when defining a trade agreement that results from a neutrality pact, also define when it is up for re-negotiation: any number of turns, or not at all (i.e. the trade agreement goes only when the pact is broken). At each re-negotiation point, they can cancel the agreement or alter its terms.

My solution to this is going to be the easiest one to code. For such an unlikely event, I am not going to build an elaborate system.

[Ullern]

Aha. So MWIF gives you the ability to define trade agreements for several turns between players.[:D] I find this a good thing. But it may also cause confusion:[:(]

In RAW the wording “trade agreement” always refers to arrangements between {countries on a side} and to or from {neutral countries or countries on the other side}. I am pretty sure that RAW never uses the wording Trade agreement for arrangement on the same side. (You can't say that Rumania is on the Axis side before it's actually aligned. Theoretically an Axis power may DOW Rumania.)

I agree with Patrice that a neutrality pact established by a trade agreement can’t be renegotiated before the pact is broken. (Which normally is a war declaration, but not necessarily so.)

House rule:
In my board game I would also allow two powers that both agree they no longer benefit from such a trade agreement to cancel it, but this is not strictly after RAW and must be labelled a house rule.

Grey area:
The trade agreements linked to a neutrality pact need not be completely fixed but may change when certain conditions are met, as long as the conditions are well defined. Is what I would say. But since the rules just says “any terms mutually agreeable” and does not give direction, this is of course up to the individual group in a board game.

What I would like for a start is a possibility to define trade agreements that run out of time. Example:
Japan and Russia agrees to a trade agreement of 1 BP from Japan to Russia, and 1 oil for Russia to Japan for 1 year.
Japan and Russia agrees to a trade agreement of 2 resources from Japan for 2 years.
And that the trade agreements are not changeable while the pact is in place. (And should also be automatically broken if pact is broken.)

I think this sounds something like what Steve already has in the code. And I think that such an arrangement alone is enough for the neutrality pact options really.
[8|]

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: ullern

Aha. So MWIF gives you the ability to define trade agreements for several turns between players.[:D] I find this a good thing. But it may also cause confusion:[:(]

In RAW the wording “trade agreement” always refers to arrangements between {countries on a side} and to or from {neutral countries or countries on the other side}. I am pretty sure that RAW never uses the wording Trade agreement for arrangement on the same side. (You can't say that Rumania is on the Axis side before it's actually aligned. Theoretically an Axis power may DOW Rumania.)

I agree with Patrice that a neutrality pact established by a trade agreement can’t be renegotiated before the pact is broken. (Which normally is a war declaration, but not necessarily so.)

House rule:
In my board game I would also allow two powers that both agree they no longer benefit from such a trade agreement to cancel it, but this is not strictly after RAW and must be labelled a house rule.

Grey area:
The trade agreements linked to a neutrality pact need not be completely fixed but may change when certain conditions are met, as long as the conditions are well defined. Is what I would say. But since the rules just says “any terms mutually agreeable” and does not give direction, this is of course up to the individual group in a board game.

What I would like for a start is a possibility to define trade agreements that run out of time. Example:
Japan and Russia agrees to a trade agreement of 1 BP from Japan to Russia, and 1 oil for Russia to Japan for 1 year.
Japan and Russia agrees to a trade agreement of 2 resources from Japan for 2 years.
And that the trade agreements are not changeable while the pact is in place. (And should also be automatically broken if pact is broken.)

I think this sounds something like what Steve already has in the code. And I think that such an arrangement alone is enough for the neutrality pact options really.
[8|]

Your suggestions are good. And were the other made on this topic.

My position is that this is beyond RAW August 2004 and I do not need extra work. Therefore, anything I come up with in this area will fall into what I consider "Quick and Dirty". The possibility of this coming into play during a game and the effect it is likely to have on the game outcome are both very small.

By the way, Microsoft's DOS (prior to its purchase by Microsoft) was originally called QDOS for quick and dirty operating system. Bill thought DOS - Disk Operating System - might be a more acceptable name for IBM.