AI for MWiF - USSR

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

They go back to the force pool.It is a no-brainer.

No, they don't return to the force pool. The rule has the word "replace" in it. In my English dictionary, this means that the original unit has to be discarded (and isn't available for further use in the game). Furthermore the rulebook states that the remaining Siberians are added to the force pool (there is no mentioning of the replaced INF returning to the force pool).

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

They go back to the force pool.It is a no-brainer.

No, they don't return to the force pool. The rule has the word "replace" in it. In my English dictionary, this means that the original unit has to be discarded (and isn't available for further use in the game). Furthermore the rulebook states that the remaining Siberians are added to the force pool (there is no mentioning of the replaced INF returning to the force pool).

Wrong. Paul is right.
If it were to be removed from the game, this would be written.
All instances where a unit is removed from the game (scrapping, conquest, Vichy, etc...) are written.

[michaelbaldur]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

They go back to the force pool.It is a no-brainer.

No, they don't return to the force pool. The rule has the word "replace" in it. In my English dictionary, this means that the original unit has to be discarded (and isn't available for further use in the game). Furthermore the rulebook states that the remaining Siberians are added to the force pool (there is no mentioning of the replaced INF returning to the force pool).

I agree . they replace them

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

They go back to the force pool.It is a no-brainer.

No, they don't return to the force pool. The rule has the word "replace" in it. In my English dictionary, this means that the original unit has to be discarded (and isn't available for further use in the game). Furthermore the rulebook states that the remaining Siberians are added to the force pool (there is no mentioning of the replaced INF returning to the force pool).

Replace means you replace the ones on the map. "You decide after set up which units, if any, you wish to replace."

The rule also says: "Put any Siberians you don’t start on the map into the INF force pool." Think about it. It doesn't say in that event that you replace any Inf in the force pool. If you lost 3 Inf by using the Siberians, you'd never use the Siberians, you'd just wait and build them from the force pool along with the rest of the Inf.

If the Siberians not started go into the force pool, then if they do start, the units they replace go into the force pool.

[Centuur]

The way I look at it is that the Russian player has a choice. Replace them, so he can use the better abilities of the Siberians early in the war (conquest of Persia, or an attack on Manchuria) but for that he has to lose those INF. If not, he can build them, but is usually not capable of fancy stuff in the first period of the war.

[Red Prince]

From RAC:

22.4.7 Siberians (AfA option 68)
Each Siberian unit can replace a Soviet INF unit from the start of a scenario. In 1939 games, they must start
in Siberia. In other games, they can start anywhere. You decide after set up which units, if any, you wish to replace.
[Deviation. Siberia is defined as that part of the USSR which is east of the north-south demarkation line running 3
hexes east of Stalingrad.]

Put any Siberians you don’t start on the map into the INF force pool.

and

4.1.3 Scrapping
When a unit is destroyed or old enough, you can remove it from your force pools (see 13.6.9).

and

4.1.4 Replacement naval units (SiF option 9)
A few naval units have a gold box around their availability year. In a later year, replacement units will turn
up for these units. Their availability year will also be shown in a gold box. If the original unit has been removed
from the game when the replacement unit arrives, remove the replacement unit from the game.

Otherwise, during any reinforcement step, you can remove the original unit from the game and add the
replacement unit. Put the replacement unit in the force pool if the original unit is either in the force pool or in its first
cycle in the production pool or put the replacement unit in the construction pool if the original unit is in:
• the repair pool,
• the construction pool,
• on the map, or
• in its second cycle in the production pool.

This is the point Paul was trying to make: it is the difference between 'remove' and 'replace'.
-----
Edit: Looking at the first example again, if you replace the INF with Siberians, you are also replacing the Siberians with the INF . . . therefore, whatever would have happened to the Siberians, that now happens to the INF -- it gets put in the force pool.

[Centuur]

Sorry, but I'm still not convinced you're right, especially because of the way the replacement naval units are being done in the game. Just as the naval unit is replaced by a better one (and the old is than removed from the game), so should the INF be removed, since it is replaced by a better Siberian INF...
IMHO it doesn't make sense if I'm following you're explanation of the rules, since the special rule regarding the Siberians state:
"Put any Siberians you don’t start on the map into the INF force pool."
RAW should IMHO be read literally, if possible. Replace in the English means to get something and discard the older one". To discard means to remove...
If this shouldn't be the case, why didn't the rule state:
"Put any Siberians you don't start on the map together with the replaced INF into the INF force pool"?

[Red Prince]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Sorry, but I'm still not convinced you're right, especially because of the way the replacement naval units are being done in the game. Just as the naval unit is replaced by a better one (and the old is than removed from the game), so should the INF be removed, since it is replaced by a better Siberian INF...
IMHO it doesn't make sense if I'm following you're explanation of the rules, since the special rule regarding the Siberians state:
"Put any Siberians you don’t start on the map into the INF force pool."
RAW should IMHO be read literally, if possible. Replace in the English means to get something and discard the older one". To discard means to remove...
If this shouldn't be the case, why didn't the rule state:
"Put any Siberians you don't start on the map together with the replaced INF into the INF force pool"?

There are 2 problems with your argument here:
1. Replacement Naval Units replace a unit with an upgraded version of the same unit. And it states specifcally that you remove the replaced unit from the game. Siberians are not upgraded versions of the INF units. They are a different group of soldiers completely. Should you send the originally group to the gas chambers?

2. Replace, in the English language, does not mean to get something and discard the older one. I don't know why your dictionary would list it that way. I am a native speaker of American, which is close enough to English as to be nearly the same language. [:D]

From the Websters Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary:

replace
1: to restore to a former place or position <~cards in a file> 2: to take the place of esp. as a substitute or successor [/b]3:[/b] to put something new in the place of <~ a worn carpet>

Only the last definition has the possibility of implying removal of the original, and even then it doesn't specifically state it.
-----
Edit: For example, I might replace the carpet in my TV room with a better one, but continue to use the old carpet in my bedroom.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Sorry, but I'm still not convinced you're right, especially because of the way the replacement naval units are being done in the game. Just as the naval unit is replaced by a better one (and the old is than removed from the game), so should the INF be removed, since it is replaced by a better Siberian INF...
IMHO it doesn't make sense if I'm following you're explanation of the rules, since the special rule regarding the Siberians state:
"Put any Siberians you don’t start on the map into the INF force pool."
RAW should IMHO be read literally, if possible. Replace in the English means to get something and discard the older one". To discard means to remove...
If this shouldn't be the case, why didn't the rule state:
"Put any Siberians you don't start on the map together with the replaced INF into the INF force pool"?

RAW has hundreds of defects in wording which lead to confusion and difficulty in understanding the rules. This has beena problem for me since the day I started working on MWIF. Within the last 2 weeks there have been another half dozen rule clarifications needed for me to code MWIF. Some examples:

1 - Can a disorganized unit be air transported? Harry answered this for us: No.

2 - Does the required random selection of US Entry markers for movement from the Entry Pool to the Tension Pool due to a DOW by the US on Japan occur before or after the optional random selection that occurs when the unchosen Ja US Entry Options are automatically implemented due to the DOW? We decided that the mandatory movement occurs first.

3 - There were 4 other questions related to #2. Most of these we worked out for ourselves (within the beta test team) but one of them had to be referred to Harry: Does the US have to be at war with both Germany and Italy before the unchosen Ge/It US Entry Options are automatically implemented, or is being at war with one of them sufficient? Harry's answer was 'both'.

When playing with friends over the board, these types of questions typically devolve into house rules/interpretations. For MWIF I consult with a group of rules gurus, most of whom have been involved in WIF rules discussions for years (Yahoo has a forum for just that) and ADG maintains an active group revising RAW - pretty much continuously as I understand the process. On rare occasions I assert my perrogative as the programmer (and experienced player of WIF) for a specific rules interpretation, but 98% of the time I go with the group's (or Harry's) judgment.

---

Please don't take the discussion about Siberians personally. As I said before, there are literally hundreds of these types of things in RAW. No two people agree on all of the various interpretations.

[micheljq]

At least this cuts the eternal/long discussions over the board over interpretations which waste hours of fun and gaming. &nbsp;[:)]

[Red Prince]

ORIGINAL: micheljq

At least this cuts the eternal/long discussions over the board over interpretations which waste hours of fun and gaming.  [:)]

Yup. Instead, we (the beta-testers) spend days discussing (and sometimes even arguing about) some of the rules and what they really mean. [:D]

Right now we have two open items that still haven't found a firm agreement . . . and we've been talking about them for a full week now. [:)]

[Centuur]

First I want to state that I don't take the discussion about the Siberians personal. If I've given the impression that this is the case, than blame my lousy English (or something like the fact that English isn't my first or even second language... I'm better of in Dutch and German...). You can also blame the fact that I'm absolutely not a diplomatic guy or something else (hey, I don't care, since I don't know what you're all thinking about this crazy Dutch/Austrian guy who is probably a pain in the proverbial... [;)]).
I only blame myself for not searching for World in Flames on the internet a couple of years ago (I would love to have contributed to some things done in the game, but it looks like I'm to late... [:@] ).
From my point of view, this discussion is done in a good manner, with good arguments going between all here, so nothing here is personal... I sure hope the others are thinking this to, because otherwise...
It is just a little strange for me, to find that a rule which is stated the way it is in RAW is being done differently (and I'm still not convinced [&:]...).
When our group played the game the first time, the rulebook was more open than closed, and it took us a long time to find that the transport of resources is different from providing supply to units (you can trace supply through an enemy ZOC if you've also have a unit in the hex, however a resouce cannot go through that hex. That was something we did wrong for years, before we spotted this difference in the rulebook... or did it change somewhere between all those versions of the game...).
A good Dutch proverb says (translated in English): "the devil is in the details"... This is probably driving Steve nuts sometimes (or more than sometimes), since he is the one (together with rule interpreters from ADG and others) who has to make the final decision to go left or right (making some people happy and others not happy).
And back on the issue of the infamous Siberians... Isn't there a Q an A somewhere, to give us the answer? There is at least another one here that plays WiF the way we did, so I'm not alone here...

Now, if I'm wrong (and some are very persistent that I am wrong [&:] [:-] ), than the case for the AI is simple: replace INF units Siberians, if those are better (take into account the setup of the enemy, before doing so). If I'm right, however, the AI should think about the effect in early war, before replacing the units.
Off course, it is only a minor issue, but well...

[michaelbaldur]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

First I want to state that I don't take the discussion about the Siberians personal. If I've given the impression that this is the case, than blame my lousy English (or something like the fact that English isn't my first or even second language... I'm better of in Dutch and German...). You can also blame the fact that I'm absolutely not a diplomatic guy or something else (hey, I don't care, since I don't know what you're all thinking about this crazy Dutch/Austrian guy who is probably a pain in the proverbial... [;)]).
I only blame myself for not searching for World in Flames on the internet a couple of years ago (I would love to have contributed to some things done in the game, but it looks like I'm to late... [:@] ).
From my point of view, this discussion is done in a good manner, with good arguments going between all here, so nothing here is personal... I sure hope the others are thinking this to, because otherwise...
It is just a little strange for me, to find that a rule which is stated the way it is in RAW is being done differently (and I'm still not convinced [&:]...).
When our group played the game the first time, the rulebook was more open than closed, and it took us a long time to find that the transport of resources is different from providing supply to units (you can trace supply through an enemy ZOC if you've also have a unit in the hex, however a resouce cannot go through that hex. That was something we did wrong for years, before we spotted this difference in the rulebook... or did it change somewhere between all those versions of the game...).
A good Dutch proverb says (translated in English): "the devil is in the details"... This is probably driving Steve nuts sometimes (or more than sometimes), since he is the one (together with rule interpreters from ADG and others) who has to make the final decision to go left or right (making some people happy and others not happy).
And back on the issue of the infamous Siberians... Isn't there a Q an A somewhere, to give us the answer? There is at least another one here that plays WiF the way we did, so I'm not alone here...

Now, if I'm wrong (and some are very persistent that I am wrong [&:] [:-] ), than the case for the AI is simple: replace INF units Siberians, if those are better (take into account the setup of the enemy, before doing so). If I'm right, however, the AI should think about the effect in early war, before replacing the units.
Off course, it is only a minor issue, but well...

there is nothing about Siberians in the Q and A

[Red Prince]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

First I want to state that I don't take the discussion about the Siberians personal. If I've given the impression that this is the case, than blame my lousy English (or something like the fact that English isn't my first or even second language... I'm better of in Dutch and German...). You can also blame the fact that I'm absolutely not a diplomatic guy or something else (hey, I don't care, since I don't know what you're all thinking about this crazy Dutch/Austrian guy who is probably a pain in the proverbial... [;)]).
I only blame myself for not searching for World in Flames on the internet a couple of years ago (I would love to have contributed to some things done in the game, but it looks like I'm to late... [:@] ).
From my point of view, this discussion is done in a good manner, with good arguments going between all here, so nothing here is personal... I sure hope the others are thinking this to, because otherwise...
It is just a little strange for me, to find that a rule which is stated the way it is in RAW is being done differently (and I'm still not convinced [&:]...).
When our group played the game the first time, the rulebook was more open than closed, and it took us a long time to find that the transport of resources is different from providing supply to units (you can trace supply through an enemy ZOC if you've also have a unit in the hex, however a resouce cannot go through that hex. That was something we did wrong for years, before we spotted this difference in the rulebook... or did it change somewhere between all those versions of the game...).
A good Dutch proverb says (translated in English): "the devil is in the details"... This is probably driving Steve nuts sometimes (or more than sometimes), since he is the one (together with rule interpreters from ADG and others) who has to make the final decision to go left or right (making some people happy and others not happy).
And back on the issue of the infamous Siberians... Isn't there a Q an A somewhere, to give us the answer? There is at least another one here that plays WiF the way we did, so I'm not alone here...

Now, if I'm wrong (and some are very persistent that I am wrong [&:] [:-] ), than the case for the AI is simple: replace INF units Siberians, if those are better (take into account the setup of the enemy, before doing so). If I'm right, however, the AI should think about the effect in early war, before replacing the units.
Off course, it is only a minor issue, but well...

Strange as it is, the Dutch proverb translates exactly to the English one: "the devil is in the details". I guess some things really do span the world.

I think the Q & A has something like 450 questions in it, or close to it, and as you've pointed out . . . the rules have so much room for interpretation, I think we could easily find another two thousand questions that have not been answered completely anywhere.

[Extraneous]

ORIGINAL: Red Prince

Strange as it is, the Dutch proverb translates exactly to the English one: "the devil is in the details". I guess some things really do span the world.

I think the Q & A has something like 450 questions in it, or close to it, and as you've pointed out . . . the rules have so much room for interpretation, I think we could easily find another two thousand questions that have not been answered completely anywhere.

If you are talking about the ADG World in Flames Final Edition Clarification Summary Jul 2009 (WiFFE_FAQ_v1.3_7_July_2009.pdf) the total shows 411 questions [:D]

[trooper76]

Is that an 'extraneous' detail? [:D]

[Extraneous]

ORIGINAL: troop76

Is that an 'extraneous' detail? [:D]

[:D] Sort of [:D]

Since some people don't know about the "World in Flames Final Edition Clarification Summary".

Just calling it “Q & A” is misleading to new people. Now they will know where and what it is.

[Centuur]

Having looked in the discussions on the yahoo forum, I haven't seen anything there that gives us a good answer, regarding the Siberian issue.

4.1.3 Scrapping
When a unit is destroyed or old enough, you can remove it from your force pools (see 13.6.9).

This quote of RAW isn't in my opinion valid here, since the original INF isn't destroyed, but is replaced. This is a totally different thing.

I still got the opinion that if you replace the INF with the Siberians, the INF have to be removed from the game.

[Red Prince]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Having looked in the discussions on the yahoo forum, I haven't seen anything there that gives us a good answer, regarding the Siberian issue.

4.1.3 Scrapping
When a unit is destroyed or old enough, you can remove it from your force pools (see 13.6.9).

This quote of RAW isn't in my opinion valid here, since the original INF isn't destroyed, but is replaced. This is a totally different thing.

I still got the opinion that if you replace the INF with the Siberians, the INF have to be removed from the game.

The original INF, though, doesn't have to be "old enough" to be scrapped in order to be replaced by the Siberian unit.

[Centuur]

I probably didn't make my post right, since there is a misunderstanding here. This probably has to do with my lousy English writing... [&:]

4.1.3 Scrapping
When a unit is destroyed or old enough, you can remove it from your force pools (see 13.6.9).


This rule was used in a previous post to support the case that an INF replaced by a Siberian should be put back into the force pool.

To me, this doesn't seem right, since the INF isn't destroyed but replaced. Now if the optional rule stated that the original INF was destroyed and an Siberian was put in his place, I would say that you are right by putting the INF back in the force pool (or scrap it if you wish). However, that isn't the case.

So to me, an INF replaced by a Siberian is removed from the game. If you don't want this to happen, than you have to add the Siberians to the force pool and not replace INF by the Siberians (as you should do in early war scenario's, if you want to stuff the border).

I hope I made things clear...