Rules Clarification List

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Orm

Overseas supply and multiple states of war.

A friend asked me about it and I am not sure I got it right.

Example:

Playing with - SiF option 11: (limited overseas supply) You can only trace a supply
path overseas if each sea area you trace it through contains a friendly
convoy, TRS or AMPH.

USSR is at war with Finland (controlled by Germany) and at peace with Germany.

There is an German CP in the Baltic sea.
USSR has an SCS in the Baltic sea.
Finland has an infantry corps on a costal hex without an overland supply path.

It is now my understanding that the USSR SCS is blocking overseas supply since the German CP is not at war with USSR.

Exactly.

If Germany lands an HQ on the hex with the Finnish corps the HQ would be in supply since the USSR SCS is not an enemy to the German HQ.

Yes

The question is now wether the Finnish corps would be in supply tracing by the German HQ or not,

It woud be in supply, tracing to the German HQ.

My understanding of this is that it is the unit tracing the supply (finnish corp) that determines the overseas supply and not the secondary supply sourse.

So the Finnish unit would be out of supply regardless that the German HQ is in supply.


Cut from raw:
You cannot trace a supply path into a sea area that contains:
• an enemy CV, SCS or aircraft unit with an air-to-sea factor;
• unless it also contains a surface naval unit, or aircraft unit with an
air-to-sea factor, (SiF option 11: convoy, TRS, or AMPH only)
controlled by any major power or minor country at war with that
enemy unit.

I think that the Finnish unit, in that case, only trace to the German HQ. The German HQ then trace to Germany. I don't think that the russian SCS blocks the German HQ supply tracing.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I think that the Finnish unit, in that case, only trace to the German HQ. The German HQ then trace to Germany. I don't think that the russian SCS blocks the German HQ supply tracing.

Thats how we have played it. Rereading the rules, however, makes my head spin...

Overseas supply paths
Any part of a basic or railway supply path can be traced overseas. You
may only trace supply overseas once for each unit attempting to trace
supply, regardless of how many secondary supply sources are used between
the tracing unit and the primary supply source.

Some more cuts implying that it is the original unit tracing the supply and not the secondary supply source.

"Supply paths
You trace a supply path from a unit to a primary supply source."

"There can be any number of secondary supply sources in this
chain but it must end up at a primary supply source of the unit tracing
the path."

"If the unit can’t trace a supply path directly to a primary supply source,
it can trace it via one or more secondary supply sources instead."

"2.4.2 Tracing supply
To be in supply, a unit must be able to trace a supply path back to a
primary supply source."

And now my head spins so much that I feel dizzy... [X(][&:]

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I think that the Finnish unit, in that case, only trace to the German HQ. The German HQ then trace to Germany. I don't think that the russian SCS blocks the German HQ supply tracing.

Thats how we have played it. Rereading the rules, however, makes my head spin...

Overseas supply paths
Any part of a basic or railway supply path can be traced overseas. You
may only trace supply overseas once for each unit attempting to trace
supply, regardless of how many secondary supply sources are used between
the tracing unit and the primary supply source.

Some more cuts implying that it is the original unit tracing the supply and not the secondary supply source.

"Supply paths
You trace a supply path from a unit to a primary supply source."

"There can be any number of secondary supply sources in this
chain but it must end up at a primary supply source of the unit tracing
the path."

"If the unit can’t trace a supply path directly to a primary supply source,
it can trace it via one or more secondary supply sources instead."

"2.4.2 Tracing supply
To be in supply, a unit must be able to trace a supply path back to a
primary supply source."

And now my head spins so much that I feel dizzy... [X(][&:]

Good points. I think by RAW the Finnish unit is still not in supply.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

The question that has driven me to spend many hour trying to get the code right is the relationship between Germany and Finland (for example) when the USSR declares war on Finland, but is still at peace with Germany.

As I interpret the rules on this, Finland not aligned to Germany, but Finland is 'controlled' by Germany.

The rules on co-operation say it exists between a minor country and it's 'controlling major power'.

To interpret German units as co-operating with Finnish units in this situation raises all kinds of difficulties for the programming. Besides the issue above, it appears that Germany could fly CAP over Finnish units, though they would not be permitted to intercept USSR bombing missions - now that is just plain weird.

I believe the problem arises from the ambiguitiy of the word 'controls', where the authors sometimes want to describe (1) the major power that makes decisions on behalf of an unaligned Finland, and at other times want to describe (2) the major power to which Finland is aligned. Rather than coin a new word, like 'Aligner', or use the cumbersome "major power to which the minor country is aligned", the authors say "controlling major power". Which then has two interpretations.

From my readnig of various discussions on this topic, it appears the WIF community interprets "controlling major power" as being equivalent to "major power which makes decisions for the minor country, regardless of whether they are aligned or not". That seems to me to be incorrect.

For instance, where are the rules that describe the relationship between Gemany and an unaligned Finland? These seem to be carved out of the other rules by referencing whether the "controlling major power" is at war with XXX or not. If there is no additional restriction in the rules pertaining to states of war between the "controlling major power" and XXX, then that is considered an irrelevant factor in the rule - so a major power that makes decisions for an unaligned minor country is unrestricted/permitted to execute the action. Case in point, Fnnish units can trace supply to German supply sources when Germany is not at war with the USSR. I believe that is wrong. Specifically, I would say (at a minimum) a change is needed to the rule on cooperation so

"Units from a minor country cooperate with units from its controlling major power or minor country."

becomes:

"Units from a minor country cooperate with units from the major power with which it is aligned."

As an aside here, I can not think of a case where one minor country controls another minor country. Hence the last edit to this rule.
===
I have spent a lot of time working on which units can fly CAP, bombing missions, escort, and interceptions for each of the different air missions. The rules that cover this are very complex, having to do with which units are in the target hex and the relationships between the different minor countries and major powers currently at war with each other.

As an example, which units on the non-phasing side can fly CAP over a hex where major power A might air transport a unit from major power B to a hex controlled by a unaligned minor (e.g., If an Italian ATR might transport a German INF to Helsinki, can CW - only at war with Germany - fly CAP from a carrier based in the Baltic?).

If you want to talk about having your head spin, try working out all the conceivable permutations of these interactions.

[Zorachus99]

The key to understanding the supply problem is what serves as a primary supply source, and whether secondary supply sources of the controlling major power can be used.
 
Ultimately a unit can only be in supply if it can trace to a primary supply source somehow with potential intermediate supply sources.  This must be logically applied, and in my interpretation of the rules, if a German HQ can be a secondary supply source for finnish units, and if the USSR cannot disrupt supply to german units, a valid path has been established.
 
Consider for a moment all the 'off-limits' US shipping to Britain historically.  Supply is much easier to provide compared to resources, the rules make this clear.
 
Hopefully this contributes to the logic of the game, rather than detracts.  Our objective is to not be rules lawyers, but make the function work as intended.  Hopefully Harry will help clarify this logic.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

The question that has driven me to spend many hour trying to get the code right is the relationship between Germany and Finland (for example) when the USSR declares war on Finland, but is still at peace with Germany.

As I interpret the rules on this, Finland not aligned to Germany, but Finland is 'controlled' by Germany.

No please, Finland is still aligned to Germany, and Germany is not at war with the USSR.

The rules on co-operation say it exists between a minor country and it's 'controlling major power'.

To interpret German units as co-operating with Finnish units in this situation raises all kinds of difficulties for the programming. Besides the issue above, it appears that Germany could fly CAP over Finnish units, though they would not be permitted to intercept USSR bombing missions - now that is just plain weird.

They can fly CAP as much as they want, but they can't fight when the Russians come. They are not at war with the Russians, and no German unit is attacked.

I believe the problem arises from the ambiguitiy of the word 'controls', where the authors sometimes want to describe (1) the major power that makes decisions on behalf of an unaligned Finland, and at other times want to describe (2) the major power to which Finland is aligned. Rather than coin a new word, like 'Aligner', or use the cumbersome "major power to which the minor country is aligned", the authors say "controlling major power". Which then has two interpretations.

No. Controlled minors are either aligned or conquered, there is no third way. Here, Finland is aligned.

This said, I think that this is correct to say that this is the Finn unit that is tracing supply, all the way, even through the use of the German HQ, and that because of that, it is not in supply because of the Russian ships.

[paulderynck]

Without re-reading RAW in detail to answer this question, my recollection is that an attacked minor must align with a major power on the opposite side or it surrenders. So about the only time "controlling" comes into things in the sense of making decisions when the object of them is not aligned would be for partisans. Even then you have to include the partisans in your action limits.

Now when you combine this with Multiple States of War, I agree you will get some of the thorniest logic problems in the game, and I don't envy your programming tasks in this regard!

Some crucial points for Multiple States of War:
1. You can attack units with which you are not at war if they are in hexes of a country with which you are at war, but you can't attack units of a country you are at war with if they are in hexes of a country you are not at war with.
2. The controlling major power can ground support (and intercept air missions against) its own (neutral) units against an aggressor, but those units cannot enter hexes that have been taken by the aggressor.
3. The neutral major power could intercept a ground strike on FREX Bucharest if it had its own unit there with a Rumanian but could not intercept a Strategic Bombing attack against Bucharest even though its unit is there and the production goes to the major power, not the minor!
4. Weirdest of all - the ZOCs of the aggressor stop the movement and supply of the minor country units but not the neutral major power units. So you can get situations like Russians running around in the hinterlands of Rumania, but then German and Italian units railing right by them.

We just had a lot of this weirdness come up in Rumania in our present FTF game and if I remember any other weird examples, I'll post them.

Also think about the fact it is possible to have alignments without any basis in historicity, like NEI aligning with France or Bulgaria with China. (Mind you there may be a recent errata saying China cannot align minors, if I'm not mistaken.) I played a game once where Russia DoWed Rumania and it aligned with Italy which itself was neutral.

Yes, sorry, it will be difficult to handle all the permutations. Maybe the fact that they must align helps (as you mentioned you did not think this was the case).

[Norman42]

correct to say that this is the Finn unit that is tracing supply, all the way, even through the use of the German HQ, and that because of that, it is not in supply because of the Russian ships.

 
This is my interpretation as well.  It is a "Finnish" supply line that is being cut, not a "German" one.  The German HQ being part of the supply chain for the Fin supplies is irrelevant.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Norman42

correct to say that this is the Finn unit that is tracing supply, all the way, even through the use of the German HQ, and that because of that, it is not in supply because of the Russian ships.

This is my interpretation as well.  It is a "Finnish" supply line that is being cut, not a "German" one.  The German HQ being part of the supply chain for the Fin supplies is irrelevant.

Yes. This I have no problem with. It is the unit (and its immediate controlling country) that is tracing supply.

The fact that one or more of the nodes in the supply line belong to some other (cooperating) country is irrelevant. This lets me handle, without additional code, the case of a conquered territorial unit tracing supply to a city in their home country as a primary supply source.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Without re-reading RAW in detail to answer this question, my recollection is that an attacked minor must align with a major power on the opposite side or it surrenders. So about the only time "controlling" comes into things in the sense of making decisions when the object of them is not aligned would be for partisans. Even then you have to include the partisans in your action limits.

Now when you combine this with Multiple States of War, I agree you will get some of the thorniest logic problems in the game, and I don't envy your programming tasks in this regard!

Some crucial points for Multiple States of War:
1. You can attack units with which you are not at war if they are in hexes of a country with which you are at war, but you can't attack units of a country you are at war with if they are in hexes of a country you are not at war with.
2. The controlling major power can ground support (and intercept air missions against) its own (neutral) units against an aggressor, but those units cannot enter hexes that have been taken by the aggressor.
3. The neutral major power could intercept a ground strike on FREX Bucharest if it had its own unit there with a Rumanian but could not intercept a Strategic Bombing attack against Bucharest even though its unit is there and the production goes to the major power, not the minor!
4. Weirdest of all - the ZOCs of the aggressor stop the movement and supply of the minor country units but not the neutral major power units. So you can get situations like Russians running around in the hinterlands of Rumania, but then German and Italian units railing right by them.

We just had a lot of this weirdness come up in Rumania in our present FTF game and if I remember any other weird examples, I'll post them.

Also think about the fact it is possible to have alignments without any basis in historicity, like NEI aligning with France or Bulgaria with China. (Mind you there may be a recent errata saying China cannot align minors, if I'm not mistaken.) I played a game once where Russia DoWed Rumania and it aligned with Italy which itself was neutral.

Yes, sorry, it will be difficult to handle all the permutations. Maybe the fact that they must align helps (as you mentioned you did not think this was the case).

Ok. Thanks.

Aligned to major power A => Controlled by A.

Controlled by a major power A => Aligned to A or conquered by A.

I'll reread the code I have for all the air missions to make sure it is correct in regards to this.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
They can fly CAP as much as they want, but they can't fight when the Russians come. They are not at war with the Russians, and no German unit is attacked.

Not quite.

I am going to a lot of effort to prohibit the flying of CAP unless the 'enemy' could fly an air mission to the hex. Now 'enemy' is the tricky bit to define. The air mission has to threaten something belonging to the country considering flying CAP.

In particular, I am trying to prevent the use of CAP missions as a way of getting around the limits on air rebase missions.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
In particular, I am trying to prevent the use of CAP missions as a way of getting around the limits on air rebase missions.

You should not, CAP missions are specificaly cited by Harry Rowland as a means to do face-down rebases.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
In particular, I am trying to prevent the use of CAP missions as a way of getting around the limits on air rebase missions.

You should not, CAP missions are specificaly cited by Harry Rowland as a means to do face-down rebases.

WTF! Is that some rule I missed?

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

As an example, which units on the non-phasing side can fly CAP over a hex where major power A might air transport a unit from major power B to a hex controlled by a unaligned minor (e.g., If an Italian ATR might transport a German INF to Helsinki, can CW - only at war with Germany - fly CAP from a carrier based in the Baltic?).

A quick peek at the rules gives the following in regards of transports

"During port strikes and naval combats, a unit can’t fight against units from the
other side unless it is at war with at least one of them (being at war with an enemy
unit the naval unit is transporting is not enough)."

And if that applies to ATR (as I would think) the carrier may not fight the Italian ATR and if you play with CAP on legal targets only the CVP may not CAP.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
In particular, I am trying to prevent the use of CAP missions as a way of getting around the limits on air rebase missions.

You should not, CAP missions are specificaly cited by Harry Rowland as a means to do face-down rebases.

WTF! Is that some rule I missed?

Not a rule, but it is very widely known amongst the WiF players (please tell Steve I'm right [;)]) that CAP is a way for players to perform extra short range rebases, at the price of having the air unit turned face-down.

Speaking of rules, the CAP rules never say that the target you decide to cover with CAP has to be threatened by the enemy.

This said, there was an option in CWiF to only allow CAP to valid target hexes to limit it somehow so that gamey play is excluded. I think that this option was good, and I turned it on when I played.

[lomyrin]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
In particular, I am trying to prevent the use of CAP missions as a way of getting around the limits on air rebase missions.

You should not, CAP missions are specificaly cited by Harry Rowland as a means to do face-down rebases.

WTF! Is that some rule I missed?

The rules specifically state that in para 14.2.1

Lars

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

As an example, which units on the non-phasing side can fly CAP over a hex where major power A might air transport a unit from major power B to a hex controlled by a unaligned minor (e.g., If an Italian ATR might transport a German INF to Helsinki, can CW - only at war with Germany - fly CAP from a carrier based in the Baltic?).

A quick peek at the rules gives the following in regards of transports

"During port strikes and naval combats, a unit can’t fight against units from the
other side unless it is at war with at least one of them (being at war with an enemy
unit the naval unit is transporting is not enough)."

And if that applies to ATR (as I would think) the carrier may not fight the Italian ATR and if you play with CAP on legal targets only the CVP may not CAP.

I think that Orm is right, except that I'd allow the CW to perform a CAP, but they would not be able to fight because they are not at war with the Italian ATR.
Why would the CW be prevented from doing a CAP over any hex during the other side's air transport phase ? The only thing that is forbidden is for the British to fight the Italians.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Orm

And if that applies to ATR (as I would think) the carrier may not fight the Italian ATR and if you play with CAP on legal targets only the CVP may not CAP.

I think that Orm is right, except that I'd allow the CW to perform a CAP, but they would not be able to fight because they are not at war with the Italian ATR.
Why would the CW be prevented from doing a CAP over any hex during the other side's air transport phase ? The only thing that is forbidden is for the British to fight the Italians.

Hence the "if you play with CAP on legal targets only"

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Orm
Hence the "if you play with CAP on legal targets only"

Yes, but even that one may allow the CW to CAP against the Italian ATR, I don't remember how it worked. I'm not sure it was not only to restrain the players to CAP ports only on Port Attacks, land & air units on Ground Strikes, Factories on Strategic air missions... don't remember indeed how it worked... This said, I never use the CAP to do short range rebases, so I did not notice the difference between the option and not the option [:D]

Hey, but this said, the hex where the Italians do Air Transport is a legal target too [&:]. So why prevent the CW to CAP it ? Only prevent them to fight the Italians. I guess I need to sleep now.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Froonp


You should not, CAP missions are specificaly cited by Harry Rowland as a means to do face-down rebases.

WTF! Is that some rule I missed?

The rules specifically state that in para 14.2.1

Lars

Thanks.

I see that I have already figured this all out previously. Maintaining perfect recall of all the rules is clearly beyond my ability.

Note the Deviation I wrote (some day a long time ago) in Rules as Coded (RAC).