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...
How about this logic:
The INF has a designated army # and/or name assigned to it. Why should that unit be eliminated from the order of battle when a Siberian unit replaces it?
That a scrapped unit (such as the 2-1 garrison) is eliminated/removed when scrapped makes sense to me, using the logic that the upper command structure has decided that recreating the unit will never be worthwhile. That is what scrapping air and naval units seems to be all about.
But never recreating a 4-4 INF that has been replaced on the frontline by a Siberian unit doesn't seem to me to be the same thing.
We can argue about the definitions of words but the 'logic' behind the Siberian replacement rule doesn't strike me to being comparable to the 'logic' behind scrapping units.
That same upper command never did create the 4-4 INF in the first place, but did create the Siberians in it's place. It never existed, and therefore should be removed from play... Also: since it never existed, the upper command doesn't realize it can create a 4-4 INF...
Sounds logical, doesn't it...
My point is that the Siberians give the Russians the possibility to do all kind of nice things early in the war. The rule balances this very well by removing the INF from the game, if the Russian player opts to have those nice fast white print INF at the start of the game.
Everything stated until now, doesn't convince me that the INF should be placed back in the forcepool...
from scenario booklet:
AfA option 68: Set up Siberians as replacements for on-map Soviet
INF.
ORIGINAL: WiFFE-RAW-7.0.pdf
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 on the Asian or Pacific map. In other games, they can start anywhere. You decide after set up which units, if any, you wish to replace.
Put any Siberians you don’t start on the map into the INF force pool.
Just so they don't think your quoting the rule out of context.
University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)
from scenario booklet:
AfA option 68: Set up Siberians as replacements for on-map Soviet
INF.
ORIGINAL: WiFFE-RAW-7.0.pdf
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 on the Asian or Pacific map. In other games, they can start anywhere. You decide after set up which units, if any, you wish to replace.
Put any Siberians you don’t start on the map into the INF force pool.
Just so they don't think your quoting the rule out of context.
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.
But in this case you are replacing which unit is set-up not which unit is in the force pool. The Siberian unit is not a unit upgrade but a different subset of the force pool that the Soviet player may substitute for a listed starting units. I agree that everywhere else in the rules it's clear when a unit is removed from play permenently.
Two questions I would like to throw out to spur some AI-relevant discussions for the USSR:
(1) What are decent guidelines for building air units as the USSR (e.g. when to build FTR and how many, same for LND, ATR, NAV, CVP)?
(2) We've discussed in some detail setting up and manoeuvring defences during the early, defensive stage of a German invasion. What about when the shoe is on the other foot and the USSR is on the offensive? What are good attacks in 1943? 1944? 1945?
Personally, I like to empty the LND4 pool with the USSR in 1939. Those are great planes, also for later in the game. Nothing better than those long range TB-3's. Apart from those, I don't build any aircraft, except FTR's (if I can, because mostly, when war begins, the USSR needs soldiers on the ground first, so thats top priority...).
After my survival in the far away parts of the USSR, than I'll slowly start building LND3, LND3 and FTR's. I've never build a NAV or a CVP, I'm afraid. ATR usually don't get build by me either. Long live the TB-3, one of the best planes in the game. If I lose one, I rebuild those immediately, if possible.
Depends if you want to Stuff. If so, build only enough pilots to get all the reserve planes on the board. That's an investment of 2 BPs per garrison point which is the cheapest way to go. Once you've built all the Garr, Inf, Mech, Mtn, Armor and HQs, then build Fighters.
don't start the FTR builds until 1941 in hopes of getting quality. Build one/turn from then on if you can stand it once the attack starts. Have the Brits ready to send over the Hurricanes too, especially with the 2008 Lend Lease rule, much easier.
The Red Air Force can be devastating in 1944....drive on Ploesti and then slice open the soft underbelly before Churchill does and win the game!
So for each category of air unit the USSR has in its force pools (of which there are 8) I would like to provide a brief summary of:
- general characteristics of this category of unit
- why build them
- when to build them
- in what quantity
- optional rules affecting production
The categories of air units are, with reference to the (sans pilot) build point cost of the unit:
- 2-point fighter (ftr2)
- 3-point fighter (ftr3)
- 2-point bomber (lnd2)
- 3-point bomber (lnd3)
- 4-point bomber (lnd4)
- 2-point naval bomber (nav2)
- 3-point air transport (atr3)
- 1-point carrier plane (cvp1)
General Characteristics of USSR cvp1
The USSR has very few carrier plane units in its force pools, and these are of very poor quality compared to those of other major powers and compared to the USSR's own land-based air units.
Why Build cvp1?
There are three reasons why the USSR might build cvp1:
(1) To use in the same manner it uses ftr and lnd units, depending on the optional rules in play (see below).
(2) To deploy on carrier naval units it builds. This option is contingent upon the USSR building a carrier naval unit.
(3) To cheaply boost air unit gearing limits.
When to Build cvp1 & In What Quantity
When to build cvp1 depends on why the USSR is building them.
If as per (1) above, the USSR will consider building cvp1 whenever it would consider building other fighter, bomber, or naval bomber units. As part of such a mix of units, the USSR would typically build 0-2 cvp1 per turn.
If as per (2) above, the USSR should produce the cvp1 for deployment such that it arrives as a reinforcement on the same turn as the carrier arrives as a reinforcement. Quantity of cvp1 to be built to be based on the capacity of the carrier unit.
If as per (3) above, the USSR will consider building cvp1 whenever it has no more than one (1) spare build point and also wishes to boost air unit gearing limits in order to rapidly ramp up air unit production on subsequent turns. The USSR would typically only purchase 1 cvp1 unit at a time for this purpose as, if it had more than 1 spare build point, it could build another air unit which would almost certainly be superior than the cvp1.
Optional Rules Affecting cvp1 Production
Obviously, the most important optional rule is the optional allowing the existence of carrier plane units, as units separate from carriers themselves, in the first place. Without this rule the USSR cannot build cvp1 units at all.
The next most important optional rule is the optional restricting cvp units from performing any air mission except rebases if they are based on a hex (instead of on a carrier naval unit). If this optional in play, the USSR cannot build cvp1 as if they were land-based air units (option (1) in Why Build cvp1? above).
The next most important optional rule is the pilots rule. Without pilots, cvp1 cost 3 build points. Without pilots, there is no value in building cvp1 for purpose (3) above (boosting aircraft gearing) as they are much too expensive in such a case. Playing with pilots alters cvp1 reinforcement as now cvp1 may be placed without pilots into the reserve pools and to deploy cvp1 on the map the USSR must take care to ensure there are spare pilots available (either on the pilot track or arriving as a reinforcement on the same turn as the cvp1).
Other optional rules which may affect cvp1 production include:
- adding the carrier planes in flames (CVPiF) units, which increases the size of the cvp1 force pool.
There may be other optional rules which affect cvp1 production, however I cannot recall them at present (I will return & edit this post when I get a chance to review the rules again).
Any Other Considerations
Generally, I have tried to make my prescriptive statements above follow from the properties of USSR cvp1 (relative a2a & bombing factors compared to other units, cost, utility), rather than my personal view on USSR cvp1, as I don't want the USSR AIO to completely rule out building cvp1.
However, it must be said that the USSR will very rarely find any reason to build any cvp1 for any reason during a game of WiF.
General Characteristics of USSR atr3
The USSR has a small number of atr3 available (if memory serves, 1 in 1939 and then they receive 2 more over the course of the game). These tend to have a range of 11 hexes. Their range is on average less than the range of CW/US/Ja atr units but on average higher than the range of Ge/It atr units.
Certain optional rules (discussed below) increase the quantity of units that can function as atr.
Why build atr3?
The USSR has three reasons to build atr3:
(1) To use to conduct paradrop missions.
(2) To use to conduct non-combat air transport missions.
(3) To use to conduct air re-organization missions.
When to build atr3 and in what quantity?
For each reason the USSR might build atr3 units, the answer to the question of when to build them is to produce atr3 such that they will be available to place on the map on the same turn (or the turn prior to) the USSR requires their availability to perform the mission in question.
e.g. If the USSR wants paradrop capability when attacking, say, Iraq, in July/August 1940 it must produce atr no later than January/February of the same year. Or, if the USSR wishes to have air reorganization capability while retreating its army during an expected German attack starting May/June 1941, it must produce atr no later than November/December 1940.
With regards to how many atr3 to produce, the USSR must produce sufficient atr3 to fulfill its desired mission requirements.
e.g. If in the summer of 1943 the USSR wishes to be able to use both its PARA corps and its para div in a single attack, it requires three atr on the map. If the use of paratrooper units will be spread out over the turn and the USSR is prepared to devote reorganization capacity to the task, one or two atr will suffice.
Optional Rules Affecting atr3 Production
The three most important rules affecting atr3 production are:
(1) Pilots. Without pilots, USSR atr3 cost 5 build points to build. With pilots, they cost 3 (and may be cheaper to lose if the pilot survives when the atr is destroyed in combat). Playing with pilots requires some coordination of pilot and plane production. On the other hand it allows for greater flexibility as the atr can be placed in (or cycled in and out of) reserves.
(2) Air transport-capable bombers. With this option, several USSR lnd4 can also function as atr3 units. Playing with this option may reduce the USSR's need for atr3 units.
(3) Variable reorganization. This option reduces the value of atr3 as expensive units require more effort to reorganize.
Other optional rules may modify atr3 production decisions.
Other Considerations
There are two considerations the USSR must generally take into account when deciding whether or not to produce atr3.
(1) Action limits. The USSR is highly constrained in its air action limits (e.g. 3 air missions in a land action). This will tend to reduce the relative value of atr3 as the USSR may find that other air missions (particularly ground strikes and rebases) are more important.
(2) Pre-/Early-war production requirements. 5 build points (for an atr3 or atr3 plus pilot) can build a blitz unit or two infantry units. The USSR may find that atr3 are low-priority items when preparing for a German invasion.
General Characteristics of USSR nav2
USSR 2-point naval bombers (nav2) are short-range (with extended range option). They tend to have comparable naval air factors to everyone else's early-war naval bombers. The USSR nav2 force pool does not significantly improve or expand during the game (only China's naval bomber force pool is worse, IIRC). USSR nav2 are also all (if memory serves) seaplanes, meaning they must base on coastal hexes.
Why build nav2?
The USSR has three reasons why it might want to produce nav2:
(1) Protect USSR/allied convoys from Axis sub/naval attack.
(2) Attack Axis naval units & convoys.
(3) Keep supply lines overseas open if the USSR is engaged in fighting across a body of water (such as invading Rumania or Bulgaria by sea, or invading Japan in the late game).
When to build nav2 and in what quantity?
The USSR should build nav2 such that nav2 units are available as required, which depends on their purpose (see above):
(1) The USSR should have nav2 available when both (a) a convoy chain to supply resource/build point lending has been established and (b) there is a credible threat to the convoys that the USSR's allies are not able to cover (or it is more convenient for the USSR to do it). (Example: covering the convoy line in the Arctic Ocean.) Unless a significant enemy threat is in play, a single nav2 should be sufficient.
(2) The USSR should have nav2 available such that, once it is at war with an Axis major power whose naval forces (at sea or in port) it could attack with naval bombers, they can be used at the earliest opportunity. Unless a large amount of enemy targets are available, a single nav2 should be sufficient.
(3) The USSR should have nav2 available to keep the supply line open from the start of USSR overseas operations provided pre-existing USSR naval forces are inadequate or nonexistent. Usually a single nav2 should be sufficient.
Optional Rules Affecting nav2 Production
- pilots; not using this optional makes nav2 less desireable due to their cost; if using pilots they are more desireable as they can get cycled into or out of reserves.
- maybe others
Other Considerations
Action Limits: Using nav2 for purposes other than reactive-defensive uses up action limits which the USSR may not wish to spare.
