Matrix Games Forums

I've been out of town most of this week for work and when I came back I see that you (all) answered my question. Athens is controlled by Germany. Thanks guys!

This attack didn't go anything like I expected for the Germans. The attached screen is the result. I thought I understood the conditions on whether or not the attacker got to choose between the assault and blitz tables. But apparently I don't which leads to my question.

Why did the French bet to choose the combat table? Why didn't the Germans get to? They have more armor, the weather is fine and they're attacking a clear hex.

Also, why did the Germans take -3 modified for armor? From the German side I really honked this attack up and need to figure out what I'm not understanding about this attack.

Hi,

The French 37mm gun counts as another Arm Corps when figuring out who chooses combat table. Since the Germans attacked with 2 Arm and the French are defending with the equivalent of 2, the Germans don't have more Arm and don't get to choose table. The -3 is correct. -2 for defending Arm in open and -1 for the 37mm being attacked by Arm.

ORIGINAL: AllenK

Hi,

The French 37mm gun counts as another Arm Corps when figuring out who chooses combat table. Since the Germans attacked with 2 Arm and the French are defending with the equivalent of 2, the Germans don't have more Arm and don't get to choose table. The -3 is correct. -2 for defending Arm in open and -1 for the 37mm being attacked by Arm.

warspite1

I thought this was wrong as this is an AA unit and not AT - but of course you are absolutely correct. If the unit has a combat factor in red or pink (which this does) - it counts as an ARM Corps for choice purposes.

ORIGINAL: AllenK

Hi,

The French 37mm gun counts as another Arm Corps when figuring out who chooses combat table. Since the Germans attacked with 2 Arm and the French are defending with the equivalent of 2, the Germans don't have more Arm and don't get to choose table. The -3 is correct. -2 for defending Arm in open and -1 for the 37mm being attacked by Arm.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I thought this was wrong as this is an AA unit and not AT - but of course you are absolutely correct. If the unit has a combat factor in red or pink (which this does) - it counts as an ARM Corps for choice purposes.

Dang ... I didn't even think about the impact of the French AA. So, the red or pink colored circle is the key. I guess that's the equivalent of the Germans turning their 88-mm flak guns into brutal tank killers.

Follow-up. Why did the Germans have to lose a second unit in addition to the airborne corps? The result called for the loss of 1 unit. Why didn't the airborne corps satisfy that loss?

That last one looks like a bug to me. It should be enough to take the PARA as a loss.

Yeah it looks like a bug. The Para being lost due to the attack not succeeding must not be picked up by the program as satisfying the loss of one unit called for by the CRT result.

ORIGINAL: Centuur

That last one looks like a bug to me. It should be enough to take the PARA as a loss.

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Yeah it looks like a bug. The Para being lost due to the attack not succeeding must not be picked up by the program as satisfying the loss of one unit called for by the CRT result.

O.K. then, I'll post it with a saved game in the tech forum.

Perhaps it is because it was a Blitz attack, and the first loss must come from an Arm, Mech or Mot unit, but as there is also a Para involved, that is lost due to the attack failing.

As mentioned above, the French could call the table and they chose Assault.

The NRD on the left is the USN fleet at San Diego at the end of the Nov/Dec 1940 turn. The NRD on the right is that same fleet for the start of Jan/Feb 1940. Either the CVA units were cut in half or the capacity of the USN CVs were doubled. Was this suppose to happen? And what just happened? Is this good or bad for the USN? Does this happened to other naval powers too?

NRD? No idea what this abbreviation means. [:(] EDIT: I just realized what it meant. [:)] It seems that I am not really awake yet. [:D]

The size of a CVP is reduced at the beginning of a (certain) new year. You can see what year this happens by right clicking on the CVP and selecting "Carrier Air Unit Classes".



Edit 2: This is good since it allows better CVP to stack on smaller carriers. Or you can stack two size 2 CVP on a size four carrier where you before the reduction could only stack one of them.

NRD = the Naval Review Details form.

All powers' CVPs reduce in size over time (it's like Miniaturization in Master of Orion). Where this matters most is when playing with the option allowing 2 CVPs to be on a CV.

And yes it is a beneficial thing except when playing someone who must ensure every single CV capacity is optimized to the max every turn, and doesn't give a damn how long it takes him to figure it out.

Where this matters most is when playing with the option allowing 2 CVPs to be on a CV.

This is not a option in MWIF. If you play with the optional CV-planes then the ability to stack two CVP on a carrier is automatically included.

Thanks guys! Another, loosely related question. Vichy France has 1 pilot and 1 CVP in their reserve pool. They don't have any CVs. Would it do any good for Vichy to pair this pilot with the CVP and deploy him to Marseilles? Or does a CVP need a carrier to fly from to perform air missions other than to rebase?

ORIGINAL: Orm

Where this matters most is when playing with the option allowing 2 CVPs to be on a CV.

This is not a option in MWIF. If you play with the optional CV-planes then the ability to stack two CVP on a carrier is automatically included.

The option is always coded to be on, but there is nothing prohibiting a player or players from saying that they are not using the rule, and restricting themselves to only one CVP per carrier.

Just because the program allows you to do something doesn't mean you have to do it.

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

ORIGINAL: Orm

Where this matters most is when playing with the option allowing 2 CVPs to be on a CV.

This is not a option in MWIF. If you play with the optional CV-planes then the ability to stack two CVP on a carrier is automatically included.

The option is always coded to be on, but there is nothing prohibiting a player or players from saying that they are not using the rule, and restricting themselves to only one CVP per carrier.

Just because the program allows you to do something doesn't mean you have to do it.

Is there some controversy about putting two CVPs on a CV?

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

ORIGINAL: Orm


This is not a option in MWIF. If you play with the optional CV-planes then the ability to stack two CVP on a carrier is automatically included.

The option is always coded to be on, but there is nothing prohibiting a player or players from saying that they are not using the rule, and restricting themselves to only one CVP per carrier.

Just because the program allows you to do something doesn't mean you have to do it.

Is there some controversy about putting two CVPs on a CV?

No.

Just that it was a optional rule in WIF.

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

Thanks guys! Another, loosely related question. Vichy France has 1 pilot and 1 CVP in their reserve pool. They don't have any CVs. Would it do any good for Vichy to pair this pilot with the CVP and deploy him to Marseilles? Or does a CVP need a carrier to fly from to perform air missions other than to rebase?

A CVP must indeed be based on a CV in order to do any other mission than rebases.

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

Thanks guys! Another, loosely related question. Vichy France has 1 pilot and 1 CVP in their reserve pool. They don't have any CVs. Would it do any good for Vichy to pair this pilot with the CVP and deploy him to Marseilles? Or does a CVP need a carrier to fly from to perform air missions other than to rebase?

It's worthless. Best thing to do is turn the pilot into a build point. (Pilot retraining)