New to the game - Basic Questions

[paulderynck]

Generally you try to use the worst unit in the lowest box for a number of reasons:
- it is more likely to be used as a casualty
- it is more likely to return to base at turn-end and would thus get disorganized and use oil anyway

You want to keep units in higher boxes organized so that if they stay at sea, they'll use no oil. Units in higher boxes theoretically will get more chances to initiate combat over the course of several turns so you want them disorganized last.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Generally you try to use the worst unit in the lowest box for a number of reasons:
- it is more likely to be used as a casualty
- it is more likely to return to base at turn-end and would thus get disorganized and use oil anyway

You want to keep units in higher boxes organized so that if they stay at sea, they'll use no oil. Units in higher boxes theoretically will get more chances to initiate combat over the course of several turns so you want them disorganized last.

Thanks! So, I take it which unit you use to initiate does not improve or reduce your chance to find the enemy?

[Courtenay]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958
Thanks! So, I take it which unit you use to initiate does not improve or reduce your chance to find the enemy?

Any unit you use has the same effect. Pick the unit you think is most likely to be sunk, damaged, or aborted if there is a combat. Units in the zero box are good, because you know those are going home at the end of the turn.

[rkr1958]

How are the USA infantry corps and transport on Guam in supply?

[Finarfïn]

Oversea supply is very tricky, what options are in your game?

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: Finarfïn

Oversea supply is very tricky, what options are in your game?

[paulderynck]

Not using LOS, a plane with an air-to-sea factor allows supply to be traced through a sea zone unless the weather prevents air operations in that sea zone. Doesn't have to be a NAV.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Not using LOS, a plane with an air-to-sea factor allows supply to be traced through a sea zone unless the weather prevents air operations in that sea zone. Doesn't have to be a NAV.

OK. Thanks!

[rkr1958]

Is there any way for the Soviet production multiplier to grow beyond 0.5 when not at war with Germany or Italy?

[paulderynck]

Sure, if they go to war with Finland or Rumania and those countries attack into or enter Russian home country hexes. Also Russia gets her city bumps in '42 and '43 regardless (if they hold them then) so if Germany never attacks her (the strategy known as Sitzkreig), Russia can still grow into a monster.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Sure, if they go to war with Finland or Rumania and those countries attack into or enter Russian home country hexes. Also Russia gets her city bumps in '42 and '43 regardless (if they hold them then) so if Germany never attacks her (the strategy known as Sitzkreig), Russia can still grow into a monster.

OK, Thanks.

[rkr1958]

Another Blind Squirrel Learning Moment for Me.

I mistakenly returned 5 USN ships to the damaged port of Truk instead of 4. I caught this mistake when I made a screen cap for my AAR. Oh well, I thought I'll have to lose (i.e., scuttle) one of the two WW-I battleships (USS Mississippi or USS Nevada). To my surprise, since the USS Iowa was loaded with the 2-4 USA marine engineer and also returned to Truk, Truk was repaired back to a major port and, thus I didn't have to scuttle any ships. I did intentionally returned the engineering to repair the port but didn't realize that repair happened between the return to base and any phase where the USA would have been overstacked. If I had know this I would have returned more ships to Truk.

[paulderynck]

If MWiF were a video game a good description of this would be: "You have discovered a cheat."

But it's actually a low level bug. All the references to Construction Engineers in the original rules and in the Players Manual say the repair happens "in the next production step" which means you should not be able to overstack there because RTB is before Production in the sequence of play. We discovered (and reported) this same bug for factory repair in our multi-player Teamviewer game when we saw that captured factories with an engineer in them were producing that same turn as opposed to the next turn.

Given that very few players use the Construction Engineer option and the bug is relatively innocuous, I doubt it will be fixed anytime soon.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

If MWiF were a video game a good description of this would be: "You have discovered a cheat."

But it's actually a low level bug. All the references to Construction Engineers in the original rules and in the Players Manual say the repair happens "in the next production step" which means you should not be able to overstack there because RTB is before Production in the sequence of play. We discovered (and reported) this same bug for factory repair in our multi-player Teamviewer game when we saw that captured factories with an engineer in them were producing that same turn as opposed to the next turn.

Given that very few players use the Construction Engineer option and the bug is relatively innocuous, I doubt it will be fixed anytime soon.

Alright then, I'll won't exploit this since it's not a legal move.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

If MWiF were a video game a good description of this would be: "You have discovered a cheat."

But it's actually a low level bug. All the references to Construction Engineers in the original rules and in the Players Manual say the repair happens "in the next production step" which means you should not be able to overstack there because RTB is before Production in the sequence of play. We discovered (and reported) this same bug for factory repair in our multi-player Teamviewer game when we saw that captured factories with an engineer in them were producing that same turn as opposed to the next turn.

Given that very few players use the Construction Engineer option and the bug is relatively innocuous, I doubt it will be fixed anytime soon.

Alright then, I'll won't exploit this since it's not a legal move.

I made the change (version 2.1.1.5) to check for overstacking at the end of the Return To Base phases (it was easy to do). I also inserted a check for damaged naval units in port so they get moved to the Repair Pool before the check for overstacking. This is presently how the end of phase for Naval Movement is currently processed.

So your move would generate an overstacking complaint - provided none of the units was damaged. If there were one or more damaged naval units, then it/they would be moved to the Repair Pool first, and no overstacking would exist.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

If MWiF were a video game a good description of this would be: "You have discovered a cheat."

But it's actually a low level bug. All the references to Construction Engineers in the original rules and in the Players Manual say the repair happens "in the next production step" which means you should not be able to overstack there because RTB is before Production in the sequence of play. We discovered (and reported) this same bug for factory repair in our multi-player Teamviewer game when we saw that captured factories with an engineer in them were producing that same turn as opposed to the next turn.

Given that very few players use the Construction Engineer option and the bug is relatively innocuous, I doubt it will be fixed anytime soon.

Alright then, I'll won't exploit this since it's not a legal move.

I made the change (version 2.1.1.5) to check for overstacking at the end of the Return To Base phases (it was easy to do). I also inserted a check for damaged naval units in port so they get moved to the Repair Pool before the check for overstacking. This is presently how the end of phase for Naval Movement is currently processed.

So your move would generate an overstacking complaint - provided none of the units was damaged. If there were one or more damaged naval units, then it/they would be moved to the Repair Pool first, and no overstacking would exist.

None of the five naval units were damaged. The only notification I got was that Truk was repaired and all five naval units were there after that.

If this is a bug I do have a game save from which I should be able to recreate this. Do you want me to and post in the tech forum? If so, I could do that this evening after work.

[rkr1958]

My blind squirrel finds another acorn.

The situation is that the CV Bunker Hill and Intrepid arrived this turn in San Diego. However, their "planes" the two F4F-4 were already in San Diego and have been for 2 or 3 turns now. Until now, I thought I had to wait until the air rebase mode to put those planes on the carriers, however, I round that I could right click on a plane and then on a carrier and those planes would be put there.

By the way, the SBC-4 and SDB-1 in the setup tray were also deployed and both carriers were filled up. I knew that planes in the setup tray could be deployed to carriers but didn't know until now that planes already on the board could too during placement of reinforcements.

[Courtenay]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

My blind squirrel finds another acorn.

The situation is that the CV Bunker Hill and Intrepid arrived this turn in San Diego. However, their "planes" the two F4F-4 were already in San Diego and have been for 2 or 3 turns now. Until now, I thought I had to wait until the air rebase mode to put those planes on the carriers, however, I round that I could right click on a plane and then on a carrier and those planes would be put there.

By the way, the SBC-4 and SDB-1 in the setup tray were also deployed and both carriers were filled up. I knew that planes in the setup tray could be deployed to carriers but didn't know until now that planes already on the board could too during placement of reinforcements.

Unless there has been a rules change I am not aware of (which happens), this is a bug, not a feature. New CVPs can be put on existing carriers (including carriers built that turn), but new carriers should not be able to suck up already existing CVPs. Of course, if one has foresight (hah! [:)]), what one can do is pull the CVPs off the map the turn before during the Remove Air portion of the reinforcement step, and bring them back the turn the carriers arrive. (Since the carriers are arriving in the hex, you will be able to remove air units from there.)

Having to remember to do this is annoying and pointless, so it is possible that someone made a rules change allowing a new carrier to suck up an already existing CVP. It would make sense. However, I do not know if any such change has been made. If it hasn't, this is a bug, but let's not tell anyone. [:)] It can be MWiF's first house rule. If one doesn't want to allow it, simply don't do it.

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

My blind squirrel finds another acorn.

The situation is that the CV Bunker Hill and Intrepid arrived this turn in San Diego. However, their "planes" the two F4F-4 were already in San Diego and have been for 2 or 3 turns now. Until now, I thought I had to wait until the air rebase mode to put those planes on the carriers, however, I round that I could right click on a plane and then on a carrier and those planes would be put there.

By the way, the SBC-4 and SDB-1 in the setup tray were also deployed and both carriers were filled up. I knew that planes in the setup tray could be deployed to carriers but didn't know until now that planes already on the board could too during placement of reinforcements.

Unless there has been a rules change I am not aware of (which happens), this is a bug, not a feature. New CVPs can be put on existing carriers (including carriers built that turn), but new carriers should not be able to suck up already existing CVPs. Of course, if one has foresight (hah! [:)]), what one can do is pull the CVPs off the map the turn before during the Remove Air portion of the reinforcement step, and bring them back the turn the carriers arrive. (Since the carriers are arriving in the hex, you will be able to remove air units from there.)

Having to remember to do this is annoying and pointless, so it is possible that someone made a rules change allowing a new carrier to suck up an already existing CVP. It would make sense. However, I do not know if any such change has been made. If it hasn't, this is a bug, but let's not tell anyone. [:)] It can be MWiF's first house rule. If one doesn't want to allow it, simply don't do it.

+1. Since it is a voluntary action, don't fix it. Nice house rule...

[paulderynck]

... and one step towards the eventual conversion to RAW8. [;)]