Naval Combat Aborts

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Internally, MWIF has three 'times' that naval combat may occur: Phasing Side selects sea areas for naval combat (NavalCombatA Phase), non-phasing side does the same (NavalCombatD Phase), and naval interception combats (NavalInterception Digression).

During NavalCombatA, the phasing side can initiate combat in any sea area only once, though there may be additional naval combat(s) in the same sea area caused by naval interceptions during the phase.

During NavalCombatD, the non-phasing side can initiate combat in any sea area only once, though there may be additional naval combat(s) in the same sea area caused by naval interceptions during the phase.

Combats occuring during a NavalInterception Digression are completely separate from naval combats that occur during the Naval Combat phases.

There are numerous places in the sequence of play where naval units can move; in all but one of those, naval moves can be intercepted. The sole exception is the mandatory movement of at-sea French naval units to the closest French held port during the formation of Vichy. Otherwise, all naval moves are subject to being intercepted.

(1) Overruns during land movement and advance after combat, (2) conquest of countries, and (3) any other phase when which side controls territory changes, can all result in naval units being forced to rebase. Those units can be intercepted which may result in naval combat.

I hope that in NavalCombatD the non-phasing player is restricted from initiating searches in sea zones as per RAW. i.e. eligibility is: enemy units entered or moved down and themselves did not search.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Yes, I understood all of this as being implied in choosing the #1 implementation of naval combat aborts (according to RAW). I find it quite complex and would not be happy to have the task of explaining it to a new WIF player. The #2 implementation would be much easier to exlpain.

I'll volunteer to explain it. (#1)

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

To bring this thread back to my original question, ...

It looks to me like there are two choices:
1 - Queue the naval combats, letting each one be in-between rounds, while naval aborts are processed.
2 - Queue naval combat aborts, running each naval combat to quiescience, before executing the naval combat aborts.

For #1 there is a need to queue aborts as well, when there is more than one unit/side aborting from a naval combat. Furthermore, these queues for naval combat aborts will have to be maintained per naval combat, which raises the question of which abort gets processed first. For example, if naval combat 1 causes two units to abort (one from each side) and the first aborting unit is intercepted and engages in naval combat 2, which in turn causes a unit to abort, should the second unit from the 1st combat move before or after the first unit from the 2nd combat moves/aborts?
---
#1 is how it is written in RAW, and handles most cases that occur in over the board play. However, it only addresses processing the abort queues indirectly. I read it as the first unit from the 2nd combat moves before the second unit from the 1st combat.

What really causes me grief with #1 is the cyclical possibility of multiple combats occuring in the same sea area simultaneously. While in the middle of naval combat 1, we begin processing naval combat 3. After 3 reaches quiescience, we perform more search rolls in the same sea area to conclude naval combat 1. That just doesn't seem right.
---
The main objection to #2 seems to be "it isn't RAW".

From a practical point of view, the change from RAW would mean that players will know how each naval combat turns out, before having to decide where to abort their units. This is a definite change, but not one that I consider major. My reasoning is that the players also gain additional information when playing according to RAW: they know whether their aborting units made it safely back to port or not, before each naval combat is completed. So while #2 deviates from RAW, it does not result in additional (or less) information being available to players, but instead changes what information is available.
---
To state this more simply:
with #1 the players know how the aborts turned out, before concluding a naval combat;
with #2 the players know how the naval combat turned out, before performing the aborts.
===
Please let me know your vote for #1 or #2.

And just to bias the results[;)], my vote is for #2.

My vote is for #1 mostly because that is how I always played it.

I do not have any strong feelings on this issue one way or the other so I would be content with #2.

I am a land forces guy and the ships are just there to support my land forces anyway. Therefore I do not care as long as I can get the fleet to lend the support my land forces need. I know it is a flaw but it is MY flaw.

-Orm

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
I strongly support #1 and thoroughly dislike #2.

One tactic I have seen used in Naval Combats is to resolve the ones furthest from enemy home bases first so that in the event of success, the aborting enemy units will have to go through sea zones where they can be intercepted again, and in the event of failure, your own units won't.

Very true.

Furthermore you may even have sailed your own units into enemy waters for that specific purpose, knowing that you'll have pretty decent combat opportunities against aborting enemy units that must fight through from the zero box.

Very very very true.

You might not even choose to search yourself in that sea zone when the "normal" search opportunity comes around because other enemy units there already are formidable. (Of course they'll likely search for you in that event, but at least you can ensure that happens after you've performed all your own searches. And if you do intercept successfully you could abort after that combat. [;)])

This is the apotheosis.

#2 eliminates this tactic if all naval combats including the opponents are queued. Even if there is a queue for the phasing player followed by a queue for the non-phasing player, I could lose a decent intercept possibility in the second sea zone (caused by successful combat in the first sea zone) because of an unlucky split in the second sea zone.

In summary, #2 is bad because it takes away the chess-like decision process that the phasing player employs in determining in which order to search the sea zones. It takes an advantage away that is there in RAW.

Did I say I chose #1 already ? [:D]

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Yes, I understood all of this as being implied in choosing the #1 implementation of naval combat aborts (according to RAW). I find it quite complex and would not be happy to have the task of explaining it to a new WIF player. The #2 implementation would be much easier to exlpain.

I'll volunteer to explain it. (#1)

I'll help you Paul if needed.

[Zorachus99]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: terje439

And back from JGN:

This is no longer a matter for discussion.
My last entry posted by Terje (Thank you for you help J) was emailed to him shortly before Steve’s post #42.

Thank goodness. I haven't seen many arguments that were as inane as that one.

Glad you think discussion on the point is inane.

So we are going ahead with this interpretation that each sea area is allowed one interception combat per impulse?

[Ullern]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Please let me know your vote for #1 or #2.

And just to bias the results[;)], my vote is for #2.

I strongly support #1 and thoroughly dislike #2.

One tactic I have seen used in Naval Combats is to resolve the ones furthest from enemy home bases first so that in the event of success, the aborting enemy units will have to go through sea zones where they can be intercepted again, and in the event of failure, your own units won't. Furthermore you may even have sailed your own units into enemy waters for that specific purpose, knowing that you'll have pretty decent combat opportunities against aborting enemy units that must fight through from the zero box. You might not even choose to search yourself in that sea zone when the "normal" search opportunity comes around because other enemy units there already are formidable. (Of course they'll likely search for you in that event, but at least you can ensure that happens after you've performed all your own searches. And if you do intercept successfully you could abort after that combat. [;)])

#2 eliminates this tactic if all naval combats including the opponents are queued. Even if there is a queue for the phasing player followed by a queue for the non-phasing player, I could lose a decent intercept possibility in the second sea zone (caused by successful combat in the first sea zone) because of an unlucky split in the second sea zone.

In summary, #2 is bad because it takes away the chess-like decision process that the phasing player employs in determining in which order to search the sea zones. It takes an advantage away that is there in RAW.

First I am very happy with Steve's comment to my previous post.

The discussion goes the way I was hoping, but since I feel obliged to get to the best total solution, I can't help but to put ask some more questions that may jeopardize this:

Let me probe into #2:

The way to implement the #2 would be to flip the whole thing around. In one single naval combat the aborts are handled as a FIFO queue instead of a stack, with one round of naval combat from one side be one entry in the queue that has to be aborted before moving on to the next entry in the queue. But as that first abort entry are executed, additional interception combat may occur, and aborts from these combats, are stacked when added to the other queue (but FIFO in the combat).

Example:
Abort queue first combat:
1. Naval combat in North Atlantic, 1 round, active side
2. Naval combat in North Atlantic, 1 round, inactive side
3. Naval combat in North Atlantic, 2 round, active side
4. Naval combat in North Atlantic, 2 round, inactive side
Naval combat North Atlantic lapses after 2. round.

Then implementation of queue event 1. from the first combat results in a interception combat in Bay of Biscay. Two rounds of combat is fought with the following additions to the abort queue:
1. Interception combat in Bay of Biscay, 1 round, active side
2. Interception combat in Bay of Biscay, 1 round, inactive side
3. Interception combat in Bay of Biscay, 2 round, active side
4. Interception combat in Bay of Biscay, 2 round, inactive side
5. Naval combat in North Atlantic, 1 round, active side (At this point partially or wholly completed)
6. Naval combat in North Atlantic, 1 round, inactive side
7. Naval combat in North Atlantic, 2 round, active side
8. Naval combat in North Atlantic, 2 round, inactive side

That way the interception events would be exactly the same as with solution #1, wouldn't it? And it would stay that way throughout all interception combats as long as no one choose to do a move back through the Sea Zone where the first naval combat took place.

I don't understand Paul's argument in the quoted post because I don't see that the number of decisions are reduced, and also the events would be mostly the same, only what information you have in these events would be slightly different.

What do I miss?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Please let me know your vote for #1 or #2.

And just to bias the results[;)], my vote is for #2.

I strongly support #1 and thoroughly dislike #2.

One tactic I have seen used in Naval Combats is to resolve the ones furthest from enemy home bases first so that in the event of success, the aborting enemy units will have to go through sea zones where they can be intercepted again, and in the event of failure, your own units won't. Furthermore you may even have sailed your own units into enemy waters for that specific purpose, knowing that you'll have pretty decent combat opportunities against aborting enemy units that must fight through from the zero box. You might not even choose to search yourself in that sea zone when the "normal" search opportunity comes around because other enemy units there already are formidable. (Of course they'll likely search for you in that event, but at least you can ensure that happens after you've performed all your own searches. And if you do intercept successfully you could abort after that combat. [;)])

#2 eliminates this tactic if all naval combats including the opponents are queued. Even if there is a queue for the phasing player followed by a queue for the non-phasing player, I could lose a decent intercept possibility in the second sea zone (caused by successful combat in the first sea zone) because of an unlucky split in the second sea zone.

In summary, #2 is bad because it takes away the chess-like decision process that the phasing player employs in determining in which order to search the sea zones. It takes an advantage away that is there in RAW.

You misunderstand how #2 will work. Naval combat will not be queued in #2. Instead each naval combat will be run to quiescience and then any queued naval aborts processed in the order First In, First Out, with voluntary aborts at the end of a combat round processed last.

#1 does queue naval combats and within each naval combat it queues naval aborts (which won't happen very often since there would need to be multiple aborts within a single round of combat).

Since your sentence I underlined is incorrect, the rest of your comment doesn't appear to apply.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Internally, MWIF has three 'times' that naval combat may occur: Phasing Side selects sea areas for naval combat (NavalCombatA Phase), non-phasing side does the same (NavalCombatD Phase), and naval interception combats (NavalInterception Digression).

During NavalCombatA, the phasing side can initiate combat in any sea area only once, though there may be additional naval combat(s) in the same sea area caused by naval interceptions during the phase.

During NavalCombatD, the non-phasing side can initiate combat in any sea area only once, though there may be additional naval combat(s) in the same sea area caused by naval interceptions during the phase.

Combats occuring during a NavalInterception Digression are completely separate from naval combats that occur during the Naval Combat phases.

There are numerous places in the sequence of play where naval units can move; in all but one of those, naval moves can be intercepted. The sole exception is the mandatory movement of at-sea French naval units to the closest French held port during the formation of Vichy. Otherwise, all naval moves are subject to being intercepted.

(1) Overruns during land movement and advance after combat, (2) conquest of countries, and (3) any other phase when which side controls territory changes, can all result in naval units being forced to rebase. Those units can be intercepted which may result in naval combat.

I hope that in NavalCombatD the non-phasing player is restricted from initiating searches in sea zones as per RAW. i.e. eligibility is: enemy units entered or moved down and themselves did not search.

RAW is somewhat vague on your last point, but I agree with your interpretation and that is how it is already coded.

The vague sentence is "Your opponenets can not select a sea area that has already been selected this impulse." The missing qualifier, which I assume is implied, is "during either the NavalCombatA or NavalCombatD phase."

That wouldn't be a big deal, except that is doesn't seem to mean "including any naval interception combats initiated during the impulse in the sea area."

So, there may have been naval interception combats in the sea area, but not any 'selected' combats in the sea area during NavalCombatA nor during NavalCombatD.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: ullern

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Please let me know your vote for #1 or #2.

And just to bias the results[;)], my vote is for #2.

I strongly support #1 and thoroughly dislike #2.

One tactic I have seen used in Naval Combats is to resolve the ones furthest from enemy home bases first so that in the event of success, the aborting enemy units will have to go through sea zones where they can be intercepted again, and in the event of failure, your own units won't. Furthermore you may even have sailed your own units into enemy waters for that specific purpose, knowing that you'll have pretty decent combat opportunities against aborting enemy units that must fight through from the zero box. You might not even choose to search yourself in that sea zone when the "normal" search opportunity comes around because other enemy units there already are formidable. (Of course they'll likely search for you in that event, but at least you can ensure that happens after you've performed all your own searches. And if you do intercept successfully you could abort after that combat. [;)])

#2 eliminates this tactic if all naval combats including the opponents are queued. Even if there is a queue for the phasing player followed by a queue for the non-phasing player, I could lose a decent intercept possibility in the second sea zone (caused by successful combat in the first sea zone) because of an unlucky split in the second sea zone.

In summary, #2 is bad because it takes away the chess-like decision process that the phasing player employs in determining in which order to search the sea zones. It takes an advantage away that is there in RAW.

First I am very happy with Steve's comment to my previous post.

The discussion goes the way I was hoping, but since I feel obliged to get to the best total solution, I can't help but to put ask some more questions that may jeopardize this:

Let me probe into #2:

The way to implement the #2 would be to flip the whole thing around. In one single naval combat the aborts are handled as a FIFO queue instead of a stack, with one round of naval combat from one side be one entry in the queue that has to be aborted before moving on to the next entry in the queue. But as that first abort entry are executed, additional interception combat may occur, and aborts from these combats, are stacked when added to the other queue (but FIFO in the combat).

Example:
Abort queue first combat:
1. Naval combat in North Atlantic, 1 round, active side
2. Naval combat in North Atlantic, 1 round, inactive side
3. Naval combat in North Atlantic, 2 round, active side
4. Naval combat in North Atlantic, 2 round, inactive side
Naval combat North Atlantic lapses after 2. round.

Then implementation of queue event 1. from the first combat results in a interception combat in Bay of Biscay. Two rounds of combat is fought with the following additions to the abort queue:
1. Interception combat in Bay of Biscay, 1 round, active side
2. Interception combat in Bay of Biscay, 1 round, inactive side
3. Interception combat in Bay of Biscay, 2 round, active side
4. Interception combat in Bay of Biscay, 2 round, inactive side
5. Naval combat in North Atlantic, 1 round, active side (At this point partially or wholly completed)
6. Naval combat in North Atlantic, 1 round, inactive side
7. Naval combat in North Atlantic, 2 round, active side
8. Naval combat in North Atlantic, 2 round, inactive side

That way the interception events would be exactly the same as with solution #1, wouldn't it? And it would stay that way throughout all interception combats as long as no one choose to do a move back through the Sea Zone where the first naval combat took place.

I don't understand Paul's argument in the quoted post because I don't see that the number of decisions are reduced, and also the events would be mostly the same, only what information you have in these events would be slightly different.

What do I miss?

Yes, this is what I meant by my description of #2. There is a single queue of units to be aborted, and the entire abort queue is processed before a second naval combat is voluntarily chosen by the Phasing Side (or non phasing side in the NavalCombatD phase). The only tricky bit here is that a voluntary abort from the second (interception) combat would be placed in between the aborts from the second combat and the aborts from the first combat. The queue would be processed in the order, 1, 2, 3, ... as follows:

1. Interception combat in Bay of Biscay, 1 round, intercepting side
2. Interception combat in Bay of Biscay, 1 round, non-intercepting side side
3. Interception combat in Bay of Biscay, 2 round, intercepting side
4. Interception combat in Bay of Biscay, 2 round, non-intercepting side
5. Interception combat in Bay of Biscay, voluntary abort at end of 3rd round, intercepting side
6. Interception combat in Bay of Biscay, voluntary abort at end of 3rd round, non-intercepting side
7. Naval combat in North Atlantic, 1 round, phasing side (At this point partially or wholly completed)
8. Naval combat in North Atlantic, 1 round, non-phasing side
9. Naval combat in North Atlantic, 2 round, phasing side
10. Naval combat in North Atlantic, 2 round, non-phasing side
11. Naval combat in North Atlantic, voluntary abort at end of 3rd round, phasing side
12. Naval combat in North Atlantic, voluntary abort at end of 3rd round, non-phasing side

Note the distinction between phasing side and intercepting side. The intercepting side is the side which decided to intercept a naval group that was moving through the sea area. Obviously, the intercepting side could be either the phasing or non-phasing side.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: terje439

And back from JGN:

This is no longer a matter for discussion.
My last entry posted by Terje (Thank you for you help J) was emailed to him shortly before Steve’s post #42.

Thank goodness. I haven't seen many arguments that were as inane as that one.

Glad you think discussion on the point is inane.

So we are going ahead with this interpretation that each sea area is allowed one interception combat per impulse?

Nope I think JGN's position is inane. I'd already posted several times in support of all those who say there can be infinite naval interception combats.

Mind you I'd recommend against Steve programming an infinite queue.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

ORIGINAL: paulderynck




Thank goodness. I haven't seen many arguments that were as inane as that one.

Glad you think discussion on the point is inane.

So we are going ahead with this interpretation that each sea area is allowed one interception combat per impulse?

Nope I think JGN's position is inane. I'd already posted several times in support of all those who say there can be infinite naval interception combats.

Mind you I'd recommend against Steve programming an infinite queue.

Programming an infinite queue is not a problem - I do it all the time.[8D]

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Yes, this is what I meant by my description of #2. There is a single queue of units to be aborted, and the entire abort queue is processed before a second naval combat is voluntarily chosen by the Phasing Side (or non phasing side in the NavalCombatD phase). The only tricky bit here is that a voluntary abort from the second (interception) combat would be placed in between the aborts from the second combat and the aborts from the first combat. The queue would be processed in the order, 1, 2, 3, ... as follows:

1. Interception combat in Bay of Biscay, 1 round, intercepting side
2. Interception combat in Bay of Biscay, 1 round, non-intercepting side side
3. Interception combat in Bay of Biscay, 2 round, intercepting side
4. Interception combat in Bay of Biscay, 2 round, non-intercepting side
5. Interception combat in Bay of Biscay, voluntary abort at end of 3rd round, intercepting side
6. Interception combat in Bay of Biscay, voluntary abort at end of 3rd round, non-intercepting side
7. Naval combat in North Atlantic, 1 round, phasing side (At this point partially or wholly completed)
8. Naval combat in North Atlantic, 1 round, non-phasing side
9. Naval combat in North Atlantic, 2 round, phasing side
10. Naval combat in North Atlantic, 2 round, non-phasing side
11. Naval combat in North Atlantic, voluntary abort at end of 3rd round, phasing side
12. Naval combat in North Atlantic, voluntary abort at end of 3rd round, non-phasing side

Note the distinction between phasing side and intercepting side. The intercepting side is the side which decided to intercept a naval group that was moving through the sea area. Obviously, the intercepting side could be either the phasing or non-phasing side.

Yes I did misunderstand how #2 works. This explanation somewhat lessons my antipathy toward it. However...

I agree #1 queues naval combats but not the subsequent voluntary ones. It queues the second round of the original (voluntary) combat and it queues the second round of interception combat against an aborting unit while it resolves an abort from that interception combat, etc. etc. The queue is always LIFO.

In your sequence above the aborts are FIFO until there is an interception combat and then they become grouped LIFO, resolved FIFO per group. This appears to me to be increasing the complexity of the problem. It also raises the question of whether the "Naval combat in North Atlantic, 1 round, non-phasing side" should occur before the "Interception combat in Bay of Biscay, 1 round, non-intercepting side".

I still prefer #1 because with #2 a player can "cherry pick" his interception attempts since he knows what is in the abort queue. If I have 2 cruisers in the 4 box along with a strong enemy force in the 3 box, will I try to intercept the enemy cruiser aborting from round 1 of the preceding combat or wait for the damaged carrier aborting from round 2? In RAW its all a big gamble since when I'm thinking about the first intercept decision, I don't know there will be a damaged carrier aborting from round 2. With #2 I will know that.

I also disagree with combats being fought to quiescence before aborts are resolved. A player's choice of the route for his aborting units should not be made while in possession of the information as to how the entire combat in a prior sea zone turned out.

Finally, what is the justification for the intercepting side to decide to abort first? In RAW the sequence for abort choice after a round of naval combat is "active side" first.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Programming an infinite queue is not a problem - I do it all the time.[8D]

Programming it is easy I agree, have done a few myself. Having the program yield a result before the end of the universe is the tough part.[>:]

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

The vague sentence is "Your opponenets can not select a sea area that has already been selected this impulse." The missing qualifier, which I assume is implied, is "during either the NavalCombatA or NavalCombatD phase."

That wouldn't be a big deal, except that is doesn't seem to mean "including any naval interception combats initiated during the impulse in the sea area."

So, there may have been naval interception combats in the sea area, but not any 'selected' combats in the sea area during NavalCombatA nor during NavalCombatD.

Good point. But I think that there is a logical way to resolve it.

Naval interception has no restrictions - either side can attempt to intercept. Opponent's Naval Combat has a list of restrictions. None of these has to do with whether combat occurred, they have to do with "picking" an area where combat could occur. So the opponent is restricted to picking sea areas that meet the criteria, which has nothing to do with whether a particular sea area had one or more interception combats/attempted combats.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Yes, this is what I meant by my description of #2. There is a single queue of units to be aborted, and the entire abort queue is processed before a second naval combat is voluntarily chosen by the Phasing Side (or non phasing side in the NavalCombatD phase). The only tricky bit here is that a voluntary abort from the second (interception) combat would be placed in between the aborts from the second combat and the aborts from the first combat. The queue would be processed in the order, 1, 2, 3, ... as follows:

1. Interception combat in Bay of Biscay, 1 round, intercepting side
2. Interception combat in Bay of Biscay, 1 round, non-intercepting side side
3. Interception combat in Bay of Biscay, 2 round, intercepting side
4. Interception combat in Bay of Biscay, 2 round, non-intercepting side
5. Interception combat in Bay of Biscay, voluntary abort at end of 3rd round, intercepting side
6. Interception combat in Bay of Biscay, voluntary abort at end of 3rd round, non-intercepting side
7. Naval combat in North Atlantic, 1 round, phasing side (At this point partially or wholly completed)
8. Naval combat in North Atlantic, 1 round, non-phasing side
9. Naval combat in North Atlantic, 2 round, phasing side
10. Naval combat in North Atlantic, 2 round, non-phasing side
11. Naval combat in North Atlantic, voluntary abort at end of 3rd round, phasing side
12. Naval combat in North Atlantic, voluntary abort at end of 3rd round, non-phasing side

Note the distinction between phasing side and intercepting side. The intercepting side is the side which decided to intercept a naval group that was moving through the sea area. Obviously, the intercepting side could be either the phasing or non-phasing side.

Yes I did misunderstand how #2 works. This explanation somewhat lessons my antipathy toward it. However...

I agree #1 queues naval combats but not the subsequent voluntary ones. It queues the second round of the original (voluntary) combat and it queues the second round of interception combat against an aborting unit while it resolves an abort from that interception combat, etc. etc. The queue is always LIFO.

In your sequence above the aborts are FIFO until there is an interception combat and then they become grouped LIFO, resolved FIFO per group. This appears to me to be increasing the complexity of the problem. It also raises the question of whether the "Naval combat in North Atlantic, 1 round, non-phasing side" should occur before the "Interception combat in Bay of Biscay, 1 round, non-intercepting side".

I still prefer #1 because with #2 a player can "cherry pick" his interception attempts since he knows what is in the abort queue. If I have 2 cruisers in the 4 box along with a strong enemy force in the 3 box, will I try to intercept the enemy cruiser aborting from round 1 of the preceding combat or wait for the damaged carrier aborting from round 2? In RAW its all a big gamble since when I'm thinking about the first intercept decision, I don't know there will be a damaged carrier aborting from round 2. With #2 I will know that.

I also disagree with combats being fought to quiescence before aborts are resolved. A player's choice of the route for his aborting units should not be made while in possession of the information as to how the entire combat in a prior sea zone turned out.

Finally, what is the justification for the intercepting side to decide to abort first? In RAW the sequence for abort choice after a round of naval combat is "active side" first.

Finally, what is the justification for the intercepting side to decide to abort first? In RAW the sequence for abort choice after a round of naval combat is "active side" first.

Boy, does the phrase "Active side" raise my hackles. many an hour has been irretreivably lost trying to understand that phrase. Within the code I use Phasing/Non-phasing, Intercepting/Intercepted, and Initiative/Non-initiative sides (the last delineates the side with/without the initiative in the current turn). I also have Attacking/Defending sides during combat situations, but those are always derived from the first 3 depending upon the circumstances. I have methodically removed the designations Active/Inactive side from the code I inherited from CWIF because it was so difficult to figure out what it meant. I find the usage of Active/Inactive sides in RAW equally confusing, though I have not methodically eliminated it from RAC (though I thought seriously about doing so).

For an example of why I find use of the term Active side hopelessly confusing, consider the declaration of Vichy phase (which takes place during the end of turn 'stage'). There is no phasing side defined at that time. So, assuming Germany has declared Vichy France, and the CW has to rebase units that are now in Vichy France territory, and Italy intercepts those units while they are moving, and a naval combat occurs that causes an Italian unit to abort, and the Italian unit is intercepted resulting in a second naval combat, which is the Active side in the second naval combat? Or in the first naval combat?

Which is why I always use the terms Intercepting/Intercepted sides for naval interception combats.
===
To answer your question, it does not matter to me which side aborts first. It just has to be consistent so players know what to expect.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Finally, what is the justification for the intercepting side to decide to abort first? In RAW the sequence for abort choice after a round of naval combat is "active side" first.

Boy, does the phrase "Active side" raise my hackles. many an hour has been irretreivably lost trying to understand that phrase. Within the code I use Phasing/Non-phasing, Intercepting/Intercepted, and Initiative/Non-initiative sides (the last delineates the side with/without the initiative in the current turn). I also have Attacking/Defending sides during combat situations, but those are always derived from the first 3 depending upon the circumstances. I have methodically removed the designations Active/Inactive side from the code I inherited from CWIF because it was so difficult to figure out what it meant. I find the usage of Active/Inactive sides in RAW equally confusing, though I have not methodically eliminated it from RAC (though I thought seriously about doing so).

For an example of why I find use of the term Active side hopelessly confusing, consider the declaration of Vichy phase (which takes place during the end of turn 'stage'). There is no phasing side defined at that time. So, assuming Germany has declared Vichy France, and the CW has to rebase units that are now in Vichy France territory, and Italy intercepts those units while they are moving, and a naval combat occurs that causes an Italian unit to abort, and the Italian unit is intercepted resulting in a second naval combat, which is the Active side in the second naval combat? Or in the first naval combat?

Which is why I always use the terms Intercepting/Intercepted sides for naval interception combats.
===
To answer your question, it does not matter to me which side aborts first. It just has to be consistent so players know what to expect.

RAW defines in its glossary that the Active Side is the side whose impulse it is. In the Sequence of Play, the Active Side for the End of Turn Stage is the side which was active when the end of action stage occurred.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Finally, what is the justification for the intercepting side to decide to abort first? In RAW the sequence for abort choice after a round of naval combat is "active side" first.

Boy, does the phrase "Active side" raise my hackles. many an hour has been irretreivably lost trying to understand that phrase. Within the code I use Phasing/Non-phasing, Intercepting/Intercepted, and Initiative/Non-initiative sides (the last delineates the side with/without the initiative in the current turn). I also have Attacking/Defending sides during combat situations, but those are always derived from the first 3 depending upon the circumstances. I have methodically removed the designations Active/Inactive side from the code I inherited from CWIF because it was so difficult to figure out what it meant. I find the usage of Active/Inactive sides in RAW equally confusing, though I have not methodically eliminated it from RAC (though I thought seriously about doing so).

For an example of why I find use of the term Active side hopelessly confusing, consider the declaration of Vichy phase (which takes place during the end of turn 'stage'). There is no phasing side defined at that time. So, assuming Germany has declared Vichy France, and the CW has to rebase units that are now in Vichy France territory, and Italy intercepts those units while they are moving, and a naval combat occurs that causes an Italian unit to abort, and the Italian unit is intercepted resulting in a second naval combat, which is the Active side in the second naval combat? Or in the first naval combat?

Which is why I always use the terms Intercepting/Intercepted sides for naval interception combats.
===
To answer your question, it does not matter to me which side aborts first. It just has to be consistent so players know what to expect.

RAW defines in its glossary that the Active Side is the side whose impulse it is. In the Sequence of Play, the Active Side for the End of Turn Stage is the side which was active when the end of action stage occurred.

Using that definition means that during naval combats initiated by the phasing side in the NavalCombatA phase, the initiating side (phasing side) aborts first). While during the NavalCombatD phase, the side which did not initiate the combat (the phasing side) aborts first. And for the example that I gave concerning declaring Vichy France, which side aborts depends on which side was the phasing side during the last impulse - which could be the Axis or Allied side. That would be the same side when the Italians intercept the CW and when the CW intercepts the Italians.

Is it just me, or do other people also find this to be inconsistent?

I prefer that the side which is moving into the area always aborts either first or second. So, I do not really have a problem with the phasing side aborting first from both NavalCombatA and NavalCombatD, since in both cases they have moved into the sea area.

But for interception combats, I would then prefer the answer to be the side that moves into the area. This comes up during land movement when naval units are overrun in a port, during the Conquest phase when control of a port changes sides, and at many other times.

[Zorachus99]

I'm leaning toward option #1 now. 
 
Is the abort queue cleared after every round of naval combat in both cases?  Aborts do have to be implemented at the end of each naval combat round.  The aborts can be intercepted, and are done out of sequence, until finally, you can return to the original combat to proceed with another naval combat round.
 
Is this the case with both option #1 and #2?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

I'm leaning toward option #1 now. 

Is the abort queue cleared after every round of naval combat in both cases?  Aborts do have to be implemented at the end of each naval combat round.  The aborts can be intercepted, and are done out of sequence, until finally, you can return to the original combat to proceed with another naval combat round.

Is this the case with both option #1 and #2?

Here is what a queue might look like for option #1. To make sense of this it is easiest to start at #9 and read the list backwards - that is the chronology of what has happened.
===
1. Units 108, phasing side combat result abort from Naval Combat #3, round 1 (still needs to leave Cape St. Vincent)
2. Unit 107 non-phasing side side combat result abort from Naval Combat #3, round 1 (still needs to leave Cape St. Vincent)
3. Naval Combat #3 - in Cape St. Vincent, 1st round completed, 2nd round to start.

4. Units 105, 106, non-phasing side combat result abort from Naval Combat #2, round 3 (heading to Gibraltar, intercepted in Cape St. Vincent, occupying the zero box)
5. Units 102, 103, 104 in different sea box sections, phasing side side voluntary abort from Naval Combat #2, round 3 (still need to leave Bay of Biscay)
6. Naval Combat #2 - in Bay of Biscay, 3rd round completed.

7. Unit 101, phasing side combat result abort from Naval Combat #1, round 2 (heading to Plymouth, intercepted in Bay of Biscay, occupying zero box)
8. Unit 100, non-phasing side side combat result abort from Naval Combat #1, round 2 (still needs to leave Cape St. Vincent)
9. Naval Combat #1 - in Cape St. Vincent, 2nd round completed, 3rd round to start.
===
I am not sure about the order of #4 and #5. Does the fact that #4 is a combat result abort put it ahead of #5 (a voluntary abort)? Or does the fact that #5 is by the phasing side put it ahead of #4 (phasing side aborts before non-phasing side)?