Matrix Games Forums

I can accept that rules interpretation. My only question is: why no fighter-to-fighter combats over land? Certainly air superiority is important there as well. Of course this is a game, and the rules can't always make perfect sense, but if fighter-only combats are possible at sea, it seems they should be allowed over land as well.

Because in the game, the concept of patrolling aircrafts only exists at sea, and the only aircrafts that are allowed to patrol are FTR and bombers with Air to Sea Factors.

Over the ground, the only FTR to FTR battles that you can have are those that often happen when, after all bombers have been cleared to their objectives, the FTR keep on fighting each other. No obligation here, just a will from both sides to try to gain air superiority by inflincting more losses on the enemy than they suffer.

I also might point out that historically, the British invented the Circus Missions in 1941, just to challenge the Luftwaffe Fighters in the West. These Circus Missions involved a small number of light bombers (6-12 Blenheims, Bostons, ...) escorted by large numbers of fighters, often a whole Wing. The Brits had previously experienced that the usual Fighter Sweeps missions were usually ignored by the Luftwaffe fighters who suffered from numerical inferiority, so they tried adding some incensitive for the Germans to come to fight by putting bombers in the fray. This did not work really well until the Allies were able to mount real large scale bomber raids that the Germans couldn't ignore anymore.

The clarifications you found here are quite good, and I am happy to accept them. I will point out though that this disallows many of the examples I wrote, and is also inconsistent with Patrice's first answer, but in line with Steve's answer.

Yes, I agree that the clarifications I posted made some of my previous answers wrong. But I've posted these to show my error (especially with Kunming factory being usable all the time, which I believed, but that is only true if a RP is effectively able to reach it).

The loophole example Steve refered to in my mail exist though . (Steve's point 4)

Steve 4th point was :

4 - The answer to your question concerning France losing 6 production points due to strategic bombing hinges on the convoys. At one time the WIF rules had the players designate which resources where going to be routed through which convoys at the start of a turn. That is no longer the case in WIFFE. Instead, the routing of resources through convoys is done during the production phase. Because of this, the loophole you describe exists: the French player can purposely starve his factories of resources by devoting his convoys to transporting CW resources. This has to do with the pipeline constraints imposed by convoys when determining total production points. The French would end up with zero production points (negative production points being meaningless). They would receive the 3 build points from CW.

Well, there may be a loophole here, but I do not really see what is the problem.
I for one am ok with this. Moreover, this is completely theoric, as the positions of the French Convoys (if they were positionned to ship French RP) will often not allow to ship CW RP, and if they allow, they will not often be needed for that, ans CW Convoys will already be here to transport them. So the case is purely theoric, and as aplayer I never experienced it, even with France that was inflicted 3 PP of strategical bomberdement.

What happens to a minor country's units if the country first is aligned, then becomes neutral and then is aligned again? For example, say that

a) the Russian player claims Bessarabia but is refused -> Russia must declare war against Rumania (19.6.2 Rumania)
b) when this happens, Rumania is allied to for example Germany. (19.2 Entering the war)
c) Rumanian units are set up according to the rules (19.4 Minor country units)
d) Russia attacks one Rumanian unit and destroys it but fails to take the hex. The German player decides to add this unit to his force pool. (19.4 Minor country units - Production)
e) In the next peace step, Germany enforces a peace between USSR and Rumania (19.6.2 Rumania), making Rumania neutral once more.

What happens to the Rumanian units now? There are a few on the map, a few Reserves on the production circle and one in the German force pool.

And what happens later the next turn if Germany decides to align Rumania again?

There are probably some applicable rules for this somewhere, but I am rather uncertain which ones to apply in this situation.

ORIGINAL: Frederyck

What happens to a minor country's units if the country first is aligned, then becomes neutral and then is aligned again? For example, say that

a) the Russian player claims Bessarabia but is refused -> Russia must declare war against Rumania (19.6.2 Rumania)
b) when this happens, Rumania is allied to for example Germany. (19.2 Entering the war)
c) Rumanian units are set up according to the rules (19.4 Minor country units)
d) Russia attacks one Rumanian unit and destroys it but fails to take the hex. The German player decides to add this unit to his force pool. (19.4 Minor country units - Production)
e) In the next peace step, Germany enforces a peace between USSR and Rumania (19.6.2 Rumania), making Rumania neutral once more.

What happens to the Rumanian units now? There are a few on the map, a few Reserves on the production circle and one in the German force pool.

The rule about conquest convers this doesn't it ?
This is a complete conquest of Rumania, so Rumanian units are removed from the game (from memory). Whatever, the effects of complete conquest should be applied to Rumania.

And what happens later the next turn if Germany decides to align Rumania again?

The normal alignement rule applies normaly. Because of the conquest, there might be units missign (removed from the game), I do not remember, the conquest rules must be read.

There are probably some applicable rules for this somewhere, but I am rather uncertain which ones to apply in this situation.

Conquest Rules.

The rule about conquest convers this doesn't it ?
This is a complete conquest of Rumania, so Rumanian units are removed from the game (from memory). Whatever, the effects of complete conquest should be applied to Rumania.

Why is this a conquest?

"13.7.1 Conquest
You can only conquer a home country or territory if you are at war with the major power or minor country that controls it."

The USSR is not at war with Germany, and it is Germany that controls Rumania. Also, no conqest of any kind has occured - Russia has declared a war on a minor, and then Germany has negotiated an end to the hostilities with no hexes having switched ownership.

Edit: I see now in the rules that the USSR actually can conquer Rumania as a special case
("If the USSR conquers Rumania:
● Germany can declare Hungary aligned with Germany during any later Axis declaration of war step; and
● Bulgaria can never align with Germany but the USSR can declare it aligned with the USSR during any later Allied declaration of war step.")

But that is not what happened in my scenario above.

I agree with Frederyck. Why is it a conquest?

Germany can enforce a peace between Rumania and the USSR during any peace step if:

(1) No hex of Rumania, outside of Bessarabia, is Soviet controlled;
(2) Germany and the USSR are not at war.[/font]


13.7.3 Mutual peace

Players can also agree to reach a peace between a major power and a minor country. In that case, they return to their pre-war borders (exception: see Soviet border rectification 19.6).


19.6 Soviet border rectification

If Rumania and the USSR come to peace:
(1) Rumania again becomes a neutral minor country; (IMO units would revert back to a neutral Rumania)
(2) The USSR keeps control of Bessarabia provided there is a Soviet land unit anywhere in Bessarabia; and
(3) Germany can declare Rumania, Hungary and Bulgaria aligned with Germany during any later Axis declaration of war steps.

Would built and/or destroyed units be available for setup if Rumania would go back to war with the USSR?

I am also not sure where you're coming from, Patrice. If Germany manages to enforce a peace between Rumania and the USSR, it is pretty clear that Rumania is not conquered, and therefore does not suffer the consequences of conquest.
 
I would say that in the event of an enforced peace, all Rumanian units on the map, on the production spiral, in the construction, repair or reserve pools and in the German force pool are removed from play. If/when Rumania is subsequently aligned, their units are returned to the map according to the normal alignment rules without any reductions to their forces from being conquered and liberated.

I am also not sure where you're coming from, Patrice. If Germany manages to enforce a peace between Rumania and the USSR, it is pretty clear that Rumania is not conquered, and therefore does not suffer the consequences of conquest.

Yes you're right boys, I read the question to quickly, and assumed that Rumania got conquered by Germany.
My whole mail is a big piece of crap I think, I'm not in a very good day today [;)]

would say that in the event of an enforced peace, all Rumanian units on the map, on the production spiral, in the construction, repair or reserve pools and in the German force pool are removed from play. If/when Rumania is subsequently aligned, their units are returned to the map according to the normal alignment rules without any reductions to their forces from being conquered and liberated.

And I say that I agree totaly with you [:D].

ORIGINAL: Froonp

would say that in the event of an enforced peace, all Rumanian units on the map, on the production spiral, in the construction, repair or reserve pools and in the German force pool are removed from play. If/when Rumania is subsequently aligned, their units are returned to the map according to the normal alignment rules without any reductions to their forces from being conquered and liberated.

And I say that I agree totaly with you [:D].

For what it is worth, I agree. I think of this as being comparable to USSR reserve units should a mutual peace with Japan occur.

Ok, that seems like a fair ruling. The Minor country's units are removed from the game, but put back according to the normal rules once it is aligned again.

After the USSR conquers Eastern Poland, but before Germany and the USSR is at war, is Eastern Poland a part of the Polish Homecountry?

If so, can a partisan appear in Eastern Poland? Eastern Poland is *conquered* by the USSR according the rules (19.5.1 Once you exercise those rights, the part of Poland to the east of the partition line becomes conquered by the Soviets) so even though the partisan is nominally on the same side as the USSR, couldn't it form there?

If a partisan can't appear in Eastern Poland, can it move there after it has appeared and thereby be out of reach for the German forces?

Partisan availability and their starting location can be found on the main menu bar dropdowns.

we experimented with PARTisans for Russian controlled East Poland via House Rules. We figured, if Russia walked in to the place with only an Artillery division, it sure would be perilous to be part of that division. (In real life they went in with plenty of troops). But in WiF we found it rather pointless...there are no resources to block, PARTisans at that time are too weak to attack anything, and it really gets puzzling what to do with the PARTisan once Germany and Russia do go to war. Eventually we junked the whole idea. I had never noticed the 'conquered' distinction and how that might interact with the Rules as Written for Partisans.

ORIGINAL: Frederyck

After the USSR conquers Eastern Poland, but before Germany and the USSR is at war, is Eastern Poland a part of the Polish Homecountry?

If so, can a partisan appear in Eastern Poland? Eastern Poland is *conquered* by the USSR according the rules (19.5.1 Once you exercise those rights, the part of Poland to the east of the partition line becomes conquered by the Soviets) so even though the partisan is nominally on the same side as the USSR, couldn't it form there?

If a partisan can't appear in Eastern Poland, can it move there after it has appeared and thereby be out of reach for the German forces?

I say this is a good question, for which I have no immediate answer.
I could live with all answers, but definitely would like for the designer to have his say on this one.
I put this in the list of questions.

ORIGINAL: trees

we experimented with PARTisans for Russian controlled East Poland via House Rules. We figured, if Russia walked in to the place with only an Artillery division, it sure would be perilous to be part of that division. (In real life they went in with plenty of troops). But in WiF we found it rather pointless...there are no resources to block, PARTisans at that time are too weak to attack anything, and it really gets puzzling what to do with the PARTisan once Germany and Russia do go to war. Eventually we junked the whole idea. I had never noticed the 'conquered' distinction and how that might interact with the Rules as Written for Partisans.

The one thing I have thought of is that you might be able to use a partisan stationed in Eastern Poland as a road block for the German advancement when they decide to attack the USSR. Think about it, even though the partisan has no ZoC other than in the hex it is in, if placed three hexes East of Brest-Litovsk, in the middle of Pripet, the Germans must commit at least some resources to kill it - because you really don't want to leave the partisan behind you unattended because come winter, it might start doing stuff...

ORIGINAL: Froonp
There will be A2A in a sea area as long as one side has FTR.

My apologies Patrice.. I found the implication in the rules that you are correct: 11.5.7 under the choice

You can choose a combat type that won’t produce a combat. For example, you can choose a naval air combat (priority 2 above) even if you only have an FTR and your opponent has no aircraft present. You might do this to prevent an unfavourable combat type occurring.


This implies clearly that FTR can only avoid combat if there are no opposing aircraft present. It strikes me as contrary to the rest of the air system, but it's a game, and the rules are what matter, not opinions.

No need to apologize, this game is complicated, and we all are mistaken at one moment or another.

But thanks for adding this tibdit that may help others understand this as well as us now.

I'll try a shot at clearing this up.

ORIGINAL: Frederyck

After the USSR conquers Eastern Poland, but before Germany and the USSR is at war, is Eastern Poland a part of the Polish Homecountry?

Nothing indicates the contrary in the rule.
19.5.1 even says that Eastern Poland is conquered by Russia.

******************************
19.5.1 Eastern Poland
(...)
Once you exercise those rights, the part of Poland to the east of the partition line becomes conquered by the Soviets.
******************************

If so, can a partisan appear in Eastern Poland? Eastern Poland is *conquered* by the USSR according the rules (19.5.1 Once you exercise those rights, the part of Poland to the east of the partition line becomes conquered by the Soviets) so even though the partisan is nominally on the same side as the USSR, couldn't it form there?

Well, technically, Poland is conquered by Germany, so the Partisan if it appear, is controlled by the CW.
Even if Eastern Poland is conquered by Russia, Poland itself is conquered by Germany. Eastern Poland is a subdivision of Poland, and is part of Poland from what 19.5.1 does not say.
So, I'd say that a PART appearing in Poland can be placed in either place of Poland.
But remember, it is a CW controlled unit, and it does only cooperate with Polish units, so placing it there can have bad consequences for Russia, when Russia will want to have its troops either garrison the border, or move from it, or elsewhere, as the CW is not renowed for his plentiful number of land movements.

If a partisan can't appear in Eastern Poland, can it move there after it has appeared and thereby be out of reach for the German forces?

I think that nothing in the rule prevent this.

From a logical point of view, I do not see what would prevent Polish rebels to form up in either part of Poland, and why not go in the Russian controlled part of it to fight another day. But I might be wrong, especially because I'd rather see the Russians slaughtering those rebels, and those rebels fighting the russians, rather than take shelter there.


This said, I'd also like to point out that, without betraying any secret (I hope), there were recent discussions at ADG about having Eastern Poland made part of the Russian Home Country, as Bessarabia is made too, when the Russians take control of it.

So, whatever the demonstration I might have done here by going with a rule-wise analysis, it may be wrong because the intend of ADG here might simply be that Eastern Poland is no more part of Poland (from a PART appearing point of view), and they forgot to specify this status in 19.5.1.


Conclusion is : We should ask Harry [:D] [:D] [:D]

I've added this to the list of questions we have for ADG.

ORIGINAL: Froonp

This said, I'd also like to point out that, without betraying any secret (I hope), there were recent discussions at ADG about having Eastern Poland made part of the Russian Home Country, as Bessarabia is made too, when the Russians take control of it.

Having scanned through the unfinished rules for WiF Master Edition, I noticed that Eastern Poland is part of the USSR Homecountry in that version of the game.

But as I said - having a PART inside the Pripet Marshes would (I think) mostly be beneficial for the USSR. It is probably way better anyway than having it in Western Poland where it undoubtedly will be exterminated first thing by the Germans and thus most likely serve no purpose at all. (Unless of course the German units in Poland are really badly placed.)