CW/FF territorials - cooperation with US units.

[Ian R]

Are there some geography specific rules in place as to CW & FF territorials co-operating with the US?

I have found that:

- Territorials from the CW "dominion home countries" (India, NZ, etc) co-operate with US units wanting to move into the port they are garrisoning.

- The territorial in New Caledonia (Noumea) happily co-operates with the US.

- The (CW) Sth Rhodesian Territorial stops the US fleet from docking at Durban. I do not have an SA territorial to test there.

- The (CW) Aden territorial also prevents them entering that port due to non cooperation

- The (CW) Burma Territorial prevents them entering Rangoon (ditto).

- The FF territorials in Gabon (FF new home country) stops the US docking in Libreville.

- The FF territorials in Cameroon stop the US docking in Douala.

I was always under the impression the territorials from the "1939 entities" were CW (or FF) units, and cooperated as such, without any reference to their geographic home except for placement and the movement and combat modifiers.

A search of the forum did not produce any hits for "territorial", so I am not sure where the different treatment comes from.

[paulderynck]

This is all in section 18 of the rules.
- The US cooperates with CW home countries (of which there are 6 inclusive of the UK) but no major power cooperates with a minor aligned to a different major power (unless that major liberates said minor).
- France and incompletely conquered France (i.e. no Vichyfication) does not cooperate with the CW unless original France is liberated and CW gives back original French territory it controls. So this can take quite awhile.
- If there is Vichyfication then Free France (FF) cooperates with the CW, but again their minors will not cooperate with the other major.
- FF or incompletely conquered France will cooperate with the US once the US enters the war.
- Even though majors might not cooperate with a minor, majors can always move their units into minors (although cannot stack with non-cooperating units), however minors cannot enter other minors or non-aligning majors. For example: with Netherlands incompletely conquered but the remnants aligned to the CW, the Dutch TRS can enter Gibraltar (as long as no US or FF units are there) because it is a territory, but it cannot enter Suez because Egypt is a CW aligned minor. Meanwhile a completely conquered minor's naval units are treated identically as its aligning major power's naval units so FREX a Norwegian TRS could enter places the Dutch TRS could not.
- New home countries may be that, but the units of the host minor still obey the above.

Besides all that, read up on Foreign Troop Commitment (aka FTC) which gives the conditions under which both majors and minors can enter non-cooperating countries, using their HQ (if they have one), that they otherwise could not enter.

As my old Grade 10 Math teacher used to say: "Very simple, very basic, very straightforward."

[Ian R]

Mine used to say "Mathematics is an exact science".

Thank you for your response. Would you mind discussing this using the Socratic method?

As a preliminary matter can we agree that the basic rule is exclusionary - that is, the starting point is no-one cooperates. The rest of the rule is basically a list of exceptional inclusionary cases and clarifications thereof?

Also, the US is in the war against GE/IT, France was Vichied, and we are only dealing with original CW etc members that were not conquered, and hence not liberated either.

Discussion points:

First:

Paul says: " The US cooperates with CW home countries (of which there are 6 inclusive of the UK) but no major power cooperates with a minor aligned to a different major power (unless that major liberates said minor)"

Ian says:

My maths master would insist I paid attention to the precise words:

"Units from a major power don’t co-operate with units from a minor country aligned with another major power.

...

US and Commonwealth units co-operate provided neither is neutral."

Ian suggests it is wrong to read in to this a limitation to the effect this means CW countries other than the 'big 6' don't cooperate with the US. Also, one oughtn't to equate 1939 CW entities to minors which have been aligned in game. This is a different thing to a country that was always part of the CW.

Another matter of exactness is that units cooperate, not countries. The CW territorials are CW units.

Secondly:

Paul suggested Ian read the FTC rules. Ian read them back in the 20th Century [;)], but more importantly, says they are not actually relevant - because absent the non cooperative FF territorial, the US can enter FF territory without an FTC HQ. This makes perfect sense because the RAC says:

"US and (non-Vichy) French units co-operate once the U.S.A. is at war with Germany and Italy."


Thirdly:

Paul says: "This is all in section 18 of the rules."

Ian says: Nothing in section 18 RAC explains why the New Caledonia FF territorial co-operates with the US, whereas those in Gabon and Cameroons don't. They all went FF at the same time.


Discuss.

[Ian R]

A further discussion point on item 1 above.

RAC says: "Units from a major power don’t co-operate with units from a minor country aligned with another major power."

This statement has plenty of work to do in practice, without applying it to CW/FF 1939 countries so marked on the map.

It can have application with respect to Mexico, Panama, Rumania, Hungary, Siam, possibly even Iraq, and that is not an exhaustive list.

IMHO this adds weight to the argument that 'aligned' status does not apply to the CW/FF 1939 countries so marked on the map.

[Centuur]

RAW:

18.1 Who can co-operate
1. Units from the same major power co-operate with each other (even if they are from different countries - e.g. Australian and
Indian units).
2. Units from the same minor country co-operate with each other.
3. Units from a minor country co-operate with units from its controlling major power or minor country.
4. Units from a major power don’t co-operate with units from a minor country aligned with another major power.
5. Units from one minor country don’t co-operate with units from another minor country, even if both are aligned with the same
major power.
6. US and Commonwealth units co-operate provided neither is neutral.
7. Commonwealth and Free French units co-operate.
8. US and (non-Vichy) French units co-operate once the USA is at war with Germany and Italy.
9. German and Italian units co-operate if neither is neutral.
10. Vichy French units do not co-operate with any major power.
11. Units controlled by a neutral major power don’t co-operate with units from, or controlled by, another major power.
12. Units from a liberated major power co-operate with units from the major power that liberated it.
13. Chinese nationalist and communist units don’t co-operate.
14. Partisans co-operate with units from their own country only.

No other units co-operate. As an exception to the above, units of a
liberated major power never co-operate with units of a major power
that refused to return territory on liberation (see 13.7.5).
AfA option 10: The Italian AOI territorial can co-operate with all
other Italian territorials (see 22.4.5).

TERR are units of the country or territory in which you can build them. That means:

If you build a TERR of a CW home country or a territory, it is a major power unit. It can move, stack and fight just as any other major power unit of the controlling major power (point 1 applies).
However: if you build a TERR of a minor country (regardless of which major power or minor country controls that minor), points 4 and 5 apply to those units.

[brian brian]

The distinction between a minor aligned to an MP in 1939 and one aligned later is from the newer rules.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

RAW:

18.1 Who can co-operate
1. Units from the same major power co-operate with each other (even if they are from different countries - e.g. Australian and
Indian units).
.....
TERR are units of the country or territory in which you can build them. That means:

If you build a TERR of a CW home country or a territory, it is a major power unit. It can move, stack and fight just as any other major power unit of the controlling major power (point 1 applies).

I think I agree, but the game is not currently implementing that.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

The distinction between a minor aligned to an MP in 1939 and one aligned later is from the newer rules.

Looking at section 19 of the RAC, for the Global War scenario, the relevant entries on this topic are:

We don’t have a special status for colonies – they are either a minor country aligned with, or conquered by, a major power or simply hexes controlled by a major power....The scenario information (see RAW* 24.) lists which minor countries start the game conquered or aligned.

[*RAC does not have a section 24. ]

RAW 24 (on page 23) says:

Control: As specified on the map except ....

[there is then a list of alignments e.g. Germany is aligned with Czechoslovakia & Italy has conquered Ethiopia; no exceptions apply to CW or France]

So none of the 1939 CW/FR colonial entities are "aligned" minors, or conquered minors. They are "simply hexes controlled by a major power".

Edit: to clarify the conquest point.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

RAW:

18.1 Who can co-operate
...
4. Units from a major power don’t co-operate with units from a minor country aligned with another major power.
5. Units from one minor country don’t co-operate with units from another minor country, even if both are aligned with the same major power.

RAC has this specified distinction between city specific militia and non city militia:

19.13.
MIL UNITS
All MIL that arrive in cities in an aligned minor country are units of that minor county. All other MIL are major power units.

However, as all the CW and French 1939 empire entities are not aligned minors (see previous post), their CBVs in far flung places would be major power units.

Edit: spelling.

[BrianJH]

ORIGINAL: Ian R
So none of the 1939 CW/FR colonial entities are "aligned" minors, or conquered minors. They are "simply hexes controlled by a major power".

No this is not correct.

Checking Rule 2.5 where it states.

INITIAL CONTROL
The map shows the 1939 political boundaries

Some major powers and minor countries also control other minor countries or territories. They are either aligned or conquered. Minor countries aligned in 1939 are marked on the map after the countries’ names.
A major power or minor country may also control some islands and territories. Most of the sea areas are marked as being ‘controlled’ by a major power or minor country. This means that, in 1939, most of the islands in that sea area were controlled by that major power or minor country

Brian.

[Ian R]

You may be right, if that general concept description is thought to override any ambiguities elswhere, including in the scenario instructions. However, they only mentioned Czechoslovakia as an aligned minor, and not the various CWE/FR colonial possessions, in RAW 24. Czechoslovakia has '(Ge)' after its name, like all the CW/FR places have suffixes, so do we just overlook their exclusion from the "aligned" listing?

The problem with discussing alignment of countries, is that units co-operate, not countries; the issue is still whether the CW territorials are CW units, because if they are, they should co-operate with the US.

For a moment I thought the territory/country distinction might explain the co-operation of the FF New Caledonia territorial. However, the unit's detail screen says its nationality is "New Caledonia", not Free France.

[BrianJH]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

You may be right, if that general concept description is thought to override any ambiguities elswhere, including in the scenario instructions. However, they only mentioned Czechoslovakia as an aligned minor, and not the various CWE/FR colonial possessions, in RAW 24. Czechoslovakia has '(Ge)' after its name, like all the CW/FR places have suffixes, so do we just overlook their exclusion from the "aligned" listing?

The problem with discussing alignment of countries, is that units co-operate, not countries; the issue is still whether the CW territorials are CW units, because if they are, they should co-operate with the US.

For a moment I thought the territory/country distinction might explain the co-operation of the FF New Caledonia territorial. However, the unit's detail screen says its nationality is "New Caledonia", not Free France.

Checked RAW 24. for the Global War Scenario

Under the section Control: it says "As specified on the map except that" and it then goes on to list the exceptions, which include the points you cite. So, given that the rule states 'as specified on the map', then I think Rule 2.5 would apply every where on the map, which would of course include all the FR and CW minor countries, and territories, etc. with the exception of the cases mentioned [in rule 24] for that scenario.

Brian.

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: Centuur

RAW:

18.1 Who can co-operate
1. Units from the same major power co-operate with each other (even if they are from different countries - e.g. Australian and
Indian units).
.....
TERR are units of the country or territory in which you can build them. That means:

If you build a TERR of a CW home country or a territory, it is a major power unit. It can move, stack and fight just as any other major power unit of the controlling major power (point 1 applies).

I think I agree, but the game is not currently implementing that.

Yes, it does. You can stack US units with Australian or New Caledonian TERR but not with f.e. the Rhodesian one...

[paulderynck]

I have zero interest in discussing the semantics of rules that were written 17 years ago and programmed into a game between then and seven years ago. If you think the code is not properly implementing the rules of the game, complain to the designer.

[gw15]

Aaahhh, brings back so many memories playing across the board.

I take the approach that MWIF rules are as they are coded, may not be the same as written.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

I have zero interest in discussing the semantics of rules that were written 17 years ago and programmed into a game between then and seven years ago. If you think the code is not properly implementing the rules of the game, complain to the designer.

I'd prefer to discuss it here first to see if there is anything to it, before bothering Steve.

Thank you for your response.

[Courtenay]

If you think there is a bug -- and the New Caledonia TERR stacking with the US looks like a bug to me -- post it to the Tech Support forum. If it is not a bug, people will let you know.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

If you think there is a bug -- and the New Caledonia TERR stacking with the US looks like a bug to me -- post it to the Tech Support forum. If it is not a bug, people will let you know.

After discussing it here, it is not a bug, it is WAC.

The rule applied to 1939 colony territorials seems to be that a unit from a colonial geographic entity without a capital city, co-operates the same as the units of the MP that controls it.

Examples include the New Caledonia, Northern Ireland, and British Somaliland territorials. They might be the only three units in that category.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

If you think there is a bug -- and the New Caledonia TERR stacking with the US looks like a bug to me -- post it to the Tech Support forum. If it is not a bug, people will let you know.

I posted a question about this in the WIF forum, and Bill Popovich and others agree with you - the FF New Caledonia territorial is not supposed to co-operate with the US (or the CW).

I am waiting for feedback on what they think the correct treatment of the Northern Ireland territorial is.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

I am waiting for feedback on what they think the correct treatment of the Northern Ireland territorial is.

warspite1

Apologies if I have the wrong end of the stick here, but why should there be any query about a Northern Irish Territorial? The province (not a WIF term) is an integral part of the United Kingdom CW Home Country and I assume there is no different treatment for that unit than there would be, for example, the Glasgow MIL.