PBEM Non-Action Stages

[Shannon V. OKeets]

PBEM Non-Action Stages

If you haven’t already, you should read through the postings in the PBEM Overview thread to get a sense of how the communications between players will be performed.

This thread focuses on minimizing the number of emails needed to implement non-action decisions. Here are the different phases and subphases, in order:
-----------------------------------------
1 Setup (Rules 24.1)
2 Reinforcement (Rules 4.0)
2.1 Force pool changes (Rules 4.1)
2.1.1 Remove Air Units (Rules 4.1.3)
2.1.2 Replacement naval units (Rules 4.1.4) Option 67
2.2 Placing reinforcements (Rules 4.2)
3 Lending Resources (Rules 5.0)
3.1 Trade agreements (Rules 5.1)
4 Initiative (Rules 6.0)
5 Action stage (Rules 7.0) - repeat 6 through 8 until end of turn
6 Weather (Rules 8.0)
7 Phasing player’s impulse
7.1 Declare War (Rules 9.0)
7.1.1 US entry check (Rules 9.4)
7.1.2 Neutrality pacts (Rules 9.5)
7.1.3 Calling out the reserves (Rules 9.6)
7.1.4 Control new minor countries (Rules 9.7)
7.1.5 Aligning minor countries (Rules 9.8)
7.1.6 Japanese occupation of Indo-China (Rules 9.10)
7.2 Nazi-Soviet pact (Rules 19.5)
7.3 Soviet border rectification (Rules 19.6)
7.3.1 The USSR claims the Finnish borderlands (Rules 19.6.1)
7.3.2 The USSR claims Bessarabia (Rules 19.6.2)
7.4 The Ukraine (Rules 19.12) Option 62
7.5 Choose action (Rules 10.0)
... (Air, Land, and Naval actions are covered in other threads)
8 Last impulse test (Rules 12)
9 End of Turn Stage (Rules 13)
9.1 Partisans (Rules 13.1) Option 46
9.2 Entry markers (Rules 13.2)
9.3 US entry (Rules 13.3)
9.3.1 Entry markers (Rules 13.3.1)
9.3.2 US entry options (Rules 13.3.2)
9.3.3 US entry actions (Rules 13.3.3)
9.4 Return to base or stay at sea (Rules 13.4)
9.5 Final reorganization (Rules 13.5)
9.5.1 Use oil (Rules 13.5.1) Option 48
10 Production (Rules 13.6)
10.1 Breaking down units (Rules 22.4.1) Option 2
10.2 Building units (Rules 13.6.5)
10.3 Intelligence (Rules 22.1) Option 63
10.4 Factory Destruction (Rules 22.2) Option 30
10.5 Reforming units (Rules 22.4.1) Option 2
11 Peace (Rules 13.7)
11.1 Conquest (Rules 13.7.1)
11.2 Allied support (Rules 13.7.2)
11.3 Mutual peace (Rules 13.7.3)
11.4 Vichy declaration (Rules 13.7.4)
11.4.1 Creation (Rules 17.1)
11.4.2 Determine control (Rules 17.2)
11.4.3 Setup Vichy units (Rules 17.3)
12 Liberation (Rules 13.7.5)
13 Surrender (Rules 13.7.6)
14 Victory check (Rules 13.8)

There are many items that I have omitted because they do not require player decisions; they are simply implemented by MWIF as rules of play. For example, the restrictions on the Vichy units are enforced by MWIF.

This list is quite long and I did not know where to put Intelligence since it can be used in so many places; I decided to put it where it is created, in production. As you can probably tell, I have not gone over all the optional rules with a fine toothed comb. That means that there are undoubtedly some that should be added to this list.

If I have forgotten something (and that is likely given all the rules involved) or got some things wrong, let me know.
---------------------------------------------

Ok, we have our work cut out for us here. There should be many opportunities to reduce the number of emails substantially. As one method for doing that let me introduce the term “simultaneously” by which I mean that the opposing sides work out their decisions separately and send them to each other simultaneously (just assume there is a mechanism for doing that). Production falls into this category. By sequentially, I mean that emails will be exchanged to work through each step of the process.

Here is my first pass on assigning what requires emails and what doesn’t.

Email required for each side’s decision
Sequentially: 1, 7.1 - 7.5, 9.3, 9.4, 11.3, 11.4, 12, 13

Email required but they can be done independently
Simultaneously: 2, 3, 9.1, 9.2, 9.5, 10

Email not required from non-phasing player (this might change for some of the naval decisions)
Standing orders (i.e., AI assistant): 4, 5

Email not required
MWIF: 6, 8, 11.1, 11.2, 14

Once, we reach agreement on which goes into which of the above 4 categories, then we can look at the details of precisely how many emails will be needed and what will be included in each one.

Comments?

P.S. I have attached below parts of some posts that appeared in PBEM Overview and seem relevant to this thread.
==================================
I like cyberboard more than CWIF in regard to the EOT moves, specifically because you have the opportunity to not strictly follow the sequence of play, much like how you do it in a face to face game, each player does it at his own speed, building, final reorg, return to base, also reinforcements are done in this file.
==================================
I like cyberboard more than CWIF in regard to the EOT moves, specifically because you have the opportunity to not strictly follow the sequence of play, much like how you do it in a face to face game, each player does it at his own speed, building, final reorg, return to base, also reinforcements are done in this file.
==================================

[Greyshaft]

Just want to clarify whether you (we? Matrix? Harry?) are happy to merge phases as completely as possible regardless of whether the resulting turn sequence resembles WIFFE or not? IMO we should squeeze the whole thing into the fewest possible interactions providing that the game provides a log to allow players to see what happened. So are we aiming for that or are there other considerations to take into account such as "7.3.1 The USSR claims the Finnish borderlands (Rules 19.6.1) " must occur AFTER "7.1.3 Calling out the reserves (Rules 9.6) " because the USSR player's decision might be affected by whether another player called out reserves.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft
Just want to clarify whether you (we? Matrix? Harry?) are happy to merge phases as completely as possible regardless of whether the resulting turn sequence resembles WIFFE or not? IMO we should squeeze the whole thing into the fewest possible interactions providing that the game provides a log to allow players to see what happened. So are we aiming for that or are there other considerations to take into account such as "7.3.1 The USSR claims the Finnish borderlands (Rules 19.6.1) " must occur AFTER "7.1.3 Calling out the reserves (Rules 9.6) " because the USSR player's decision might be affected by whether another player called out reserves.

My understanding of my instructions from David Heath is that I am in charge of making all design decisions as long as I don't do anything stupid. Part of my reason for involving as many people as I can in the design is to have a wider frame of reference (wider than the distance from my left ear to my right ear) as to what is reasonable. For now, why don't we let the ideas flow and see how other players response to them. I have this optimistic view that as a group we can design something that is quite good if we put our minds to it. The group will decide if an idea is too extreme a departure from WIF. Of course, I always reserve the right to have the final say (I do have to write the code for whatever we design), but I will be happiest if the final product pleases everyone. Failing that, then that it pleases the maximum number of players.

[Greyshaft]

OK then. In that case I will be the reductionalist champion and aim to reduce the whole game to a single email for each player [:D] Seriously though, I will pull out my old notes and start tweaking.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft
Just want to clarify whether you (we? Matrix? Harry?) are happy to merge phases as completely as possible regardless of whether the resulting turn sequence resembles WIFFE or not?

My understanding of my instructions from David Heath is that I am in charge of making all design decisions as long as I don't do anything stupid.

I would just like to add that I as a WiF FE player (one could say "worshipper") would be quite (could have wroten "strongly" too) disappointed and shocked if I learnt that modifications in design of WiF FE were introduced for MWiF that were not approuved by Harry Rowland one way or the other.

The comment is done here, in the wrong thread (because it answers Greyshat & Steve's exchanges - but I don't know how to make a post cross the threads), but it especially applies to the question of play balance in China. It's a waste not to have Harry contributing to this because I'm sure he already have ideas (in more concrete terms he maybe already have more Warlords / Territorials counters & Chinese cities to add) that would be consistent with the rest of the game and with history. He has researched tens of years to make this game, he has the deepest knowledge of the game, he may already have ideas that he didn't add to the WiF FE game because of scale or countersheet size, why not have him contribute ?

Wouldn't it be better for MWiF ?

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
It's a waste not to have Harry contributing to this ...

Fair point and (best of all) not subject to bickering between the testers. Steve would still have final editing rights since he has to code the sucker but I think Harry would be the best one to do this. What are the chances of getting Harry to write these rules?

[c92nichj]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

[bEmail required for each side’s decision
Sequentially: 1, 7.1 - 7.5, 9.3, 9.4, 11.3, 11.4, 12, 13

Email required but they can be done independently
Simultaneously: 2, 3, 9.1, 9.2, 9.5, 10

As I am not a purist I will not go into the discussion of involving or not involving Harry Rowland in the design of MWIF. Instead I dig into the topic of the post.

From my experience with Cyberboard we have been able to do pretty much all of our moves independently, and hence only require one move.
Let me go though them one by one:
1.Setup
Original setup we changed the order and had Italy set up first followed by all the allies and then Japan and Germany, hence reduceing one email that being sent back and forth. That italy set's up before US and USSR doesn't impact the game in any significant way.
7.1 Declare war
Phasing player handles it
7.1.1 US entry
Roll is made but the US player can decide where to place an eventual chit at the next time he gets the move.
7.1.2 Neutrailty pacts,
Checked by Computer
7.1.3 Reserves
Tricky, but this one probably needs an email, except in a few case, when the reserves could be setup when the non-phasing player gets to move again. Japan declaring against US, or second impulse declaration against Germany.
7.1.4 Control minor.
This could be handled by the AI-A, where one specifies which country each and every minor should align with, and let the AI handle the setup of minor countries troops.
7.1.5 Align minor
handled by Phasing player
7.2 Handled by phasing player.
7.3 This one will need to have an email, unless a standing order was made.
7.4 Ukraine
Never played with this option but I think it should be able to handle by the pahsing player.
7.5 Choose action
Phasing player.
9.3 US entry
This can be tricky as which US option that is chosen can affect Japaneese production. However with a slight modification you could have the effect count doucle next turn and let the japaneese produce normaly during the turn the option is selected.
9.4 Return to base stay at sea.
This is tricky as you would like to know what your opponent does. Could be solved using the same intercept rules as from the PBEM naval thread, and both players doing it simultanously. But I'm not sure, maybe incy has some ideas.
11.3 Mutual peace.
This would need email interaction but as it requires both players agreement and happens quite seldom, maybe this phase could just be skipped in MWIF, as any type of agreement could be made I can imagine the difficulties in coding them.
11.4 Vichy declaration
Installing power should probably be able to handle this on his own.
12, 13 Both those could be made but the other player only getting to know about them at his phase.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Based on the suggestions of c92nichj, in combination with my ideas from my first post in this thread, I have the following sequence of emails for a two player game for the Global War scenario. I want to delay figuring out the multi-player PBEM system until after we get the 2 player version designed.


---------------------------------------------------- Start of Game
∙ Email communications to decide who is playing, options, scenario, bidding for countries, and choosing countries (MWIF facilitates bidding if desired)
∙ Email A from Italy: 1 => 3.1
1 Setup (Rules 24.1)
2 Reinforcements (Rules 4.0)
2.1 Force pool changes (Rules 4.1)
2.1.1 Remove Air Units (Rules 4.1.3)
2.1.2 Replacement naval units (Rules 4.1.4) Option 67
2.2 Placing reinforcements (Rules 4.2)
3 Lending Resources (Rules 5.0)
3.1 Trade agreements (Rules 5.1)
∙ Email B from all Allies: 1 =>3.1
∙ Email C from Japan & Germany: 1=> 3.1
--------------------------------------------------- Action Stage
∙ Email D from side with the initiative: 5 => 7.4 (scenarios always state who starts with the initiative)
5 Action stage (Rules 7.0) - repeat 6 through 8 until end of turn
6 Weather (Rules 8.0) - Phasing player handles this
7.1 Declare War (Rules 9.0) - Phasing player handles this
7.1.1 US entry check (Rules 9.4) - Roll is made immediately and USA decides where to place a chit the next time he is the phasing player
7.1.2 Neutrality pacts (Rules 9.5) - Checked by MWIF
7.1.4 Control new minor countries (Rules 9.7) - AIA decides based on standing orders
7.1.5 Aligning minor countries (Rules 9.8) - Phasing player handles this
7.1.6 Japanese occupation of Indo-China (Rules 9.10)
7.2 Nazi-Soviet pact (Rules 19.5)
7.3 Soviet border rectification (Rules 19.6)
7.3.1 The USSR claims the Finnish borderlands (Rules 19.6.1)
7.3.2 The USSR claims Bessarabia (Rules 19.6.2)
7.4 The Ukraine (Rules 19.12) Option 62
∙ Email E from non-phasing player to set up reserves (e.g., attacked minors such as Poland) and respond to Soviet border claims: 7.1.3, 7.3
7.1.3 Calling out the reserves (Rules 9.6)
7.3 Soviet border rectification (Rules 19.6)
7.3.1 The USSR claims the Finnish borderlands (Rules 19.6.1)
7.3.2 The USSR claims Bessarabia (Rules 19.6.2)
∙ Email F from phasing player: 7.5 => 8
7.5 Choose action (Rules 10.0)
--------------------------------------------- Movement and Combat
[Air, Land, and Naval actions are covered in other threads]
--------------------------------------------- End of Turn Test
8 Last impulse test (Rules 12) - MWIF decides
If not end of turn, then go to 5 above switching who is phasing and non-phasing, otherwise ...
--------------------------------------------- End of Turn
∙ Email G from both sides: 9 => 9.3.3
9 End of Turn Stage (Rules 13)
9.1 Partisans (Rules 13.1) Option 46
9.2 Entry markers (Rules 13.2)
9.3 US entry (Rules 13.3) - part of the USA (only) email
9.3.1 Entry markers (Rules 13.3.1)
9.3.2 US entry options (Rules 13.3.2)
9.3.3 US entry actions (Rules 13.3.3)
∙ Email H from side that had the initiative this turn: 9.4
9.4 Return to base or stay at sea (Rules 13.4)
∙ Email I from side that did not have the initiative this turn: 9.4
9.4 Return to base or stay at sea (Rules 13.4)
∙ Email J from both sides: 9.5 => 14, 2 => 4
9.5 Final reorganization (Rules 13.5)
9.5.1 Use oil (Rules 13.5.1) Option 48
10 Production (Rules 13.6)
10.1 Breaking down units (Rules 22.4.1) Option 2
10.2 Building units (Rules 13.6.5)
10.3 Intelligence (Rules 22.1) Option 63
10.4 Factory Destruction (Rules 22.2) Option 30
10.5 Reforming units (Rules 22.4.1) Option 2
11 Peace (Rules 13.7) - MWIF decides
11.1 Conquest (Rules 13.7.1) - MWIF decides
11.2 Allied support (Rules 13.7.2) - MWIF decides
11.3 Mutual peace (Rules 13.7.3) - either side can offer mutual peace. If this happens then the other side needs to respond with an email either accepting or rejecting the offer.
11.4 Vichy declaration (Rules 13.7.4)
11.4.1 Creation (Rules 17.1)
11.4.2 Determine control (Rules 17.2)
11.4.3 Setup Vichy units (Rules 17.3)
12 Liberation (Rules 13.7.5)
13 Surrender (Rules 13.7.6)
14 Victory check (Rules 13.8) - MWIF decides
2 Reinforcements (Rules 4.0)
2.1 Force pool changes (Rules 4.1)
2.1.1 Remove Air Units (Rules 4.1.3)
2.1.2 Replacement naval units (Rules 4.1.4) Option 67
2.2 Placing reinforcements (Rules 4.2)
3 Lending Resources (Rules 5.0)
3.1 Trade agreements (Rules 5.1)
4 Initiative (Rules 6.0) - both players provide standing orders for rerolls and deciding who has the initiative to start the next turn
∙ Email K from MWIF to both players announcing who has initiative
Go to 5 above
=======================
I am pretty happy with this, but I am still looking for everyone to pass a critical eye over it. The possible weak points I see:
(a) movement and combat emails still have to be worked out in detail
(b) the sequence of country setup has been modified from WIF
(c) USA’s placement of entry chit is out of order from WIF
(d) placing reinforcements simultaneously and before you see the other side's reorganization or Vichy announcement
(e) the extra email to set up reserves (I think this is very important and worth an extra email the few times it occurs)
(f) the extra emails for naval return to base (I think these are important and worth the extra emails)

Other than that, this design is very faithful to WIF and requires very few emails per turn.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I would just like to add that I as a WiF FE player (one could say "worshipper") would be quite (could have wroten "strongly" too) disappointed and shocked if I learnt that modifications in design of WiF FE were introduced for MWiF that were not approuved by Harry Rowland one way or the other.

The comment is done here, in the wrong thread (because it answers Greyshat & Steve's exchanges - but I don't know how to make a post cross the threads), but it especially applies to the question of play balance in China. It's a waste not to have Harry contributing to this because I'm sure he already have ideas (in more concrete terms he maybe already have more Warlords / Territorials counters & Chinese cities to add) that would be consistent with the rest of the game and with history. He has researched tens of years to make this game, he has the deepest knowledge of the game, he may already have ideas that he didn't add to the WiF FE game because of scale or countersheet size, why not have him contribute ?

Wouldn't it be better for MWiF ?

I have no, zero, nada, zilch, none whatsoever problems with Harry being involved in the design of MWIF. After all, he was Chris' boss during the time that Chris worked on CWIF and I am sure he had a major role in all the design decisions for CWIF.

However, my task is: (1) to write MWIF, (2) to do it well, and (3) to do it as quickly as is reasonably possible. To accomplish that I need to make decisions in a timely fashion. Moreover, the decisions need to be in a set order to avoid having to go back and redo routines that were coded earlier. I am working on my assignment to the best of my ability and asking for your help on item #2 above.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Just to let everyone know. I modified my long post (2 posts above this) correcting some stuff and adding for other things for clarification.

[c92nichj]

To see if I have understood what you mean I have developed a use case.

Assume I am playing the allies it is J/A 1941 and I won th initiative for the turn and both the allies and the axis have made a couple of impulses.
Monday morning I recieve the move from the axis.
- Japan conquered a chineese city and I see that I got a US entry chit.
- Russia is in bad shape so all Allies decided to pass.
- I'm lucky and the turn ends.
An email is automatically sent to the axis player who lives in Hawaii and is sound asleep when Im working on my move stating that he can start his end of turn moves.
I continue working on Email G
- Two partisan appear in USSR and I place them on a german controlled resource. which will reduce his production.
- I choose gear up for US entry.
Email G is sent of to my sleeping friend on Hawaii.
I contunue with Email H as I had the initiative.
I send two empty transport from the Italian coast, back to england to pick up some new reinforcement. The German AIA intercepts them in Bay of Biscay, I'm unlucky and the sub finds and a short battle occurs which is handled by me and Germany's AIA, one transport is damaged and the the otherone is aborted to Liverpool.
Email H is sent away to Hawaii and I have to wait until my opponent in hawaii sends me file I, before I can continue.

Tuesday in Hawaii the Axis player continues, first he completes email G, where there is nothing for him to do as no allied partisans appears, and no pacts is in existence.
Next he can see that his the AIA used his Sub in Bay of Biscay to damage a transport. The only other Axis ship that was used during the previous turn is a Japaneese transport in the chineese coast, he returns it to Tokyo.
An email is sent to me stating I can start with Email J

My opponent in Hawaii completes his production and reinforcements and sends me email K.

Wednesday I complete my version of email K and MWIF checks who wins the initiative I win but the Axis standing rule rerolls and he wins the roll.

Thursday In Hawaii Italy declares war on Persia, email D is sent.

Friday I setup the lone persian cav in Teheran with email E.

Saturday in Hawaii the next impulse starts.

Is this a correct understanding of how it would work?

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: c92nichj
To see if I have understood what you mean I have developed a use case.

****
Potential beta-testers please note this. It is a good example of a Use case which is where a user tells us WHAT he is doing but does not tell us HOW he does it.
* The Use Case tells us what he does. "I moved my empty transport from the Italian coast..."
* The Test Case tells us how he does it "I left click on the unit to select it then click on the 'Action menu' then select 'Move'..."

****

I note we keep using the tem 'email' to indicate a game update sent between players. I know Steve has indicated that it will be a streamlined process rather than Open Email... Download Attachment... Start MWiF Game... Select 'Load new emails'... so I'm wondering if we should find a new term for this info transfer.

I'm still plugging my way through the proposed game process but it's not yet clicking into place for me. Maybe I'm stoopid... or maybe just sleep-deprived because of young Adam Nicholas Greyshaft.. 4am? another nappy? not a problem... zzzzz

[Shannon V. OKeets]

c92nichj,

You gave me a lot to think about and I am still organizing my thoughts. I will post direct answers to your questions when I can say something coherent. If I tried to answer them right now, I would probably just muddy up the discussion.

[c92nichj]

You gave me a lot to think about and I am still organizing my thoughts.

Good, that was my purpose of writing up the usecase, when your thoughts are organised let's continue the discussion I'll try to contribute as much as I can.

-Nicklas

[c92nichj]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

c92nichj,

You gave me a lot to think about and I am still organizing my thoughts. I will post direct answers to your questions when I can say something coherent. If I tried to answer them right now, I would probably just muddy up the discussion.

I am not sure if you are in a state to start thinking about the PBEM design again. But since the discussion came up recently I was wondering if you had made any additional thoughts around this since last year.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
c92nichj,

You gave me a lot to think about and I am still organizing my thoughts. I will post direct answers to your questions when I can say something coherent. If I tried to answer them right now, I would probably just muddy up the discussion.

I am not sure if you are in a state to start thinking about the PBEM design again. But since the discussion came up recently I was wondering if you had made any additional thoughts around this since last year.

I would like to get the NetPlay code working first. Actually, I want to review and/revise how each phase is handled.

I have the program switching the color when the player-on-move (major power) changes and that has revealed a lot of thrashing about underneath I am not too happy about. As examples:

1 - there is a remove air unit sequence after setting up units that seems unnecessary to me. Every major power is asked whether he wants to remove any air units. Since you just put them on the map instead of into the air reverse pool, the answer will always be NO, won't it?

2 - there is a lending phase sequence that is also run through at the beginning of the game (after setting up). The program doesn't relinquish control to the player, but the major powers are cycled through behind the scenes.

3 - there are going to be numerous cases/places where nothing can be done during a phase (e.g., all the air units are disorganized, so the air phases should be skipped).

I want to make control of the sequence of play a separate module where these decisions can be dealt with in one place. CWIF generally used a "advance to next phase" system when a phase was completed - the sequence in which the phase names were defined determined the sequence of play. That poses some problems at times. For example, there can be naval combat initiated during a return to base because a naval unit aborted from a combat.

So, trying to get back to your original question, I would like to make the head-to-head version of the sequence of play cleaner. Then I would like to see how that works when playing over the internet. Armed with those pieces of knowledge, I can reexamine the PBEM system we designed last year more intelligently.

[coregames]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

3 - there are going to be numerous cases/places where nothing can be done during a phase (e.g., all the air units are disorganized, so the air phases should be skipped).

Steve, be careful not to skip the air reorganization phase when you do this (planes can be reorganized by HQs at the end of the land phase and then reorganize other units).

[c92nichj]

1 - there is a remove air unit sequence after setting up units that seems unnecessary to me. Every major power is asked whether he wants to remove any air units. Since you just put them on the map instead of into the air reverse pool, the answer will always be NO, won't it?

After reinforcement a player may want to withdraw planes and put them in the reserve, to gain an extra pilot for next turns reinforcements.

from a sequence of play perspective it could be done in the same as the reinforcement stage instead of skipping through each player in a separate phase, it usulaly how it is played anyhow.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

1 - there is a remove air unit sequence after setting up units that seems unnecessary to me. Every major power is asked whether he wants to remove any air units. Since you just put them on the map instead of into the air reverse pool, the answer will always be NO, won't it?

After reinforcement a player may want to withdraw planes and put them in the reserve, to gain an extra pilot for next turns reinforcements.

from a sequence of play perspective it could be done in the same as the reinforcement stage instead of skipping through each player in a separate phase, it usulaly how it is played anyhow.

However, it could / should only be done AFTER that all reinforcing planes have been put on the map.
One can also take it that, after having removed an air unit from the map, no more air unit can be placed on the map.
That is, the removed air unit's pilot cannot be used this turn.

[lomyrin]

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

To see if I have understood what you mean I have developed a use case.

Assume I am playing the allies it is J/A 1941 and I won th initiative for the turn and both the allies and the axis have made a couple of impulses.
Monday morning I recieve the move from the axis.
- Japan conquered a chineese city and I see that I got a US entry chit.
- Russia is in bad shape so all Allies decided to pass.
- I'm lucky and the turn ends.
An email is automatically sent to the axis player who lives in Hawaii and is sound asleep when Im working on my move stating that he can start his end of turn moves.
I continue working on Email G
- Two partisan appear in USSR and I place them on a german controlled resource. which will reduce his production.
- I choose gear up for US entry.
Email G is sent of to my sleeping friend on Hawaii.
I contunue with Email H as I had the initiative.
I send two empty transport from the Italian coast, back to england to pick up some new reinforcement. The German AIA intercepts them in Bay of Biscay, I'm unlucky and the sub finds and a short battle occurs which is handled by me and Germany's AIA, one transport is damaged and the the otherone is aborted to Liverpool.
Email H is sent away to Hawaii and I have to wait until my opponent in hawaii sends me file I, before I can continue.

Tuesday in Hawaii the Axis player continues, first he completes email G, where there is nothing for him to do as no allied partisans appears, and no pacts is in existence.
Next he can see that his the AIA used his Sub in Bay of Biscay to damage a transport. The only other Axis ship that was used during the previous turn is a Japaneese transport in the chineese coast, he returns it to Tokyo.
An email is sent to me stating I can start with Email J

My opponent in Hawaii completes his production and reinforcements and sends me email K.

Wednesday I complete my version of email K and MWIF checks who wins the initiative I win but the Axis standing rule rerolls and he wins the roll.

Thursday In Hawaii Italy declares war on Persia, email D is sent.

Friday I setup the lone persian cav in Teheran with email E.

Saturday in Hawaii the next impulse starts.

Is this a correct understanding of how it would work?

The Email H where the German SUB intercepts the Allied TRS in B Biscay would only be there if the German player had it stay at sea. That decision has to be made before the Allied return to base occurs.

There is an Email 'stay at sea' decision missing in the sequence shown.

Lars