New to the game - Basic Questions

[Extraneous]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Yes the source is Cernauti which becomes equivalent to a Russian city once Bessarabia's been claimed. In MWiF that hex is part of Bessarabia, but older WiF maps didn't include it as part thereof.

Since each map hex is approximately 100km.

It was decided to make Northern Bukovina (50km) part of Bessarabia.

Was this a consensus of the Beta testers?

It's a shame the change was not posted here in the forums.

[paulderynck]

It was posted about just recently here - amazingly, you must have missed it. And the change was attributed to Harry Rowland, the game's designer.

tm.asp?m=3541098&mpage=1&key=cernauti&#3542935

[Extraneous]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

It was posted about just recently here - amazingly, you must have missed it. And the change was attributed to Harry Rowland, the game's designer.

tm.asp?m=3541098&mpage=1&key=cernauti?

That post was made in the Tech support forum on February 8, 2014.

That is the Beta testers domain to explain work arrounds to known bugs.

Since I am no longer in the Beta I have no business in the Tech support forum. If one of my posts gets there it is because it was posted in a discussion outside the Tech support forum and the thread moved there by Matrix.

I don't see how my mucking about in the Tech support forum would be of any use.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

Since I am no longer in the Beta I have no business in the Tech support forum. If one of my posts gets there it is because it was posted in a discussion outside the Tech support forum and the thread moved there by Matrix.

I don't see how my mucking about in the Tech support forum would be of any use.

I agree.

[Extraneous]

Now answer my question.

How was the decision reached to change the map and not post notification of the change?

[paulderynck]

This was answered by Steve in post #4 of the thread I referenced. I noticed the change quite some time ago and asked about it in the beta forum, and was given the same reply.

It was not something that needed to have an issue made about it, IMO. When it came up here again recently, I did check with ADG and was told the change is forthcoming on the paper maps in the board game as well.

And as mentioned in the referenced thread as well - it is identified in the RAC, for anyone that bought the game.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

Now answer my question.

How was the decision reached to change the map and not post notification of the change?

This was posted and discussed on this forum. Here are links to two threads were Cernauti and Bessarabia came up. I am pretty sure that there were more than this but I was not active in this discussion so I rather not spend time on searching for it if this is enough for you to find what you are looking for.


tm.asp?m=1416682&mpage=3&key=Cernauti?
tm.asp?m=1763002&mpage=1&key=Cernauti?

Edit: I did not mean to be aggressive in my post. I just meant to ask if this was what you were looking for.

[rkr1958]

From the Interactive Tutorial Control (form) and outlined in yellow, "RC on the hex "locks" the NRD form". However, when I right click on the hex I get the menu outlined in red and the Naval Review Details (NRD) form (outlined in yellow to the right) isn't locked. That is, the units in it change when I mouse over a different hex.

What obvious thing am I'm not doing correctly or what am I misunderstanding?

[paulderynck]

I think it has to be an empty hex or even more likely an empty sea zone dot because double-clicking on an empty sea zone is how you get the form to appear/disappear.

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

I think it has to be an empty hex or even more likely an empty sea zone dot because double-clicking on an empty sea zone is how you get the form to appear/disappear.

Yes. It has to be an empty hex in a sea zone...

[rkr1958]

I'm struggling a bit with the below move in the naval tutorial. What I ended with was the CL Perth and the Amphibious unit loaded with the 6-4 infantry corps docked in Liverpool. What I started with was the CL and Amph unit in Sea Box 2 in the Bay of Biscay and the 6-4 corps in Pemborke. I'm confused.

Did I do what I was suppose to do? That is, the two naval units with the Amph loaded with the 6-2 in Liverpool? If so, why couldn't they have ended their turn in Pemborke? What's the advantage of ending in Liverpool?

[Cad908]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

I'm struggling a bit with the below move in the naval tutorial. What I ended with was the CL Perth and the Amphibious unit loaded with the 6-4 infantry corps docked in Liverpool. What I started with was the CL and Amph unit in Sea Box 2 in the Bay of Biscay and the 6-4 corps in Pemborke. I'm confused.

Did I do what I was suppose to do? That is, the two naval units with the Amph loaded with the 6-2 in Liverpool? If so, why couldn't they have ended their turn in Pemborke? What's the advantage of ending in Liverpool?

Hello rkr1958,

The objective of this particular page was to load a transport while passing through a port. For many of the Interactive Tutorials the goal is HOW to do something, and you are quite right loading a land unit in Pembroke and transporting to Liverpool makes little to no sense. However, in another situation this technique can be very useful as the transported land unit is able to move during the following land movement phase.

-Rob

[rkr1958]

From the perspective of someone new to WiF and MWiF I have a request of one or more of the experienced players. Well really two requests; but not both would have to be filled by the same experienced player. I know that I'm asking a lot and if these requests are ignored, I understand 100%! However; if I don't ask they would be "ignored" with certainty.

So, "Dear Santa", what I would like for Spring is, for an experience player, or players, to do AARs on the two introduction scenarios (Barbarossa and Guadalcanal) using the default setups and rules. I would find such AARs as invaluable tools to learning and understanding how to play WiF / MWiF.

[AxelNL]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

From the perspective of someone new to WiF and MWiF I have a request of one or more of the experienced players. Well really two requests; but not both would have to be filled by the same experienced player. I know that I'm asking a lot and if these requests are ignored, I understand 100%! However; if I don't ask they would be "ignored" with certainty.

So, "Dear Santa", what I would like for Spring is, for an experience player, or players, to do AARs on the two introduction scenarios (Barbarossa and Guadalcanal) using the default setups and rules. I would find such AARs as invaluable tools to learning and understanding how to play WiF / MWiF.

Guadalcanal AAR: tm.asp?m=3408132
Barbarossa AAR: tm.asp?m=3431797

Have fun!

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: AxelNL

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

From the perspective of someone new to WiF and MWiF I have a request of one or more of the experienced players. Well really two requests; but not both would have to be filled by the same experienced player. I know that I'm asking a lot and if these requests are ignored, I understand 100%! However; if I don't ask they would be "ignored" with certainty.

So, "Dear Santa", what I would like for Spring is, for an experience player, or players, to do AARs on the two introduction scenarios (Barbarossa and Guadalcanal) using the default setups and rules. I would find such AARs as invaluable tools to learning and understanding how to play WiF / MWiF.

Guadalcanal AAR: tm.asp?m=3408132
Barbarossa AAR: tm.asp?m=3431797

Have fun!

Yes, Virgina, there is a Santa Clause. [:)]

[rkr1958]

This is a rules question. I'm playing through the Guadalcanal starter scenario and trying to learn the game and rules as I go along. I'm learning the rules both by trying to understand what the game (i.e., MWiF) does and by referencing the applicable rules in the, "The Rules as Coded" volume. Now let me set up the situation and my interpretation of the applicable rules. Please correct me where I'm wrong.

The Japanese are invading Midway with a 5-3 and 3-3 militia unit from Sea Box 1 without any air or naval support. Because this is a naval invasion the 2 units are half to a total of 4. The US includes the notional unit (why wouldn't they?) for 1. Since both units are invading from Sea Box 1, the US adds in an additional 2 + 2 (or 4 total).

From what I can deduce from the game (MWIF) and the RAC is that for each invading unit +2 is added to the defense if that unit invades from Sea Box 1 or 2 and +1 if it invades from Sea Box 3. Is that correct? What about if it invades from Sea Box 4? The closest explanation for this rule that I found in the RAC was in the example given on page 73.

So back to the invasion and my example. The US has a task force with the Saratago on patrol in the Hawaiian islands. It flies it carrier air as a bomber which adds 2.5 more factors to the defense. So, the number of defense factors are: 1 (notional) + 2 (unit invading from box 1) + 2 (a second unit invading from box 1) + 2.5 (Saratago air wing) = 7.5, which rounds to 8. So the odds are 4:8 (or 1:2), with +1 die roll modified because a notional unit is always disrupted. Correct?

The allied player is given the choice of which CRT to use (Blitzkrieg or Assault). From what I can tell the best choice for the allies is the 1D10 Blitzkrieg Table. This gives the Japanese only a 30% chance (9, 10 or 11) of capturing Midway. Even though a result of 5-8 would outright destroy only 1 of the 2 invading units, since the notional unit isn't destroyed then the "surviving" invading unit would be?

And by my understanding choosing the 1D10 Assault CRT would given the Japanese a 40% chance (8-11) of successfully capturing Midway. Correct?

By the way, the Japanese rolled an 8 (+1) = 9 on the Blitzkrieg table, which resulted in them taking Midway and both units surviving. Though, I doubt their transports will in the allied impulse to come.

[Ur_Vile_WEdge]

Got a few mistakes in there.

From what I can deduce from the game (MWIF) and the RAC is that for each invading unit +2 is added to the defense if that unit invades from Sea Box 1 or 2 and +1 if it invades from Sea Box 3. Is that correct? What about if it invades from Sea Box 4? The closest explanation for this rule that I found in the RAC was in the example given on page 73.

Not quite. See the little number next to the sea box? At the 1 box it's 2*, 2 box its 1*, 3 box 0*, 4 box it's just 0. That's how much you subtract from each ships shore bombardment and add to the notional if you invade from there. The asterisk means it's +1 in weather other than fine. So if it had been raining in your example, each invading unit makes the notional +3.

The allied player is given the choice of which CRT to use (Blitzkrieg or Assault). From what I can tell the best choice for the allies is the 1D10 Blitzkrieg Table. This gives the Japanese only a 30% chance (9, 10 or 11) of capturing Midway. Even though a result of 5-8 would outright destroy only 1 of the 2 invading units, since the notional unit isn't destroyed then the "surviving" invading unit would be?

Notionals aren't units. They can't take losses, and if the notional is "left alive" at the end of the combat, he doesn't wipe out the invaders the way a real unit would if one were present.


Ergo, the assault table is the one to pick, you want to make sure you get kills if you want to hold the island.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: Ur_Vile_WEdge

Got a few mistakes in there.

From what I can deduce from the game (MWIF) and the RAC is that for each invading unit +2 is added to the defense if that unit invades from Sea Box 1 or 2 and +1 if it invades from Sea Box 3. Is that correct? What about if it invades from Sea Box 4? The closest explanation for this rule that I found in the RAC was in the example given on page 73.

Not quite. See the little number next to the sea box? At the 1 box it's 2*, 2 box its 1*, 3 box 0*, 4 box it's just 0. That's how much you subtract from each ships shore bombardment and add to the notional if you invade from there. The asterisk means it's +1 in weather other than fine. So if it had been raining in your example, each invading unit makes the notional +3.

The allied player is given the choice of which CRT to use (Blitzkrieg or Assault). From what I can tell the best choice for the allies is the 1D10 Blitzkrieg Table. This gives the Japanese only a 30% chance (9, 10 or 11) of capturing Midway. Even though a result of 5-8 would outright destroy only 1 of the 2 invading units, since the notional unit isn't destroyed then the "surviving" invading unit would be?

Notionals aren't units. They can't take losses, and if the notional is "left alive" at the end of the combat, he doesn't wipe out the invaders the way a real unit would if one were present.


Ergo, the assault table is the one to pick, you want to make sure you get kills if you want to hold the island.

Thanks! So a follow up. What happens if I were to get a result that killed one of the invading Japanese units but had no effect of the defense (e.g., 1/-)?

[rkr1958]

So I tried the combat again but forced the outcome to get a "1/-" result. Both Japanese units were destroyed and Midway held. So for this specific combat, I don't understand why the assault table would be better then blitzkrieg. It seems that both give the Japanese a 30% chance of capturing Midway and if successful, 1/3 of the time 1 unit survives and 2/3 of the time both survive.

[Ur_Vile_WEdge]

It appears I misquoted the rules to you.

From RAW, section 11.14

Resolve the combat normally. Any combat result (other than ‘-’) destroys the notional defending unit. It doesn’t count as a loss towards satisfying the combat result.

That does indeed make the blitz table the better choice. Sorry for misleading you, looks like I've been doing something wrong for a long while.