Dear WiF Players,
thank you all very much for your input on the counters to go into
WiF. The response was phenomenal, which I guess means the topic was of some
interest to you. I thought there were some great ideas posted, and I shall
endeavour to include as many as possible.
Now to some more clarifications:
Q1> Doesn't the extra Russian production mean Germany can't declare war on
Russia in 1941?
Ans> Unfortunately, yes. This is one of those many cases where everything
is connected to everything else. You fix up one problem, and another
sprouts right up due to the last solution. I feel like the little boy with
his fingers in the dyke. Be careful guys about uncovering any more holes
(or at least telling me about them), I'm down to my nose.
Errata: When setting up German units all campaigns from May/Jun 1941 or
earlier, add 3 entry chits to the German/Russian border.
Q2> Why can't 2 major powers declare war on the same minor?
Ans> Another good question. This is actually a rule (or to be more precise
a clarification, cause the rules don't say anything either way) that was
once required, but due to the Peacekeeper rule (see 9.9 Multiple States of
War) is now no longer.
So to completely backflip my last clarification, provided you EACH pay the
US entry cost, more than one major power can declare war on a minor
country. Sorry guys, the nose has just gone too.
Finally, as one further argument as to why I believe the US could'nt have
doubled all prodution anytime she wanted to, I actually believe it
belittles the massive contribution to WWII put in by the parents and
grand-parents of US WiFFers.
The thought that the US out-produced every country in the world, while
lying on the beach sipping Pina Coladas, may sound like music to some, but
it does insult the huge sacrifices that Rosie the Rivetter and her 100
million compatriots made, while doing what she did.
Maybe the US could have doubled all production (just saying the expression
sounds like another ludicrous rant from Hitler, though). But since there
was no-one bombing Rosie's homes and factories, and very few of her friends
and family dying, perhaps a Presidential order to double all production
would have simply led to massive strikes that would have paralysed US
industry.
I imagine Roosevelt (the consumate politician) knew what he was doing when
he geared up US production to its war-time level. Unlike Britain, he also
had elections to worry about.
He wanted the war to end the quickest it could, and would have chosen the
level of production that would achieve that task most efficiently with
advice from industry leaders, and war-time planners. Maybe he (and they)
was wrong, but I have never come across any evidence of that, and it would
be presumptious of me to assert it.
As to WiF production leaving Germany with more production than the USA,
this only occurs when the Allies are not bombing Germany. The CW should
start building Strat bombers by Sep/Oct 1940 at the latest (unless being
invaded of course), and (as per historical) should start massive raids in
1941.
If you follow the historical bombing AND if Germany's response is as slack
as historical, THEN you will find the US is out-producing Germany by 1942.
If BOTH of these conditions don't occur, you may well find Germany
outproducing the USA, depending on how well Germany is doing elsewhere.
My view is that the Axis could have won the war. I base that on the belief
that if Hitler had stopped in July 1940, they WOULD have won the war. If a
Lincoln had been in power in Germany instead of Hitler, they might even
have won the war AFTER declaring war on the USSR (A few million Ukrainians
in the German army couldn't have hurt, I wouldn't have thought).
I might be wrong, but if I thought I was, WiF would never have existed.
Regards
Harry Rowland
ADG
PS Some people have asked me what I meant by being biased languagely. Well
(and to paraphrase Bill Bryson's excellent "Mother Tongue"), have you ever
heard anyone say (in any language) "Gosh, our language is inadequate. I
wish we could import some decent words from some others"?
He also goes on to explain that "Dutch Courage" was invented by the English
Admiralty, because they were so embarrassed that they had to issue Rum to
their sailors in order that they fight.
Thus, they made up the cover story that the Dutch issued Rum to their
sailors, and this was a forced counter-measure. Needless to add, the Dutch
only started giving Rum to their sailors AFTER the British did.
Some other examples:
(a) what does a Czech call a Hungarian? [it's the Czech word for pimple];
(b) what is a common slang for a condom? [in English, it is a French
letter, in French it is a Spanish something];
(c) The "Spanish Flu" which killed many millions of people in 1919 (more
than died during WWI) actually started in the USA;
(d) Being bored in French is called "Living in Birmingham"; or
(e) try saying "Going Dutch?" in Amsterdam and see what happens to you
(there are a lot of anti-Dutch expressions in English, since not only were
the Dutch at war with the British so often, they had the cheek to beat 'em,
go De Ruyter, go!). Dear WiF Players,
more clarifications:
Q1> We are currently using the combat sheet issued with the AsA/AfA
update kit from 1997.
Suddenly we noted, that the Strategic Bombardment table had changed.
The whole table is essentially shifted, so that you cannot e.g. get a
3 asterisks result. The note below, regarding the very same
asterisks, however, has not been changed. We figured, that the table
was changed and the note simply forgotten (just wondering why this
change was never published as errata). Now some doubt has arisen
however, because Vesa Saarinen's homepage shows the original table
with a 1997 ADG copyright notice. So which table is correct?
Ans> The Copyright 1997 chart (sorry about not deleting the note).
Q2> Shore bombardment, including defensive shore bombardment, was very
effective historically. But the ships were extremely vulnerable to air
attack. Their position was known to the enemy for extended time periods
and they were close to shore where they couldn't manuever properly.
That's why it wasn't used more widely. Ships are precious.
The real problem is that WiF ignores this. Naval air units should be
able to be intercept the bombarding ships. And the ships should be
treated as in the zero box for the surprise roll. That would recreate
the real historic dilemma. What do you guys think about this:
1. Ships are allocated for bombardment duty. Fighters are
allocated to escort the ships.
2. Naval air bombers and fighters can intercept the ships. They
must be within half range.
3. Fighters on the ships side can intercept the naval air bombers
at half range.
4. A search roll is made just like for a port strike. The ships
are in the zero box.
5. The naval air battle is fought. Surviving ships (not aborted or
damaged) are allowed to bombard.
This could also apply to transports carrying invaders as an additional
option. Do you guys think that would work?
Ans> Many systems similar to this have been proposed in the past. Greg and
I have considered it and rejected it on several grounds.
First, why have two systems that do the same thing. With the above
proposal, you can fight naval air combats in sea areas AND/OR in hex-dots.
By definition if you have several systems to get one outcome, you are going
to have very long and confusing rules. We already have sea areas to fight
naval combats. If you want to drive away SBing ships, send your own forces
out into the sea area.
Secondly, what is the problem here. When you shore bombard (defensively or
offensively), you are turned face-down. This represents the danger ships
are in when they SB. You can't return to base, you can't lower your box
(and you must be in a high ("visible") box to SB in the first place). Your
opponent now has the rest of the turn to get enough aircraft and ships in
that sea area to wallop you.
Q2b> > > Personally, I don't think the problem with DSB stems from how
much
> of the
> > hex it covers. I think the problem lies in that it is much more
> effective
> > than Offensive Shore Bombardment.
> >
> > If, as the attacker, you are aiming for 3:1 any DSB thrown in by the
>
> > defender is worth 3 of your bombardment points. How is it that the
> > bombardment against the mobile attacking force is so much more
> effective
> > than that against the relatively stationary defenders?
Ans> Unfortunately, this is historical. The defenders have time (at least
in most cases) to pre-target their artillery on likely lines of advance, so
they don't need to waste time ranging fire.
Also, artillery spotters are more likely to be in the right places at the
right time in the defense, rather than in the advance, when it is likely
half the spotters aren't up with the front-line troops (or at least advance
elements), and those that are don't have as much advantageous terrain to
spot with (which is presumably occupied by the defender).
Q2c> Why not only allow DSB in the defense?
Ans> Because surely the question is. can I cover a hex? If I can do it
during an invasion, why can't I do it when I'm just running along the
beach. And won't this lead to the absurd situation of the Allies invading
their way to Germany?
The one vaguely valid argument I have heard against DSB so far is the one
Greg raises. How can I DSB in the same impulse as he OSBs? My answer is
that the combat occurs over several days, and you SB one day, I SB the
next. However, if this does not convince you, how about you play with
Greg's house rule (yes, even we designers play with house rules, pitiful
isn't it?!?).
The defender may only shore bombard a hex if the attacker isn't.
I think the rule is a bit simplistic, but it certainly is short and Greg
agrees with the first 5 letters of my epithet.
Q3> How long do identified TF markers stay face up?
Ans> Only during combat.
Q3b> If two revealed TF are in the
same box during the return-to-base phase, does the opponent get to know
which
one is going where?
Ans> No.
Q3c> Are empty TF removed when revealed or can you use them as
decoys during RTB?
Ans> They are removed when revealed.
Q4> Well, I have a question about russo-finn war:
Germany and rusia aren't in war,
Rusia demands finlands border,
Finlad denies that,
Rusia launch a ground strike vs 2 finnish corps in a port near to
leningrado (2 or 3 hexex, I forgot the name)
Well the strike turn down the to cops, now:
I must say that there are Ge convoy points in the sea.
?there are suministrated? ?Could german player send forces to
finland? ?
Ans> Yes.
Q4b> Finnist can have cp in sea when he setup his forces?
Ans> No.
Q4c> etc, etc....
Ans> Hmmm, I'm not sure I am competent to answer this question.
Q5> > I think you are correct. The new worker rule (22.4.6), which allows
you to
> place a GAR unit on a destroyed blue factory, replaces the old worker
rule.
> I am pretty sure this had made the list before.
can the USSR do this while neutral? I think yes. Hasta la Vista Odessa
... HM-V
Ans> Correct.
Q6> Although Harry has sworn, never to answer this question again, here
> it goes anyway: Why is naval AA not halved in bad weather? The
> argument seems to be, that AtS factors are halved for weather, after
> AA firing, thus obtaining an effective AA halving. I can not see how
> this differs from AA counters firing, where halving is also done
> after AA fire (rule 8.2.3). They way I see it, AA counters are
> effectively the ones quartered.
I also think that ship AA and AA-units should be handled uniformly;
if not other then for aesthetic reasons.
Ans> No, this is OK, this is a completely different question. This relates
to AA counters, not AA fire from ships.
You are of course completely correct. Delete 22.4.2 ~ Anti-Aircraft Units,
4th para ("Halve the AA factors firing at an aircraft in rain or snow").
See how easy life is, when you ask the right question.
Q7> Because of my doubts about the current reliability
of the mailing list computer and the lack of funds in
the budget for a replacement, I need to ask if anyone else
is in a position to take on the responsibility of hosting
this list?
Ans> I for one want to congratule Andrew U. for doing such a sterling job
keeping this list going gratis to us all, as a labour of love. I don't
know about you guys, but I have a much better understanding of the rules
now, and really appreciate your efforts.
How much do you need to keep the system going, Andrew? I'm sure we can pass
around the hat. ADG for one is happy to contribute (perhaps even the lot
depending on how much you need), and I know everyone on the list is rich
(you couldn't afford to own WiF otherwise, hey guys, and I must be rich, I
own a LOT of WiF).
Pls give us a quote of how much a new system would cost that would also
allow a digest form of the list. I'm sure this feature would increase the
number of people on the list substantially (say 50%) so you would need to
factor this in as well.
If it came down to a factor of cost, would ANYONE object if the WiFlist was
ONLY in digest form? Feel free to object, so long as you don't mind if we
pass the hat in your direction.:-)
Regards
Harry Rowland
ADGDear WiF Players,
more clarifications:
1) I believe we are all in agreement that the USSR production will be .5
through all of 1940, regardless of German presense in France. Please
confirm.
Ans> Yes.
2) I believe we are all in agreement that neutral MP convoys cannot supply
active major power units. Please confirm.
Ans> Yes.
3) I believe we are all in agreement that Germany will get 1 extra chit in
3
separate turns during 1940. Please confirm.
Ans> No. She gets 3 at the start of the 1939 game
4) TGTBTU desire to use the fractional odds as Dave has calculated them
(the
WiF:FE RAW). Tables will be provided to make calculations easy. This is
versus the recently discussed 'Harry opinioned -0.3' fractional odds rule.
Please confirm that this is acceptable (the fact that a 16-4 does *not*
automatically equal a 4:1 simply boggles my mind and I find it difficult to
play with a rule such as the -0.3 would intail).
Ans> I like my rule.
5) French ART dated 1937 or later will NOT be used for setup, but can be
drawn
for the ART arriving on the spiral. Please confirm.
Ans> Yes.
6) Chinese CAV and DIV units are drawn randomly from the counters
available,
not purely Nationalists. We feel this makes more sense since the listings
of
CAVs and DIVs did not allow room for designations between
Nationalist/Communist
units. This is how we have always played, but are willing to negotiate on
this
Ans> Appreciate this, but we always play that they are all nationalists.
7) Forgetting to place ones reserves upon a DOW does not make the reserves
unable to be placed, but simply makes them wait until the person remembers
to
place them on the spiral to arrive as reinforcements.
Ans> Yes. Unless, we are attempting to win Bastard of the year award of
course..
8) Time penalties as stated for WifCon will be imposed for running 'over
time'.
Ans> You betcha. I think each player on your side loses 1 objective for
each 10 minutes you are over, and each of your opponents gain 1 for each 20
mins you are over. This leads to fast play, one could say frenetic. But,
the games do get finished. And some of the situations are very interesting.
Of course, if you are both over, you subtract the time of the side least
over from the other side's overrun before calculating lost/gained points.
9) Victory conditions as stated in WifCon (including flying in Larry to
adjucate if necessary :> :> :> :> ).
Ans> Yes. Before the tournament, you will be given a list of objectives
each major power is supposed to own each turn. At the end of the 8 days,
you count up how many objectives you control and compare it to how many you
are supposed to have. Whoever has the most cities more than they are
supposed to have (after taking bids into account) is the winner.
10) Upon declaration of attacks it is expected that good faith upon
revealing
supply status and river hexsides will be met. Ie. If someone thinks they
have
a 8:1 from Yamato vs an OOS Chinese when in reality the Chinese in in
supply,
the attack, though declared, may be rescinded upon immediate notification
that
the unit is *not* OOS as thought. Ie. 'nice gaming'. Note that this does
*not* include any sort of mention that a/c could reach when someone
miscounts a
hexes...though I would suspect that if asked directly none of us will
purposely
lie.
Ans> Your faith is very touching. When you are attacking, you must show
your opponent the attacking units and count them once in your time. If he
disagrees with the totals, he recounts on his time. If after recounting,
your opponent is right, the time taken to convince you of your error is
added to your opponent's clock and added to yours. This is the theory. As
long as players aren't deliberately pissing around, you usually give your
opponent's some latitude.
11) Any other recent rule ponderies???
Ans> Indubitably.
Q12> Why does Germany only have 15 air units at start, when they had 16000
planes 1. sep '39 (no thats not 2039) ie. 16 counters of 250 planes,
add to setup after setup the French choses the worst none-scraped Lnd3
and put it in the Ge reserve pool. Otherwise Ge will not build any
Lnd3 until this crappy unit is scrapped :)
Ans> Because Germany had nowhere near that number of front-line aircraft
(not to mention pilots). I think you'll find the figure is more like
2500-3000 depending on your sources. For example, the Oxford Companion of
WWII (pg. 474) states that on 1st Sep 1939, Germany had 2,370 operational
crews, and 2,564 operational aircraft (bombers, dive bombers & fighters).
Q13> I have yet to encounter such an unrealistic trick which the other side
didn't have the chanse to punish you for.
Let me play GE and continue this one:
On 2 Mar 1998 crafruso@NaSPA.Net wrote:
> S/O 1940. IT & GE are at war with CW and Free France. Japan is at war
> with Russia and China. Allies have a convoy chain extending from South
> China Sea (Free French Home Nation is Indo-China) to Murmansk, via Cape
> of Good Hope. IT and Germany are halfway through Spain, and set up on
> the Greek border. Italy has sailed an invasion fleet out into the
> Eastern Med. Impulse 3 - IT and GE (using Harry's latest ruling) DoW
> Greece, US doesn't care. USSR aligns Greece! Greek convoy points now
> have Russian flags. Germany/Italy begin the conquest of Greece.
>
> Impulse 4 - USSR goes naval. Greek SCS successfully avoids detection
> and runs the Med to Cape St. Vincent. 1 out of supply Russian CP in
> Crete sails out into E. Med. Since allies' convoy chain includes the
> Red Sea (Suez is still CW), the other 9 Russian CPs in Greece are now in
> supply. 2 sail into the Red Sea. One sails into the W. Med. The
> remaining sail into Cape St. Vincent. The allies now have a Russian CP
> Chain through the Med that is immune to the Axis unless IT DoWs the USSR
> alone (Germany has little hope of getting the garrison on Russia until
> 1942, because of Russia's ability to build MIL, her reserves, etc.)
> Furthermore, they have next to no chance of putting Gibraltar and Suez
> out of supply now. All because IT and GE were suddenly no longer at war
> with the Greek CPs!
Ans> This isn't a trick, it's not knowing the rules. To quote the 5th para
of 2.4.2 ~ Overseas supply paths:
You cannot trace a supply path into a sea area that contains an enemy CV,
SCS or aircraft unit with an air-to-sea factor unless it also contains a
surface naval unit or aircraft unit with an air-to-sea factor controlled by
any major power AT WAR WITH THAT ENEMY UNIT.
Since Germany is not at war with Russia, how do Russian CPs keep the CW in
supply? This is such an unrealistic trick, it's not even legal. Note that
playing with the optional Limited overseas supply, this rule effectively
becomes:
You cannot trace a supply path into a sea area that contains an enemy CV,
SCS or aircraft unit with an air-to-sea factor unless it also contains a
TRS, AMPH or CP controlled by any major power AT WAR WITH THAT ENEMY UNIT.
Q14> I latched on to you guys with a view to being kept in touch with WiF
the
computer version. so far I have received a great many e-mails which look
like turns on the board game. this is great stuff and makes me yearn for
the
days when I to played with board games, it is still feel is the better
media.
But I would like to find out the state of play with the WiF computer
version.
have you any info?
Ans> WiF the computer game is still under development. With 70,000+
hexes, the game is the largest computer wargame ever produced. The game has
the whole world on the European scale, and has been designed for the final
edition of WiF. The game will be playable hot seat, direct connection,
modem, internet and e-mail, and will allow you to play with any/all of the
69 optional rules.
WiF: the Computer game is expected to be released October 1998 but we will
not release it until we have all the bugs out of it. Unlike board games,
you cannot come up with house rules to fix computer bugs.
Unfortunately, there is no separate list for the computer game yet.
Q15> I probably have a wrong chart (that copyright notice is same for all
pages and thus the year may be invalid). I still haven't received the
new chart from anyone.. how has the shifting been done? Is this
below correct?
1-9 strat.fact (SF) No destroyed factories
10-13 SF 10 *
14-18 SF 9,10 *
19-24 SF 8,9 *
10 **
25+ SF 7,8 *
9,10 **
Ans> Yes.
Q16> i question this inference that HR has any less energy
> for polishing and improving the WiF:FE system than
> do we, his customers for future modules. if it were
> merely that he is burned out on the WiF system,
Ans> Hey, I'm not burnt out, just smouldering a bit!
Q16b> or
> is running out of energy, or wants to focus on
> "Glorious Empires", i'm sure that he would see that
> it would then be in his interest to take advantage of
> all the enthusiasm on this list (by, for instance,
> officially turning any future "errata and clarifications",
> and perhaps even "rules tweaking", over to a
> "developer" team, one headed by (for example) the
> playtesting troika (Dave-Larry-Dave)).
>
> my feeling is that what balks him is that the plurality,
> perhaps even majority, sentiment on this list, as far
> as i can tell, is for a line of evolution of WiF:FE which
> leads by small increments in the direction of more
> historical outcomes and away from Harry's fixed
> opinion that the Axis might (though perhaps not
> easily) have won WW2, if only they hadn't been
> such blundering fools, and that he is therefore
> reluctant to lose control over the answer which WiF
> (through the biases which Harry has built into its
> many "reactive effect" mechanisms) is tweaked to
> give to the most interesting question about WW2,
> mainly because he recognizes that no other game
> provides a basic engine so well-designed for
> answering that question, and so WiF, as the game
> of choice for answering that question, can continue
> to be a covert tool for inculcating his interpretation of
> history only if he maintains control over it.
>
> all, of course, just my speculation.
Ans> Mein Gott. Zey have discovered my cunning plan. How vill I ever be
able to take over ze Vorld now!!!
Actually, none of the above is my view. The reason I resist ever more
complication, is that I believe the game is complex enough already. There
are something like 20-40,000 WiF players world-wide, and if the game were
more accessible, there would be more. Note that we have sold 60% less WiF
Finals, than WiF5's. So the new 128 pg. rulebook is not an unqualified
success at getting WiF players to make the switch.
Many wargamers already think you need a Physics degree to play WiF. If we
make the game any more complex, we will only drive more people away.
Having said that, feel free to develop whatever rules you like. Dean Lueke
has already got a set of WiFSD rules, and I am sure other alternative rules
will appear, no matter what your or my views on the matter may be.
Furthermore, my approach to WiF has always been that if I am in a small
minority on an issue, I am willing to change the rule, unless I have a very
valid argument not to. That is why a substantial number of WiF players are
sick to death of ANY changes to the rules.
Producing the WiF Final edition is a commitment to my customers that the
basic rules, maps and counters will remain unchanged. However, if we can
come up with better ways of doing things (preferably more historical AND
simpler, which is not necessarily impossible), I am always prepared to
listen (my e-mail postbox is always open).
Regards
Harry Rowland
ADGDear WiF Players,
Gee my clarifications seem to be a bit controversial:
Q1> WI>2) I believe we are all in agreement that neutral MP convoys cannot
supply
WI>active major power units. Please confirm.
WI>Ans> Yes.
Actually Harry - we were adopting this as a house rule since the rules
do not specifically state this, and the definition of "friendly" in the
index implies that they can. This clarification should be errata.
Ans> No it shouldn't. It already in the rules. Since meutral major powers
by definition aren't at war with any major power, they cannot provide
supply to any other major power (see below).
Q2> WI>3) I believe we are all in agreement that Germany will get 1 extra
chit in
WI>3
WI>separate turns during 1940. Please confirm.
WI>Ans> No. She gets 3 at the start of the 1939 game
We were adopting the above unles you further clarified your errata. Are
you sure this is what you want. As the rules read (prior to errata)
Germany doesn't get any chits prior to 1940. Suddenly giving her 3 in
1939 seems quite extreme.
Ans> No it's not. It merely rebalances the game after you let the Russians
have a production of 0.5 all through 1940.
Q3> WI>7) Forgetting to place ones reserves upon a DOW does not make the
reserves
WI>unable to be placed, but simply makes them wait until the person
remembers
WI>to
WI>place them on the spiral to arrive as reinforcements.
WI>Ans> Yes. Unless, we are attempting to win Bastard of the year award of
WI>course..
How do I qualify?
Ans> Hmmm, I think it is probably safer if I don't answer this one.
Q4> WI>10) Upon declaration of attacks it is expected that good faith upon
WI>revealing
WI>supply status and river hexsides will be met. Ie. If someone thinks
they
WI>have
WI>a 8:1 from Yamato vs an OOS Chinese when in reality the Chinese in in
WI>supply,
WI>the attack, though declared, may be rescinded upon immediate
notification
WI>that
WI>the unit is *not* OOS as thought. Ie. 'nice gaming'. Note that this
does
WI>*not* include any sort of mention that a/c could reach when someone
WI>miscounts a
WI>hexes...though I would suspect that if asked directly none of us will
WI>purposely
WI>lie.
WI>Ans> Your faith is very touching. When you are attacking, you must show
WI>your opponent the attacking units and count them once in your time. If
he
WI>disagrees with the totals, he recounts on his time. If after recounting,
WI>your opponent is right, the time taken to convince you of your error is
WI>added to your opponent's clock and added to yours. This is the theory.
As
WI>long as players aren't deliberately pissing around, you usually give
your
WI>opponent's some latitude.
Harry - note this is for a specific game. We hardly expect it to be
official errata/clarifications. You can't legislate sportsmanship
(although the rules to the 1870 railroad game try).
Ans> It is actually a tournament rule. Unfortunately, when playing with
time clocks, you have to legislate everything.
Q5> WI>Q13> I have yet to encounter such an unrealistic trick which the
other side
WI>didn't have the chanse to punish you for.
WI>Let me play GE and continue this one:
WI>On 2 Mar 1998 crafruso@NaSPA.Net wrote:
WI>> S/O 1940. IT & GE are at war with CW and Free France. Japan is at
war
WI>> with Russia and China. Allies have a convoy chain extending from
South
WI>> China Sea (Free French Home Nation is Indo-China) to Murmansk, via
Cape
WI>> of Good Hope. IT and Germany are halfway through Spain, and set up on
WI>> the Greek border. Italy has sailed an invasion fleet out into the
WI>> Eastern Med. Impulse 3 - IT and GE (using Harry's latest ruling) DoW
WI>> Greece, US doesn't care. USSR aligns Greece! Greek convoy points now
WI>> have Russian flags. Germany/Italy begin the conquest of Greece.
WI>>
WI>> Impulse 4 - USSR goes naval. Greek SCS successfully avoids detection
WI>> and runs the Med to Cape St. Vincent. 1 out of supply Russian CP in
WI>> Crete sails out into E. Med. Since allies' convoy chain includes the
WI>> Red Sea (Suez is still CW), the other 9 Russian CPs in Greece are now
in
WI>> supply. 2 sail into the Red Sea. One sails into the W. Med. The
WI>> remaining sail into Cape St. Vincent. The allies now have a Russian
CP
WI>> Chain through the Med that is immune to the Axis unless IT DoWs the
USSR
WI>> alone (Germany has little hope of getting the garrison on Russia until
WI>> 1942, because of Russia's ability to build MIL, her reserves, etc.)
WI>> Furthermore, they have next to no chance of putting Gibraltar and Suez
WI>> out of supply now. All because IT and GE were suddenly no longer at
war
WI>> with the Greek CPs!
WI>Ans> This isn't a trick, it's not knowing the rules. To quote the 5th
para
WI>of 2.4.2 ~ Overseas supply paths:
WI>You cannot trace a supply path into a sea area that contains an enemy
CV,
WI>SCS or aircraft unit with an air-to-sea factor unless it also contains a
WI>surface naval unit or aircraft unit with an air-to-sea factor controlled
by
WI>any major power AT WAR WITH THAT ENEMY UNIT.
WI>Since Germany is not at war with Russia, how do Russian CPs keep the CW
in
WI>supply? This is such an unrealistic trick, it's not even legal. Note
that
WI>playing with the optional Limited overseas supply, this rule effectively
WI>becomes:
WI>You cannot trace a supply path into a sea area that contains an enemy
CV,
WI>SCS or aircraft unit with an air-to-sea factor unless it also contains a
WI>TRS, AMPH or CP controlled by any major power AT WAR WITH THAT ENEMY
UNIT.
AFAIK, this is the first time this clarification has been stated.
Considering the number of times this type of discussion has come up, I'm
somewhat amazed. Practically everyone I know has interpreted the rules
as limited oversea supply overriding the previous rule. IMO, the rules
should be changed to include the above clarification - it is hardly
obvious.
Ans> Why? Why would you think an optional rules overrides the standard
rule. When one does, we have ALWAYS stated (Exception: option blah).
If we were forced to do the reverse, as you suggest, we would have to
include the following words at the start of EVERY sentence "This rule is
also used when playing with options 1-69" EXCEPT in those sentences where
we already have the exceptions stated.
Q6> You wrote in your clarification of 98-03-03 18:16:05 EST (which is
mid-
morning in the fair land of Australia):
>Q13> I have yet to encounter such an unrealistic trick which the other
side
>didn't have the chanse to punish you for.
>Let me play GE and continue this one:
>
>On 2 Mar 1998 crafruso@NaSPA.Net wrote:
>
>> S/O 1940. IT & GE are at war with CW and Free France. Japan is at war
>> with Russia and China. Allies have a convoy chain extending from South
>> China Sea (Free French Home Nation is Indo-China) to Murmansk, via Cape
>> of Good Hope. IT and Germany are halfway through Spain, and set up on
>> the Greek border. Italy has sailed an invasion fleet out into the
>> Eastern Med. Impulse 3 - IT and GE (using Harry's latest ruling) DoW
>> Greece, US doesn't care. USSR aligns Greece! Greek convoy points now
>> have Russian flags. Germany/Italy begin the conquest of Greece.
>>
>> Impulse 4 - USSR goes naval. Greek SCS successfully avoids detection
>> and runs the Med to Cape St. Vincent. 1 out of supply Russian CP in
>> Crete sails out into E. Med. Since allies' convoy chain includes the
>> Red Sea (Suez is still CW), the other 9 Russian CPs in Greece are now in
>> supply. 2 sail into the Red Sea. One sails into the W. Med. The
>> remaining sail into Cape St. Vincent. The allies now have a Russian CP
>> Chain through the Med that is immune to the Axis unless IT DoWs the USSR
>> alone (Germany has little hope of getting the garrison on Russia until
>> 1942, because of Russia's ability to build MIL, her reserves, etc.)
>> Furthermore, they have next to no chance of putting Gibraltar and Suez
>> out of supply now. All because IT and GE were suddenly no longer at war
>> with the Greek CPs!
>
>Ans> This isn't a trick, it's not knowing the rules. To quote the 5th para
>of 2.4.2 ~ Overseas supply paths:
>
>You cannot trace a supply path into a sea area that contains an enemy CV,
>SCS or aircraft unit with an air-to-sea factor unless it also contains a
>surface naval unit or aircraft unit with an air-to-sea factor controlled
by
>any major power AT WAR WITH THAT ENEMY UNIT.
>
>Since Germany is not at war with Russia, how do Russian CPs keep the CW in
>supply? This is such an unrealistic trick, it's not even legal. Note that
>playing with the optional Limited overseas supply, this rule effectively
>becomes:
>
>You cannot trace a supply path into a sea area that contains an enemy CV,
>SCS or aircraft unit with an air-to-sea factor unless it also contains a
>TRS, AMPH or CP controlled by any major power AT WAR WITH THAT ENEMY
>UNIT.
Harry, I like the general thrust of this clarificiation, which has the
potential to settle several mega-bytes of arguments about the "gaminess" of
the Limited Overseas Supply optional. But I need to ask several followup
questions:
Assuming the situation that Russ (aka crafruso@NASPA.Net) described:
- GE/IT at war with CW/Free FR
- USSR at war with Japan
- GE/IT DOW Greece; USSR aligns Greece
- There is a continuous CW/FFR convoy chain from Murmansk to the S. China
Sea
via Cape Basin and Arabian Sea, also a CW CP in the Red Sea provides allied
supply to a CW-controlled Egypt and Suez Canal, no Allied naval units or
CPs
in the Eastern Med.; Italian SCS and NAVs are in the Eastern Med.
- The Greek convoy points are set up as Russian convoy points in Greek
ports
- It is Allied Impulse; the USSR takes a Naval impulse.
Q6a> There are no OVERLAND or OVERSEAS supply paths from the USSR to
Greece.
Therefore the Russian CPs are out-of-supply at the start of an Allied
impulse.
However, an out-of-supply CP can move 2 movement points (and a range of 3),
so
it can get to the 0-seabox section of the Eastern Med., where it sits with
a
"CP Used" Marker on top of it. Correct?
Ans> Yes (you need the CP used marker to show the CP cannot return to base
until the end of the turn).
Q6b> If there is now a Russian CP sitting in the Eastern Med. (with a CP
Used
Marker on it), there is now a continuous overseas path of Allied CPs from
Murmansk to Greece via Cape Basin, Arabian Sea, Red Sea, Suez Canal, and
Eastern Med.
Are the remaining Russian CPs (still in Greek ports on the Eastern Med.)
now
considered to be "in-supply"?
Ans> Yes.
Q6c> Now assume that the Russian CPs have (one way or another) made their
escape
from the Med. (to the Red Sea if they were still out-of-supply or to Cape
St.
Vincent if they were "in supply").
Russian Convoy points can return to base in any Allied port, as long as
that port is not in a "Home Nation" of the Allied Major Powers (none of who
cooperate with the USSR). FREX, they could return to base at Aden,
Zanzabar,
Freetown, Dakar or other misc. Free French port in Africa (remember Free
France has relocated to Indochina) including Casablanca, as long as there
are
no noncooperating units in those ports. Correct?
Ans> Yes.
Q6d> Moving out to sea from such ports (and being able to trace overseas
back
to Murmansk), can the Russian CPs carry CW resources going to the CW?
Ans> Yes.
Q6e> Assuming CW convoy points in Biscay escorted by CW SCS, can a Russian
CP
in the zero box of Cape St. Vincent provide limited overseas supply to an
otherwise isolated Gibralter:
a> If it is the only unit of either side in the Cape St. Vincent sea
area?
Ans> Yes.
b> If it is the only Allied CP in Cape St. Vincent and both the CW and
Italy have CV, SCS, and/or Naval-factored planes in the same area?
Ans> Not if playing Limited Overseas Supply.
Q6f> Would a CW CP in Cape St. Vincent without any other Allied CV, SCS,
or
Naval-factored plane provide supply to an otherwise isolated Gibralter if
the
Italians had a NAV in the Cape St. Vincent seabox?
Ans> Yes.
Q7> >>>Since Finland and Germany cooperate, if the Germans have a CP. in
the
>>>Baltic,
>>>the units in Vyborg can trace supply to Kiel, for instance.
Ans> They don't need to co-operate to do this. However, as soon as a
Russian SCS, CV or aircraft with a naval air factor is in the Baltic, the
Finns can no longer trace supply overseas, Unless there is a unit AT WAR
WITH RUSSIA in the Baltic that is providing supply. Russia is not at war
with Germany. Therefore German units cannot provide supply through a sea
area containing Russian SCS etc. units.
Q8>Vesa: i think that we're misunderstanding each other,
or something, but right now i'm too tired to do much
typing (mainly because i've spent so much of my
available typing time and energy today on being silly!).
i'll try to clarify my understanding of what you (and
others) were saying, and what i meant by my response,
by Friday, unless someone else has already helped us
by noticing where our conversation broke down and
straightening things out.
Ans> I think the point is that by not modifying AA by weather, it is
effectively modified since the aircraft factors are themselves modified by
weather.
Example: 9 Ground support factors which lose 2 due to AA become 7 in clear.
In rain, 5 (9/2) becomnes 4 (7/2). Thus AA has only knocked off only 1 air
factor in rain as opposed to 2 in clear WITHOUT modifying the AA fire.
If the rule was to apply the AA results AFTER the aircraft factors are
modified by weather, THEN you would have to halve AA fire.
Q9> My friends and I are playing a DoD2/WiF5 campaign game. Its going very
nicely for the Axis at the moment and it looks as though the CW and France
will not get any treaty levels in place. Therefore, it is possible the
following situation will arise and it would be appreciated if some
clarification could be provided:
- Italy and Germany declare war on France (not the CW) and proceed to
invade and conquor. However, some brilliant French defence means Italy and
Germany take two turns to conquor France which allows these Axis powers to
gear up to their war time production. This brings me to my first question.
If France is conquored and Germany and Italy is no longer at war, do they
automatically revert back to their peacetime production multiple or do they
remain at a PM of 3?
Ans> They stay at 3 because they are still at war with France. When France
is completely conquered (has no controllled territory) or surrenders (Fr
5), they revert back.
Q9b> If they do have to go back to their peacetime
production multiple, do they have to play their respective first Options?
Ans> No.
Q9c> Or are Germany and Italy still considered to be at war with a Major
Power
because the Free France is a Major Power Government-in-Exile?
Ans> Yes (while France fights on).
Q10> i sure wish that when official rulings are given in
response to questions transmitted off-list (or even
on-list), the answers would be given on-list.
surely that can't be significantly harder than
emailing them off-list!
Ans> They always are. That is why you sometimes see answers to questions
that did not come from the list.
Q11> Assuming Vichy is active Major, but not hostile.
a. If Vichy naval units are overrun by a allied unit does the naval overrun
apply or are they destroyed on 5 or less?
Ans> Naval overrun applies.
b. Does surprise change the above?
Ans> Yes, as does Vichy collapse (in these cases you roll for
capture/destruction).
c. Can Vichy naval units base in occupied France?
Ans> Yes, except when neutral.
d. In naval combat against allied naval units is there any chance that
Vichy
ships will defect?
Ans> No.
Q12> This may seem silly but: Will the annual be sent out to WIF owners or
must
we send additional money to get it? Seem to recall that it would be sent
out to subsribers of the LOC but then again maybe I am wrong if so who do
we call to get it on order?
Ans> You get it as part of a LoC subscription. For a year's subscription to
LoC you get:
* 3 normal issues (16-24 pages on all aspects of World in Flames, including
designer's and player's notes, new scenarios, after-action-replays
historical info and much more)
* 1 special Annual issue, 72 pages on WiF, and a countersheet of WiF
counters and the rules to incorporated them into your next game of WiF; and
* a 25% discount on all normal prices, or 10% off any special deal offered
on all our mail-order ADG games.
The 96/98 Annual (the next issue of LoC) is expected to be printed late
March and be released in April 1998.
Our latest WiF products are:
WiF Deluxe Rulebook & Charts set ~ All the rules scenarios, player's and
designer's notes, etc., for WiF Final and its kits, all consolidated into
one easy-to-access rulebook. Only the standard rules are needed to play
Classic WiF. With the addition of the optional rules, the complete world of
WiF becomes available. Also includes a production-circle, 1 combat chart,
and 3 builds charts.
Classic WiF ~ 1400 counters, 4 x A1 (840 x 594mm) size maps (West & East
Europe, Asia & the Pacific), 1 x A3 (420 x 297mm) map of the Americas, WiF
Deluxe Rulebook & Charts set, an additional combat chart and two 10-sided
dice.
Deluxe WiF ~ 3600 counters, 4 x A1 size (Classic WiF) maps, 1 x A3 (420 x
297mm) map of the Americas, an African map, a Scandinavia map, WiF Deluxe
Rulebook & Charts set, 2 additional combat charts and two 10-sided dice.
Incorporates SiF, MiF, AsA, AfA, & PiF. This is truly WiF with the lot.
WiF1-5 Deluxe Update kit ~ Classic WiF game without the box or dice. Now
you can update to the latest version of WiF without wasting your kits.
AfA/AsA Update kit (NEW!) ~ Contains the Africa and Scandinavian maps
printed to the same graphic quality as WiF Final. It also contains 400
re-printed Africa Aflame and Asia Aflame counters to be fully compatible
with WiF, the Final edition as well as the latest combat chart. You do not
need the original AfA/AsA kits, this kit replaces both.
WiF Classic~Deluxe Update kit (NEW!) ~ Contains the Africa and Scandinavian
maps printed to the same graphic quality as WiF Final. It also contains
2200 re-printed Africa Aflame, Asia Aflame, Ships in Flames and Planes in
Flames counters and 1 combat chart to upgrade your WiF Classic to WIF
Deluxe in 1 easy step.
Our current prices (including postage) are:
US & Canadian
addresses (US$) Elsewhere (AUD$)
WiF Classic Game 60 90
WiF Deluxe Game 120 180
WiF Deluxe Rulebook 20 30
WiF 1-5 to Deluxe update 55 85
WiF Classic~Deluxe update (NEW!) 80 120
Classic counters (CS 1-6 & 24) 25 40
Deluxe CS (1-9,14,15 & 18-24) 65 100
Final Ed. CS (each) 7 11
Final ed. Maps (5) 25 40
Planes in Flames 25 40
Asia Aflame 20 30
Africa Aflame 20 30
AfA/AsA Update (NEW!) 30 45
Ships in Flames 30 45
WiF 94/95 Annual (incl. MiF) 20 30
Fatal Alliances II 25 40
WiF Newsletter sub (4 issues) 20 30
Other Games
Days of Decision II 50 75
World Cup Football 45 65
Rub Out 15 20
Reduce the prices of each of these products by 25% (except for each LoC
Newsletter subscription) if you are a current subscriber to the World in
Flames Newsletter (yes, you may subscribe and get the 25% reduction
immediately, thus you save US$10 or Australian$15 if you buy the WiF Deluxe
and the sub together, rather than just buying the WiF Deluxe by itself).
If you are interested in any of these products directly from Australian
Design Group, please send a cheque to either:
ADG
PO Box 6253
Los Osos
CA 93412 USA,
or
ADG
25 Quandong St.,
O'Connor
ACT 2602 Australia
The cheque must be in US$ drawn from a US bank or Australian dollars drawn
from an Australian bank. All other cheques will be returned and your order
not accepted, as the cost of collection of any other type of cheque is
about AuD$100 (owning a bank is apparently much more profitable than a game
company).
Alternatively, you may send an e-mail to:
Internet:Aus_Design_Group@compuserve.com giving details of what you would
like to order as well as your M/C or Visa details (no., expiry date and
name on card). All M/C and Visa orders are deducted by Desktop Computer
Systems converted into Australian dollars after placement of order.
If you are worried about the security of the internet, you may fax your
orders to 61 (country code) +6 (area code) 2572048.
Your games will be shipped to you from Europe, California or Australia,
whichever is closer.
Thank you for your continuing support of our products.
Regards
Harry Rowland
ADGDear WiF Players,
Gee my clarifications seem to be a bit controversial:
Q1> WI>2) I believe we are all in agreement that neutral MP convoys cannot
supply
WI>active major power units. Please confirm.
WI>Ans> Yes.
Actually Harry - we were adopting this as a house rule since the rules
do not specifically state this, and the definition of "friendly" in the
index implies that they can. This clarification should be errata.
Ans> No it shouldn't. It already in the rules. Since meutral mDear WiF Players,
more clarifications on my clarifications:
Q1> Boy..this is the first time I've ever argued against Harry...I feel
special! :)
Ans> Feel free to hop in, everyone else has!
Q1b> On Wed, 4 Mar 1998, Harry Rowland wrote:
>
> Dear WiF Players,
>
> ...
>
> Q6e> Assuming CW convoy points in Biscay escorted by CW SCS, can a
Russian
> CP
> in the zero box of Cape St. Vincent provide limited overseas supply to an
> otherwise isolated Gibralter:
> a> If it is the only unit of either side in the Cape St. Vincent sea
> area?
>
> Ans> Yes.
>
> b> If it is the only Allied CP in Cape St. Vincent and both the CW and
> Italy have CV, SCS, and/or Naval-factored planes in the same area?
>
> Ans> Not if playing Limited Overseas Supply.
Show this to me in the rules Harry. According to the current RAW,
the
rule for limited overseas supply says " SiF option 11 : (limited overseas
supply): You can only trace a supply path overseas if each sea area you
trace
it through contains a friendly convoy, TRS, or AMPH." Looking up
'friendly',
it is defined as 'A major power or minor country on your side'..no mention
of
'active' or being able to 'cooperate with' are included.
So we look further to the rules of normal sea supply and it states
"
You cannot trace a supply path into a sea area that contains - an enemy CV,
SCS
or aircraft unit with an air-to-sea factor; unless it also contains - a
surface
naval unit, or aircraft unit with an air-to-sea factor, controlled by any
major
power at war with that enemy unit." I will point out that under the
definition
of 'surface naval unit' it states " Any naval unit except a sub or a
frogman"...this means convoy points ARE surfact naval units...but that is
an
aside.
The point to be made is that there are CW surface naval units
opposing
Italian surface naval units, then overseas supply *is* valid by the rules
since
the CW has (a) a TRS, AMPH or Convoy in the sea area that is 'friendly' and
(b)
has a surface unit at war with the enemy SCSs (ie. the CW SCSs).
Ans> Well, On mature reflection, I guess there is a smidgin of a
possiblity, that I may have mispoke in this particular answer. You are
indeed correct (bah, humbug!).
Q1c> Note
WI>that
WI>WI>playing with the optional Limited overseas supply, this rule
effectively
WI>WI>becomes:
WI>WI>You cannot trace a supply path into a sea area that contains an enemy
WI>CV,
WI>WI>SCS or aircraft unit with an air-to-sea factor unless it also
contains a
WI>WI>TRS, AMPH or CP controlled by any major power AT WAR WITH THAT ENEMY
WI>UNIT.
I still disagree Harry. After rereading the rules, the way I would read
the two sections together is "You cannot trace a supply path into a sea
area that contains an enemy CV, SCS, or aircraft unit with an air-to-sea
factor unless it also contains a surface naval unit or aircraft unit
with an air-to-sea factor controlled by any major power at war with that
enemy unit as well as a friendly TRS, AMPH, or CP." Thus, by my
reading, a neutral CP could provide supply as long as an enemy naval
unit or plane was in the sea zone. Since the rule does not (IMO)
clearly state what you intend it to, I feel it needs to be erratacized.
Ans> No it doesn't, your interpretation of the rules is correcter than
mine. However, this still doesn't allow "tricks" by major powers not at war
with people trying to block supply.
I actually think 2.4.2 ~ Overseas Supply Paths, para 5 is one of the
cleverest rules in the game. The impact of the rule is that you can only
unblock supply lines with units at war with the blocking major power. Thus,
even though any CPs can provide supply if playing Limited Overseas Supply,
a major power can STILL block supply, provided it drives away the units at
war with it, even if the CPs remain (now lets see the Finns try to stop the
Russians while they are not at war with Germany).
OK, do we all have the rule straight now! No more trying to trick me up.
Q2> I have a question about WIFFE/DOD2.
According to the rules (or errata, don't remember which or where) an
active major power with level two treaty can send troops (according to
foreign troop commitment) to a minor controlled by their neutral ally. If
the ally is also active, then only a level one treaty is needed.
Hungary and Italy have an alliance, and Hungary is stacked under Italy.
Germany and Italy have a level one treaty, and Italy is neutral. Can
German units trace a supply path through Hungary?
Ans> No. The same requirement for foreign troop commitment also applies to
supply.
Q2b> Can Germany use Italian
convoy points to provide supply for German units?
Ans> No. See above.
What if they have a level two treaty?
Ans> Yes they may.
Q3> > WI>I noted that on the WiF delux edition box it says it is highly
suited to
> WI>solitaire play. I haven't bought it, but would like to know to what
extent t
> WI>is true, and also how much space is required for play. I realise the
full ga
> WI>would be beyond me due to lack of time/space, but are there small 'one
board
> WI>scenarios playable solo in a reasonable amount of time and space?
>
> WI>Thanks in advance for any help,
>
> WI>Colin Mahoney
>
> Hi Colin
>
> This has been the claim as long as I've been playing WiF. While I know
> of people playing solitaire WiF, I think claiming it is highly suitable
> is absurd. Frankly, I don't like playing with fewer than 4 people, and
> prefer 6 players.
>
> Russ Craft
>
>
I don't understand how someone can play WiF solitaire this has always
been a riddle to me. As in many other strategy games you have to
exploit the mistakes the other do. Like the US player did in our
current game when he found an unoccupied city in Japan to stage a
second invasion and build another beachhead. Had the Japanese player
known the plans of the US player he could have placed a unit there.
Playing with yourself leaves out the surprise of unforeseen enemy
actions and the fun negotiating part (like with peace, lend lease
etc.). We usually play with four, sometimes five players. I have
played with two players only but that isn't half as funny.
Ans> I know lots of people who play WiF solitaire. Highly solitaire means
all bits are face-up to all players. Thus you have "perfect" information on
dispositions. What you don't have "perfect" info on is weather, length of
turn etc., which is always handled contemporaneously by a die roll, so
no-one has advance or hidden warning of any of these critical rolls. Only
US entry, and Garrison ratios will be known to the enemy that should not be
known, and you can even devise your own house rules for these events that
still lead to an element of tension (e.g. you can't look at US entry until
you as the US wants to do something, at which time you turn over the chits
one at a time (1939 first, then 1943, then 1942, 1941 and finally 1940)
until the right amount has been reached).
Thus, with none or minimal changes, one player can handle both sides with
minimum down-time. You will not often "trick" yourself, to be sure, but
sometimes you will think of some operation on the spur of the moment, which
you as your opponent had not forsawn in that impulse.
In fact, I enjoy a good game of WiF solitaire myself from time to time. You
wouldn't believe what a refreshing change it is to play someone competent,
after having to play with Greg for 13 years:-)
Regards
Harry Rowland
ADG
PS You're not on the list are you Greg? Dear WiF Players,
more clarifications,
Q1> Can the Ugandans enter Kenya?
Ans> Only if controlled by the Axis. We realsie this is a simplification,
as these countries are actually colonies, with no foreign policy of their
own. However, we didn't want another political entity in the game, so we
applied the same rules to Hungary & Rumania as we applied to Uganda or
Kenya.
Of course, if you know all the colonies, feel free to exempt them from this
rule, if you think it is worth the trouble.
Q2> At least the following clarification should be controversial for the US
player, who will see
three of the larger 1939 chit going into the German pool and hence
contributing to a delay
in US entry to some degree, unless Harry finds a compensating adjustment
...
Ans> I did consider this but came to the conclusion that it was too trivial
a difference to worry about. The average difference between 1939 & 1940
chits is only 0.7/chit. When you subtract 3 chits from 1939, the chance of
getting a 1940 rather than a 1939 chit only increases by 20%. Thus the
total difference to US entry is 0.42 (3 x 0.7 x 20%), not enough on average
to slow US entry down at all.
Q3> Suppose 2 non-cooperative units on the same side wish to enter the same
empty hex who gets to enter it since both cannot?
Ans> The closest unit (in terms of movement points), if equal, the most
combat factors that are closest and wish to enter, if equal, the owner of
the hex.
Q4> Again, most modern scholarship suggests that fundamental logistical
constraints overdetermined the failure of the 1941 campaign. In brief,
neither enough trucks, nor the right sort of trucks, to keep the infantry
moving with the armor. A thought experiment: first triple the size of the
Red Army, and deploy 2/3 of it to the rear. Next, give German inf 2 mps
and
make 3/4 of the Germans inf. Now triple the Russian air force. This gives
some approximation, in WiF terms, of the historical Barbarossa. Can you
take Moscow?
Ans> Well, I've got to give you credit for brass. You don't think I am out
by 10%, more like 200%.
You should be careful though that you don't gild the lily. It is easy to
prove that your above thesis is wrong. For your statement to be correct,
you must believe, either:
(a) That the number of Russian Divisions per army should only be a third of
ADG's level, i.e. 2 divisions per Russian army. This is compared to ADG's 3
divisions per US corps, and 4 divisions per German corps. Thus each Russian
soldier is equivalent to 1.5 US soldiesrs, or 2 German soldiers in
effectiveness. Pls state ANY source that says this; or
(b) that Russia should have 3 times the number of divisions as represented
by WiF. We represent 294 Russian divisions on June 22nd 1941 (including
reserves). You are stating that the Russian total was actually 888
divisions. Again, show me ANY source to support this thesis.
Furthermore, for Russia to have 3 times the army, her production would have
to be 3 times higher than at present, i.e. 45 bps in 1940 as opposed to
Germany's 16 (at least until France falls). Let's just check a few
statistics to back this up.
1940 production (from the Oxford Companion to WWII)
Type Germany USSR
Steel 21.4 mill t. 18.3 mt
Coal 267.7 mt 165.9 mt
Aluminium 211.2 '000 t. <50
Oil 4.8 mt 31.1 mt.
Aircraft 10,247 10,565
Tanks 2200 2794
So where in these statistics do you conclude Russian production should be
45 bps a turn? The only statistic that the USSR dominates Germany is in
oil. And what do we have in WiF? 1 oil for Germany and 10 for the USSR.
According to the above figures, the USSR should only be 7 times more, not
10 times. Doesn't seem to indicate a pro-Axis bias to me.
Before you write such stuff to the list, why don't you play your idea
first. Pls triple US and USSR production and see what happens. When Midway
class carriers start appearing in 1942, rather than 1945, you might realise
there is a flaw in your argument. I might be out by a turn, you are out by
3 years.
The basic difficulty you face when you accuse me of a pro-Axxis bias in my
production is that my figures allow you to produce EVERYTHING that was
produced historically, and then some. Thus your argument cannot be that we
do not provide you with historical production (or if it is, it is easily
disproved)..
The only 2 arguments against WiF's production can be:
(a) The number of Divisions ADG allocates to corps/armies is wrong.
Our figures are:
3 Divisions/corps ~ USA
3.5 divisions/corps ~ CW
4 divisions/corps or Army ~ Germany, Japan & Free France;
5 divisions/corps ~ France;
6 divisions/Army ~ USSR;
8 divisions/Corps ~ Italy; and
10 divisions/Army ~ China.
These are obviously subjective and open to criticism, but are my best
judgement (however good that may be). or
(b) The Axis could not have increased their production above historical
levels and the Allies could. My view is that both sides could have been
far more efficient than they were. However, in one of the great ironies of
history, Fascism was less efficient than the democracies in converting a
peace-time to a war-time economy. Thus if Speer was in charge in 1939 (as
many accuse me of doing), I believe German production would have been far
higher than WiF has provided for.
In any event, this is pure speculation, and thus WAS NOT factored into WiF.
I thought it safest to stick with historical production based on the
assumption that all sides were equally inefficient. Thus, far from
factoring in a pro-Axis bias, WiF has actually factored in a far more
efficient Allied production than Axis production.
Much of this argument is also becoming confused between two totally
separate issues:
(a) Does WiF actually represent historical production; and
(b) Could the Axis have won the war.
I believe the answer to both questions is yes. Although the Allies had the
better chance of victory, due to higher production, this does not
necessarily translate itself into victory.
In most games of WiF, THE ALLIES WILL OUTPRODUCE THE AXIS EVERY TURN OF THE
GAME. Thus, in most games, the Allies will conquer the world (sooner or
later). The magic of WiF though is that this is not certain, and nor should
it be.
Although I agree that the German invasion of Russia was THE mistake of the
war, it did not need to prove fatal. Firstly, if Russia had been invaded
after the middle east had been conquered (1942 say), there was a good
chance that Turkey would enter the war, and Baku taken. As Baku was
producing 75% of Russia's oil, the loss of this region would have crippled
the Soviet war effort.
But even after June 22nd, not all was lost for Germany. Fugate, in his book
"Operation Barbarossa" makes two compelling arguments. Firstly, that the
encirclement of Kiev was a strategic necessity. If ignored, the drive on
Moscow would have been cut from the south by the Soviet strategic reserves
near Gomel.
His second argument is that after Kiev, instead of Guderian returning to
AGC, the Germans should have thrust towards Stalingrad and Baku in 1941.
There were no Russian reserves behind Kiev, and the objectives would have
been far easier to take in 1941 than 1942.
In any event, if the best answer for germany in game turns was to hunker
down and not attack Russia, you would have a very boring game.
In my view, there are many ways for a country to win or lose a war, and God
does not always side with the biggest battalions. Even Overy (who you quote
as a supporter of your argument) on pg 325 of "Why the Allies won" (who by
the way only devotes one chapter to the superior production of the Allies)
states "Though from today's perspective Allied victory might appear as
somehow inevitable, the conflict was poised on a knife-edge in the middle
years of the war.This period must surely rank as the most significant
turning-point in the history of the modern age." Hardly an advocate of the
inevitable Allied win.
Q5> You [Bill, not HR] are right. They are wrong. Why doesn't anyone on
this list read anything other than Nazi Generals and their apologists?
Deeply curious,
Fred
Ans> Gee, I'm sure Ofxord University will be shocked to know their
companion to WWII was written by Nazi Generals and their apologists.
You have your views, we have ours. Only because we do not agree with every
view you hold is not an excuse to, in effect, slander everyone on the WiF
list as an ignorant Nazi sympathiser. Labelling, demonising and destroying
are the classic troika of Fascism. I am sure you do not want to create the
perception that you have caught the disease that you are so quick to bestow
on others.
If I was on a desert Island, the 5 WWII books I would take with me (in
order of preference) are:
(a) Stillwell & the American Experience in China; Barbara Tuchman
(b) The Origins of the Second World War; AJP Taylor
(c) The Oxford Companion to WWII; ICB Dear ed., Oxford University press;
(d) The Times Atlas of WWII; and
(e) History of the Second World War, Barrie Pitt (ed.).
As far as I know, not a Nazi General or apologist amongst the lot of them.
Q6> most people here fear the lash of Harry's retribution?... perhaps
they're all afraid that Harry will refuse to sell them any more WiF
products! after all, he's the only pusher in this 'hood
Ans> Good thing too. As a responsible dispenser of this drug, I wouldn't
want you to OD.
Regards
Harry Rowland
ADG
PS The most rivetting history book I have ever read is Shelby Foote's 3
volume "The Civil War" series. If more history books were written at this
pace, there would be a lot more people interested in history. In my view,
only Barbara Tuchman comes close (I know "true" historians despise both of
them, and this denigration of "exciting" history probably accounts for its
lack of popularity). Dear WiF Players,
more clarifications:
Q1>WI>This came up in our ongoing game of WiF: it's Nov/Dec 1939, and the
German
WI>launch their final all-out attack on Warsaw. Their odds are 54:9, which
WI>becomes 6:1.
WI>It's raining, and the German successfully adds in HQ support. The combat
is
WI>resolved on the Assault Table. Question: on which column?
WI>We bad Axis players have found a way to twist the litteral meaning of
the
WI>rules in such a way as to find ourselves on the 7:1 column. The weather
WI>rules say that, for example, 12:1 becomes 11:1. So there's no reason why
WI>6:1 shouldn't become 5:1. Are we correct in saying that generally, under
WI>rain, n:1 becomes
WI>n-1:1 (except for the special case of 3:2 odds)?
WI>Now the HQ support rules say that the odds are shifted one level in our
WI>favour. What IS exactly one odds level? Is it one column on the table?
Then
WI>the final column is 7:1. I know all this sounds stupid, but the problem
is
WI>that if the effect of HQ support would be to bring the odds back to 6:1
WI>then there's no point in using it.
Harry used the word "level" so as to distinguish it from a column shift.
In your example, the HQ support has no effect. 6:1 becomes 5:1 due to
weather, becomes 6:1 due to HQ support, and is resolved on the 5:1 table
as there is no 6:1 table. I think that is made clear somewhere in the
rules or examples, but don't have them here to look at.
Ans> Correct.
Q2> WI>Ok, another question I'm a bit ashamed of asking, but
nonetheless...
WI>Shouldn't there be a US entry roll for Germany declares war to France?
Sit
WI>down, Harry, but France and Germany declared peace in Sept/Oct 1939. So
WI>what happens if Germany DOW's France later?
Ans> You can't roll a US entry that does not exist.
Q3> If playing with hex by hex interception against a port strike, do you
>roll only one set of "surprise dice" for all combats, or do you roll for
>each attempted interception?
>Ans> What is hex-by-hex interception?
In flight interception is not affected by search rolls, which are only made
after
all the aircraft have got there.
Amns> Correct.
Q4>> we are playing our game with the option 13, emergency HQ supply,
>but we have encountered some problems.
>
>First, when do you declare that you use the emergency HQ supply?
Ans> Anytime you like.
>
Q4b>Can you do this also in the enemy impulse?
Ans> Yes.
>
Q5> e.g. Is the following legal:
>> > 1. TRS carries paratroop to Spain.
>> > 2. Paratroop walks to ATR which is inland.
>> > 3. ATR transports paratroop to Paris where a second ATR is
>> > waiting.
>> > 4. Second ATR drops paratroop on Berlin conquering Germany
>> winning the game.
>Ans> Yes. We have set up the sequence of play, so you don't need to
>remember if a unit has moved before (you may only move once in each land
>movement step however). Note that you can air transport any no. of times
in
>a step.
No - you can only air transport once in a step - all air transports are
done at
the same time, not one after another.
So you can do:
Any number of naval transports - but the 2nd and subsequent ones
don't go as far;
One land move;
One air transport - which counts as a second land move; and
One parradrop - which counts as a third land move.
Ans> Good to see someone on this list knows the rules. I think in future,
we should just head this topic "Alan corrects ADG's pitiful attempts at
clarifications"
Regards
Harry Rowland
ADGDear WiF Players,
more clarifications,
Q1) Can Nationalist Chinese units setup in Si-an?
Ans> Yes.
Q1b> Can Communist units setup in
Nationalist cities?
Ans> Yes.
Q1c> If not, then which hexes are considered 'communist
controlled' and which hexes are 'nationalist controlled'? If yes, then are
these cities supply sources
Ans> Yes.
Q1d> and what happens to the MIL assigned those city
names?
Ans> Nothing, if on-map, they are on-map, if in the force pool, they arrive
as normal reinforcements, subject to stacking (if you are playing optional
rule 15, you should have few problems placing the units on the map.
Q2) Can units be broken down prior to setting up on map?
Ans> No.
Q2a> If not (as in the
RAW), then you end up with a rule loop (like the CW C-40) in that China can
breakdown her CAV corp in a front line hex, Japan can setup next to the
unit
and you have (technically) and illegal breakdown since the CAV is in the
ZOC of
an enemy unit and therefore could never have broken down at the end of the
last
turn. Your opinion?
Ans> This makes no sense to me. You can't break-down until the first
production step, so whats the problem? On map divisions were presumed to
have broken down in some previous production step over the last 50 years.
Q3> >
> >Can Gort declare Emergency HQ support on the Allied pulse and remain in
> >supply throughout the Axis pulse? (This has the added benefit of
> >avoiding Axis ground strikes prior to Axis declaration of combat and
> >announcement of Emergency HQ supply.)
> Option 13 -- (emergency HQ supply)
>
> 'Non-HQ units that are out of supply can operate as if they were in
supply
> if they can trace a basic supply path to a face-up HQ. You can only do
this
> with as many unit as the HQ's reorganization value. Turn the HQ
face-down
> after the combat step. The HQ itself is only in supply if you count the
it
> is one of the units in supply.'
>
> I think this implies that for a defending unit, the supply would last
> through the enemy combat step, although this isn't 100% clear.
>
> Bruce Jurin
I think it's 100% clear that you are in supply so long as your HQ stands
face up and after any combat step it is put face down.
Ans> Wrong. You must announce which HQ is providing supply before movement
and/or combat, otherwise those units move/fight out of supply.
Q3b> WI>> >So you can declare that you use the emergency HQ supply after,
the
WI>> >opposing side has declared all the attacks, and suddenly they have to
WI>> >attack with odds 1:2 instead of 7:1, because suddenly the defending
units
WI>> >are in supply, correct?
WI>> >
WI>>
WI>> This is the most common use of this rule I have seen.
WI>Stupid, we stop playing with it or change the rule so, that you have
WI>to declare the HQ supply before the combat step...
WI>Regards
WI>Teemu Juntunen
WI>
I disagree Teemu - it's just one more thing the attacker has to take
into account before announcing an attack.
Ans> You do have to declare before the attack (at least that was always our
intent, one of the few rules we do know). Even so, Greg and I were pretty
shocked when Larry, Rick and Lerch impressed the import of this rule to us
at Gibraltar. As they had several CW HQs in Spanish Morocco, Gibraltar was
NEVER out of supply.
We are considering restricting this rule, such that you must announce which
HQs are providing emergency supply at the start of any impulse (yours or
your opponent), but we haven't had a chance to playtest it yet. Feel free
to option 70 this idea and tell me what you think (via the list, so
everyone can have their $0.02 (which is worth almost $0.03 in Australia).
Q4> A simple question--When the attack is made from the air, the attacker
gets first choice, the defender the second, etc. (surprise not
withstanding). When the attack is a surface, the first choice is made by
the defender, the second by the attacker. Is this correct?
ANS> No. The owner chooses all their own losses in surface/sub combat.
Q5> >Do you think a WIF player represents:
>
>1) The major powers' General Staff
>2) The head of state of the major powers they control
>3) A mixture of both.
I think for Germany's case it would have to be something like, Adolfs
doctor giving him so much medicin that he is rendered unable to take
care of state affairs, and the state then being run increasingly by
the military with concession to the nazies, such as KZ and other
unpleasantries, as wif dont have a possibility to make a anti
communist crusade, it. liberate the Baltics, Ukraine and all the other
states now sprung from the Russian/Sovjet impire.
Ans> The answer is so obvious, when you think about it. After intensive
plastic surgery, you have hopped into your time machine and gone back to
the Reichskanzlei in 1939, replacing Hitler, knocking him and all his foul
bully boys off, and then you start running a kinder, gentler Reich (while
still attempting to conquer the world, of course).
Regards
Harry Rowland
ADGDear WiF Players,
more clarifications
Q1> Can Nationalist Chinese units setup in Si-an?
>
> Ans> Yes.
>
> Q1b> Can Communist units setup in
> Nationalist cities?
>
> Ans> Yes.
>
> Q1c> If not, then which hexes are considered 'communist
> controlled' and which hexes are 'nationalist controlled'? If yes, then
are
> these cities supply sources
>
> Ans> Yes.
>
Why? Is this a play-balance decision? This is extremely puzzling in view
of the fact that every scenario specifies the Communist Chinese cities -
a piece of completely irrelevant information if you then allow the Allies
to freely set up units in any Chinese city regardless of faction.
Ans> You are quite correct. I don't know why you bother asking me these
questions, I usually get them wrong.
The only cities the communists can set-up in is Lan-Chow and Si-An. The
Nationalists can set up in any cities in China except these two.
Q2> Can units be broken down prior to setting up on map?
>
> Ans> No.
>
> Q2a> If not (as in the
> RAW), then you end up with a rule loop (like the CW C-40) in that China
can
> breakdown her CAV corp in a front line hex, Japan can setup next to the
> unit
> and you have (technically) and illegal breakdown since the CAV is in the
> ZOC of
> an enemy unit and therefore could never have broken down at the end of
the
> last
> turn. Your opinion?
>
> Ans> This makes no sense to me. You can't break-down until the first
> production step, so whats the problem? On map divisions were presumed to
> have broken down in some previous production step over the last 50 years.
Harry,
In page 63 of the RAW, 11th Paragraph, it states "AFA/MiF option 2
:
After you have set up, you can break down any of your land units into
divisions
(see 22.4.1)." This directly contradicts what you have said as the Ans to
question 2 (above), which leads into my question 2a. A simple change of
the
above quoted statement to read "Before you have..." removes any
non-selfconsistancy of the rules in this case. Then I agree with your ans
to
2a in that the divisions were presumed to have been broken down in some
previous production step. Just my AUS $0.03.
Ans> Again I misspoke. You can indeed break-down after set-up PROVIDED
those units are not in a ZoC. This of course is easy for the first major
power to set up. (By the way, I hold you personally responsible for all
these misstatements of mine. If you didn't ask the question, I wouldn't
give you the wrong answer.)
Q3> > 1) In naval air combat, if the enemies anti-air reduces me to the
'zero'
> column, can I spend surprise points to raise me up back onto the chart?
>
Ans> No.
Q4> In "Harry's tips" for the USSR, found on Patrice Forno's homepage, you
state (k) that the russian can make
automatic paradrops in german controlled OOS russian cities. The way I
count, the notional unit will be
strength 1 (+1 city, -1 OOS), which does not give you an autodrop.
Ans> You are correct. You need ground support to make it automatic.
Q5> A neutral victory city counts for the the MP whose capital is closest.
Which capitals count for the CW, just London or all CW MP capitals?
Ans> All CW capitals.
Q5b> Does Lan Chow count for CC?
Ans> No (The CC are not a major power).
Q6>I hope someone can clear up a situation for me. Here is the situation
on
our
>current game. US/CW at war with Ger/It. CW is at war with Japan. There
is a
>US INF and TRANs in Singapore with a CW INF. Japan attacks and takes
>Singapore. We know that the US and CW defend togther but what happens to
the
>US TRANs? Does it just rebase or is there an overrun roll for it? The
RAW
>does not cover this in 9.9 or in 11.11.6. Am I not looking in the right
>place? Thanks in advance.
>
Ans> Depends. If the TRS is face-up, you just rebase it. If it is face-down
you roll for it (the reference to "enemy units" in Overrunning aircraft
units and Overrunning naval units should be replaced by "If land units from
the other side...").
Q7> >That is also correct. But, if I chose a land impulse and flew a Naval
>Air mission, could the opposing side initiate combat?
Ans> Of course. You however can't (an ally on your side can if they have
face-up units in the sea area though).
Q8> Can the Chinese attack a partisan in French Indo-China which is still
controlled by the French ?
In other words, if the rules (19.3) allows a major power to enter a minor,
can the major power also attack partisans in that minor, eventhough the
partisan isn't "hostile" to them ?
Ans> yes, provided you are at war with the Partisan's controlling major
power.
Q9> Where do I find the errata/changes compared to the RAW2E?
Ans> Larry Whalen is currently compiling it for the Annual. He will forward
a copy to the list as soon as he has finished it.
Regards
Harry Rowland
ADGDear WiF Players,
more clarifications,
Q1> In the discussion on lent oil, and whether or not it is legal to trace
to
oil that has been lent from another *ACTIVE* MP during the turn in which it
is declared, I thought it would be useful to see which, if any,
clarifications have been made by Harry on the topic thus far. Since I have
all clarifications archived for the last two years, I did a search that
shows the following, the only clarification I have a record of.
On Tue, 26 Aug 1997:
"Q1> In our first game we have tried to play WiFC with the oil rule.
Note tried, it became quickly clear that it is close to impossible
for the CW to transport enough Oil and resources anywhere usefull
with the limit of 5 and 10 pt convs.
Ans> Why transport the oil? Unless it is neutral, you can use it at source,
for the purposes of reorganisation. If using it for production, the rules
are the same as if not playing the oil rules."
The qualifier given by Harry is, "Unless it is neutral, you can use it at
source..." This implies, that CW units could trace to oil which is lent to
them by an active USA or USSR in the same turn in which it is lent.
Although it does not speak *specifically* to whether or not one can trace
to a MP oil that has been lent, think of it in the following terms:
Since RAW2/3, minor country hexes are controlled not by the controlling MP,
but by that minor country. Following Bruce's interpretation, oil in a
CW-aligned Perisa is PERSIAN oil, not CW oil, until such time as it reaches
a CW controlled hex. Bruce has argued that this change of ownership does
not take place until the Production stage. This interpretation would be
congruent with Bruce's interpretation of oil *ownership*. On the the
other, I feel that this interpretation makes little to no sense, especially
in light of Harry's clarification listed above. If the CW can trace supply
to oil which it has been lent during the resource lending step, (regardless
of who or what kind of entity that oil is coming from), they should be free
to use it up for the purposes of re-org. Since Harry's clarification above
indicates that the only restriction to tracing to oil at source would be
neutrality of the territory, I maintain that the CW could trace to oil in
the USA, USSR, even China, provided the MP(s) in question are active and
they have declared they are lending oil to the CW, in precisely the same
way the CW could trace to oil resources which are owned by an aligned
Persia, Iraq, or NEI.
Ans> Correct. If you can trace a basic supply path to one of YOUR oil
resources, you can use it to reorganise your oil-dependant units. This
allows you to trace through hexes controlled by major powers on your side
(you can't store oil in another major power of course).
Q1b> >My understanding is that as long as you can trace supply to the oil,
>regardless of where it is, provided it has been lent, you can trace to it
>for re-org purposes.
>
Are you sure about this? I haven't played that way. I've been playing
that you need to trace to the oil in step E4, final reorganization, and
that
transportation takes place in E5, production. So I have played that oil
resources that are being transported can be saved but not used.
Ans> Correct. You can't use oil lent from another major power this turn, as
this does not occur until AFTER re-organisation.
Q1c> >> 2. How much of that oil can get stored per turn in Canada? 4 per
each
city
>>and/or major port, or is it limited since it is not yet "British" oil?
>>
>
>I see no such limitation in RAW3. 4 per city/major port is the rule.
>
Ans> Correct. "Canadian" oil is "CW" oil. You can use/save it freely.
Q2> Lebensraum scenario:
(a) in the Control section, it says that VF controls French
IndoChina, and in the Entry Actions section it does not show
that Japan has declared control of IndoChina (which historically
happened in November 1941, iirc), and in the set-up section it
says that Japan places a unit in IndoChina. seeing that there
is no such place as French IndoChina on the map, i conclude
that i recall incorrectly, and that Harry is having a little fun with
people who don't interpret the rules literally, and that ADG's
typesetter forgot to include the appropriate entry action, and
that the unit should set up in IndoChina.
any comments?
Ans> 1 or 2. French Indo China is Japanese. Note that historically, the
Japanese took over Nth. French Indo-China in 1940, and the South in 1941.
We chose the 1940 date because North Indo-China allows the Japanese to
out-flank the Chinese defences, and thus was more important during this
phase of the war (Saigon becomes important when declaring war on the CW or
Netherlands).
(b) in the Control section, it says that the CW has conquered
Ethiopia, and in the players' notes it recommends that Italy
defend Ethiopia. Once again, i am blaming ADG's
typesetter, this time for leaving out "After its inevitable
re-conquest, " in the player's notes.
any comments?
Ans> Ethiopia is CW conquered (to conform with the rules on 1939 control of
minors, feel free to have it aligned with the CW instead, if you want to be
more 'historical'), ignore the Italian set-up for East Africa, and the CW
units scheduled to set-up in Kenya, must set-up in Ethiopia instead (our
type-setter was delirious by this stage, I'm afraid).
Q3> > If Chiang is OOS, it makes perfect sense for Chiang to give himself
> emergency HQ support, and announce it before the enemy groundstrike
phase.
> This will keep Chaing in supply throughout the enemy combat phase.
>
If you read the Rules As Written (RAW), option 13 says:"Units that are out
of supply can operate as if they were in supply if they can trace a basic
supply path to a FACE-UP HQ". If HQ is ground struck face down, it's no
more providing emergency supply to anyone.
Ans> Correct. However, the HQ could provide emergency HQ supply just prior
to the ground-strike step, thus guaranteeing supply for the rest of their
opponent's impulse.
Greg and I were pretty appalled when the awful ramifications of this were
thrust down our throats last WiFCon. With Morocco firmly under CW control,
Gibraltar was never out of supply. The best odds I got against it was 1:1
+3, giving me usually a 20-30% chance of taking it each roll. It took 7
rolls over 3 turns for me to finally take it (against US corps in the end,
I might add).
One change we are considering making to this rule is that you must announce
emergency HQ supply at the START of an impulse, and it lasts throughout
that impulse. We are happy to make that change if the majority of players
agree. Which would you prefer?
Q4> Here's the rule, and the example in the rules. To me it covers every
situation - Can Nationalist Chinese fighters intercept Japanese strategic
bombing missions against vacant Communist cities? I would say no.
Ans> Correct.
Q5> Can an Italian unit collapse Vichy France?
Ans> Only an Italian HQ can do this. Since Italy and Vichy France don't
co-operate, the first Italian unit to move into Metropolitan Vichy France
must be an HQ (see 18.2 ~ Foreign Troop Commitments rule).
Q5b> WI>>Now then - here's another question. Can Vichy France be liberated
by
WI>>the Axis if the Allies conquer it before liberating Paris? And if so,
WI>>can the Axis the 'return' Occupied France to Vichy? Could Japan
WI>>'return' an Occupied French-Indo China to Vichy upon liberation?
Ans> Yes & yes.
Q6> If I lose CPs, do I lose resources as well? If not, why not?
Ans> No. If you can get more CPs in position before the end of the turn,
you can still get those resources through.
The WiFZen of this is that you don't always sink fully loaded transports.
Your subs will go after transport regardless of whether they are full or
empty. If you can get more CPs into the area to make up the chain before
the end of the turn, it is assumed that your opponent only sunk empty
transports, if you cannot (or your opponent sinks them as well), your enemy
is assumed to have sunk full transports (remember that non-oil resources
cannot be saved, so if they cannot be transported this turn, they are
lost).
It is of course purely coincidental that the WiFZen argument aligns EXACTLY
with a simpler game (in that you don't have to keep track of "lost"
resources during the turn).
Q7> Does anyone know when the Annual will be mailed?
Ans> The counters are off to the printers now (thank you all for your
input). The Annual itself will be going to the printers shortly. It should
be released within the next 3-4 weeks.
I'm looking forward to reading it so that I can get the low-down on all
those sneaky tricks that will be required to whup the pants off that Steve
Jacobi chap at this year's WiFCon (so far, Plan A consists of slipping
double malt whisky into his tea).
Regards
Harry Rowland
ADGDear WiF Players,
more clarifications:
Q1> If the US lends oil to the CW and Canada is the only place for it to
go, how much can be sent and also how much can arrive?
Ans> Infinite (at least after the US is at war with Germany, 5 before
then). 4 can be stored per city or major port.
Q2> Assuming the Mideast is neutral or friendly; how much oil can the USSR
send to a CW controlled Egypt, not expecting any to be transshipped by
convoy to other sites?
Ans> Infinite (while not neutral). 4 can be stored per city or major port.
Q3> WI>This stuff about minor countries really confuse me:
WI>Germany DOW's Netherlands in 1940. So Netherlands align with CW, and
join
WI>the war. Fine with me. How about NEI? Exactly WHO controls the NEI?? The
WI>CW? The Netherlands? If the latter, what degree of control does the CW
have
WI>on the NEI?
Ans> The CW.
Q3b> WI>If, as my worthy opponents think, NEI joins the war on the CW side,
then
WI>some silly situation arise: Japan is now unable to DOW NEI without
DOWing
WI>the CW. Worse yet, if the CW DOW Japan, NEI stops supplying the Oil. Can
be
WI>rather embarassing to a Siberia-conquering Japan like me, with little or
no
WI>time to spare on naval matters.
WI>Or did I miss a much-needed harryfication?
In your example the NEI is now a CW aligned minor and at war with
Germany. I believe the NEI must continue to supply oil to you even if
the CW DoWs Japan, until the US plays the Oil Embargo (sounds weird, but
I think that's the way the rules read - you want to check me on that
Benjamin?). Japan is unable to DoW the NEI, but must DoW the CW (just
got done rehashing that one). However, the only part of this that seems
silly to me is that the NEI would continue to supply Japan oil while at
war with her...
Ans> Incorrect. When Japan is at war with the NEI or CW, the NEI no longer
needs give resources to Japan.
Q4> > The situation is this; During the Vichy Creation step, the only
> administrative groups that went Free were Madagascar and the Pacific
> Territories (ie. New Caledonia)
>
> What happens if Japan (or Italy) takes Madagascar? New Caledonia does
not
> qualify for home country status (the german player and myself think).
Even if
> it did, assume that it gets conquered as well. What happens?
>
> Tim
you better "liberate", that is conquer some other vichy territory and
return it to free france. Smart move by Japan if he anticipated you and
took madagascar before you liberated some other territory: france is now
completely conquered!
Ans> Correct.
Q5> REMEMBER, all of this is in a non-hostile situation...Thanks all
1. Do you DOW Vichey or Territorial Groups (I assume all of Vichey)?
Ans> All of Vichy. It is a major power.
2. If anyone DOWs Vichey, but doesn't enter Metropolitan Vichey
Territory, can Vichey attack the DOWing country anywhere...
a. by sea?
b. by air?
c. by land?
d. or does it simply defend? (this is what I assume)
Ans> a, b & c
i.e., if CW DOWs Vichey to attack Syria and French West Africa, can
Vichey respond...
a. there?
b. anywhere?
c. nowhere?
Ans> b.
and for how long...
a. never?
b. until territory is conquered?
b. forever?
Ans> d, until it comes to peace or is completely conquered.
3. If Free France DOWs Vichey is there a US entry hit? (if so, why?)
Ans> Yes. Because that is a nasty, beastly, low-down thing to do, not the
American way at all.
4. If Free France DOWs Vichey and CW doesn't, can Vichey ships seacrh
and seize RPs/BPs being sent from UK to Free French territory?
Ans> Yes.
Q6> > In the setup for the Pgh-Lansing game, Russ (the Crafty One)
has
> attempted to move Japenese units on TRSs during the 'free naval move'
given to
> active Major Powers. He has moved them directly into ports, so there is
no
> 'return to base' for them. We were wondering if this was legal?
Ans> No. You can only move to sea, not to port, and units being transported
may not remain at sea at the end of the turn.
Q7> >A Rumanian and a German are stacked together. Along comes a Russian
>carpet bomber. Some Italians nearby say "Hey. You're bothering my
>friends, the Germans." Can the Italians intercept?
Ans> No.
>
Q7b>Generally speaking should the phrase "the other major power" be changed
>to "the other power" in point 3 of 18.2?
>
Ans> What's a power? You might want to change the words "major power" to
"unit" in this case to be crystal clear (I think the intent is already
clear).
Q8> >> Q5> Can an Italian unit collapse Vichy France?
>>
>> Ans> Only an Italian HQ can do this. Since Italy and Vichy France don't
>> co-operate, the first Italian unit to move into Metropolitan Vichy
France
>> must be an HQ (see 18.2 ~ Foreign Troop Commitments rule).
>>
>
>Germany and Vichy do also not co-operate. So this ruling would require
>Germany to use a German HQ to collapse Vichy! Eh???
Ans> Correct. You think Petain's gonna surrender to a Private?
Q9> In our strange game the USA is fast approaching option 55
'unlimited naval warfare'. This is necessary because the
USA cannot declare war on Japan in this game due to earlier
chaotic behaviour.
Q9a) what happens to the US - Japan trade agreement when this
false war starts? The US and Japan CP chain across the Pacific
is in a situation where both sides want to sink the others trade
agreement CPs?
Ans> If you sink them, and they can't re-establish the lines, then you get
to mess with the US/Japanes entry pool.
Q9b> Currently Japan has had most of its CPs sunk by Russia, China and
the CW so the five US res&oil pour into the mid Pacific sink hole,
While Japan defaults a BP every turn. From the lowly 9 they still
have.
Ans> Then the US will be entering the war real soon.
**********************************
Finally, I would like to thank everyone on this list for your input to the
WiF rules with all your bizarre and outrageous questions. Due to the quick
turn-around time of the Net, it has led to a (more or less) stable set of
rules in under 18 months, rather than the 8 years it took WiF5. I will
forward the latest (and pretty near final final) electronic version of the
WiF Rules in a few weeks after I have finished the latest Annual.
As a small token of our appreciation for your help, ADG would like to offer
each of you 1 copy of the Leaders in Flames counters which are currently
being printed. To receive your free copy, pls send an e-mail to our
World-Wide Head of Operations, Beth on Internet:lbj.greene@thegrid.net.
Only send 1 e-mail per WiF list e-mail address. The subject should say "LiF
CS free offer". The body should consist of your name and address.
IF YOU ARE A CURRENT SUBSCRIBER TO LOC, DON'T SEND AN E-MAIL. You are
already receiving an extra copy (i.e. 2) of the LiF CS with your 96/98
Annual which you can give to a friend, or keep as a spare.
Beth will correlate the requests with the current WiFList subscriber
database and send out 1 copy of the LiF CS to each current WiFList
subscriber who requests one.
Pls don't hassle Beth about arrival date. The CS will be sent after it is
printed, and I will forward you the despatch date after Beth informs me
that she has sent you your copy. They will be sent surface mail which is
also included in the price (i.e $0). If you want to receive it air-mail,
pls include US$5 to US/Canadian residents or Aus$10 elsewhere.
The products we are releasing this year are (in order of release) are the
96/98 Annual (including Leaders in Flames), America in Flames, Glorious
Empires and WiF: The Computer game.
Parts of the 96/98 WiF Annual is already at the printers. It will be
available in April. It will contain:
(a) Strategy articles for each major power;
(b) A 1940 ~1945 Campaign Scenario;
(c) WiF:FE after-action replay (ADG (Aust) vs the Gamekeeper (USA) at last
year's World in Flames World Championships);
(d) The 1997 WiF World Championship report;
(e) Off the Cutting Room Floor (new optional rules);
(f) an optional expansion to the US entry system;
(g) All the latest errata;
(h) numerous historical and general strategy articles; and
(i) Leaders in Flames, 140 counters which includes:
1. Leaders in Flames optional units, including all the great leaders of the
war;
2. More late war kit for all major powers (esp. France and Italy);
3. New minor country units (e.g. the Finnish Vainamoinen and Dutch Subs);
4. the Russian Guards Banner Armies; and
5. those 17 pesky German a/c.
The next cab off the rank is America in Flames, coming out in August (at
WiFCon in RI) which includes a 1945 Invasion of North & South America by
Germany, Japan and Italy. It includes a political generator up front, that
determines the political attitudes of the Central and South American
countries. This ensures every game starts out different.
As America in Flames is expected to be released in August at WiFCon, I
don't think Larry would mind if the competition game you played was America
in Flames, rather than WiF:FE. You could be the first person in the world
to play it (give or take 1 or 2 playtesters). It might be interesting to
base your competition points on rules you know intimately, in a game you
know not at all.
Finally in October, we expect to be bringing out Glorious Empires, our
history of the World game and WiF: the Computer game (depending on bug
fixing).
WiF: The Computer game is WiF Final on the computer. The
entire world is represented on the European scale on a wrap-
around map of the wotrld. At 360 x 195 hexes, this is the
largest computer wargame ever produced. For those who play
WIF Final, this game will be very familiar and will require
minimal time to get into. It will be playable by yourself
against the computer, hot-seat, direct connection, modem,
over the internet and by e-mail.
Glorious Empires: World History 400BCE ~ 2000CE. This game
includes over 100 civilisations spanning the entire history
of human civilisation. You control the fate of the world in
your hands. Can your civilisations, through religious,
scientific and cultural progress, dominate the world so that
you become the most glorious ruler of all.
Glorious Empires comes with 2 x A1 maps, 700 x 5/8" counters, 200 x 1/2"
markers and 144 cards.
Now, a brief run-down of the latest WiF products.
WiF Deluxe Rulebook & Charts set ~ All the rules scenarios, player's and
designer's notes, etc., for WiF Final and its kits, all consolidated into
one easy-to-access rulebook. Only the standard rules are needed to play
Classic WiF. With the addition of the optional rules, the complete world of
WiF becomes available. Also includes a production-circle, 1 combat chart,
and 3 builds charts.
Classic WiF ~ 1400 counters, 4 x A1 (840 x 594mm) size maps (West & East
Europe, Asia & the Pacific), 1 x A3 (420 x 297mm) map of the Americas, WiF
Deluxe Rulebook & Charts set, an additional combat chart and two 10-sided
dice.
Deluxe WiF ~ 3600 counters, 4 x A1 size (Classic WiF) maps, 1 x A3 (420 x
297mm) map of the Americas, an African map, a Scandinavia map, WiF Deluxe
Rulebook & Charts set, 2 additional combat charts and two 10-sided dice.
Incorporates SiF, MiF, AsA, AfA, & PiF. This is truly WiF with the lot.
WiF1-5 Deluxe Update kit ~ Classic WiF game without the box or dice. Now
you can update to the latest version of WiF without wasting your kits.
AfA/AsA Update kit (NEW!) ~ Contains the Africa and Scandinavian maps
printed to the same graphic quality as WiF Final. It also contains 400
re-printed Africa Aflame and Asia Aflame counters to be fully compatible
with WiF, the Final edition as well as the latest combat chart. You do not
need the original AfA/AsA kits, this kit replaces both.
WiF Classic~Deluxe Update kit (NEW!) ~ Contains the Africa and Scandinavian
maps printed to the same graphic quality as WiF Final. It also contains
2200 re-printed Africa Aflame, Asia Aflame, Ships in Flames and Planes in
Flames counters and 1 combat chart to upgrade your WiF Classic to WIF
Deluxe in 1 easy step.
Our current prices (including postage) are:
US address (US$) Elsewhere (AUD$)
WiF Classic Game 60 90
WiF Deluxe Game 120 180
WiF Deluxe Rulebook 20 30
WiF 1-5 to Deluxe update 55 85
WiF Classic~Deluxe update (NEW!) 80 120
Classic counters (CS 1-6 & 24) 25 40
Deluxe CS (1-9,14,15 & 18-24) 65 100
Final Ed. CS (each) 7 11
Final ed. Maps (5) 25 40
Planes in Flames 25 40
Asia Aflame 20 30
Africa Aflame 20 30
AfA/AsA Update (NEW!) 30 45
Ships in Flames 30 45
WiF 94/95 Annual (incl. MiF) 20 30
WiF 96/98 Annual (incl. LiF) 20 (newer than new) 30
Fatal Alliances II 25 37.50
WiF Newsletter sub (4 issues) 20 30
Other Games
Days of Decision II 50 75
World Cup Football 45 65
Rub Out 15 20
Reduce the prices of each of these products by 25% (except for each LoC
Newsletter subscription) if you are a current subscriber to the World in
Flames Newsletter (yes, you may subscribe and get the 25% reduction
immediately, thus you save US$10 or Australian$15 if you buy the WiF Deluxe
and the sub together, rather than just buying the WiF Deluxe by itself).
You subscribe to the LoC newsletter by sending a cheque to the address
below. Note that the cost of the LoC subscription will be increasing April
1st.
If you would like to become a LoC subscriber, the cost is US$20
(Australian$30 for customers outside the USA). For a year's subscription
you get:
* 3 normal issues (16-24 pages on all aspects of World in Flames, including
designer's and player's notes, new scenarios, after-action-replays
historical info and much more)
* 1 special Annual issue, 72 pages on WiF, and a countersheet of WiF
counters and the rules to incorporated them into your next game of WiF; and
* a 25% discount on all normal prices, or 10% off any special deal offered
on all our mail-order ADG games.
If you are interested in any of these products directly from Australian
Design Group, please send a cheque to either:
ADG
PO Box 6253
Los Osos
CA 93412 USA,
or
ADG
25 Quandong St.,
O'Connor
ACT 2602 Australia
The cheque must be in US$ drawn from a US bank or Australian dollars drawn
from an Australian bank. All other cheques will be returned and your order
not accepted, as the cost of collection of any other type of cheque is
about AuD$100 (owning a bank is apparently much more profitable than a game
company).
Alternatively, you may send an e-mail to:
Internet:Aus_Design_Group@compuserve.com giving details of what you would
like to order as well as your M/C or Visa details (no., expiry date and
name on card). All M/C and Visa orders are deducted by Desktop Computer
Systems converted into Australian dollars after placement of order.
If you are worried about the security of the internet, you may fax your
orders to 61 (country code) +6 (area code) 2572048.
Your games will be shipped to you from Europe, California or Australia,
whichever is closer.
Regards
Harry Rowland
ADG
PS If you prefer to honour a retailer with your custom, you might consider
contacting Larry Whalen of the Gamekeeper on Internet:fmf@pipeline.com. He
always has our products in stock, as well as a huge variety of other
(lesser?) games. I shop there myself at least once a year.
PPS Do you think I should send a free CS to Rick Socia, or is he no longer
a current member of the WIFlist? Dear WiF Players,
more clarifications:
Q1> Wow! We are having now three interpretations of the counting rail moves
table.
a) Each map you enter when moving along rail lines is counted.
b) Those maps you use when moving the unit with the rail lines is counted.
c) The distance between the starting location and end location is
counted.
Ans> c.
Q2> Let's say I'm the US player and wishes to give my beautiful Boston
(turn
my green Boston into the Lend Lease pool to get a blue with a green
stripe) to the CW in Lend Lease, do I have to chose the US entry option
Lend Lease to CW/France before I can do that?
Ans> No.
Q3> Can a MP
breakdown a corps sized unit into only 1xDIV, in essence
refusing to lift off another DIV from the map to fulfill the
2xDIV stipulation implied under the rules?
Ans> No.
Q4> >Related question: What becomes of a minor country unit that's
>destroyed before the MP which aligned it has chosen to add the minor's
>units to its force pools? I've been assuming that you remove it from
>the game, but I don't know.
Ans> Correct.
Q5> >>Hey folks, a question about liberation.
>
>>Rules state 1/2 of a minor's units removed at time of conquest are put
>>in controlling major power's force pool upon liberation -- so I assume
>>1/2 of what Norway had available in its force pool/on map in '40 are put
>>into (frex) the CW's pools when liberated -- and in addition to these
>>forces, any Norwegian units dated '41 or later are also added?
>
>I think units for all land and aircraft units from years up to the year
>after liberation are removed from the game. Upon complete conquest,
13.7.1,
>Complete conquest, paragraph 2, states: 'Remove all land and aircraft
units
>form the game (exception: special Polish units, see 19.5.1)'.
>
>Therefore, all land and air units are removed, including (I admit this is
my
>interpretation) force pool additions when they come if the country is
>completely conquered.
>
>So when a country is liberated, all units previously removed from the game
>are half put into the force pool. The year after liberation's units would
>have all added. So in my interpretation, if Norway is liberated in 1943,
>half through 43 are added. All 44's are added as usual.
>
>Note the rule does not mention naval units in the force pool. I'm not
sure
>what happens to these. I add all of the additions and ships in the force
>pools, but I don't have any RAW supporting this.
Please ignore my earlier comments on this topic (I'm a little tired), I
concur *completely* with Bruce on this topic, including the ruling on the
naval units. Although RAW doesn't specify about future Naval additions,
you have to do something with them, and since the incomplete conquest rules
state that naval units in the force pools are removed from the game, I
would sugges the same rule holds true for complete conquest (and thus fall
under the 'previously removed units' rule.
Ans> Correct. If incompletely conquered, you get all annual additions to
your force pools as normal. If you are completely conquered, these are all
removed from the game.
Q6> >I assume that Free France would suffer the effects of complete
conquest, not
>France, (a typo, no doubt), since there technically is no France, but
rather
>Free France and Vichy France. However, is there really to be a grace
period
>of one turn to secure territory for Free France? And if so, WHY?
>
>Tim
>
RAW3 clearly states in Rule 17.2, Determine Control:
"If Free France now controls no minor countries, the Allies only have 1
turn to liberate any of the above minor countries or she suffers the effect
of complete conquest (see 13.7.1)."
As far as I can tell, this is a one-time shot that can only be used on the
turn following the installation of a Vichy government. As to why, I can
only answer that this is a design decision, probably meant to simulate a
possibly violent reaction by pro-French elents in the British government if
all overseas French possesions declared for the Vichy Government.
Ans> The reason they have 1 turn is that conquest occurs BEFORE Vichy
creation, and therefore complete conquest cannot occur until the NEXT
conquest step (this is why we cahnged the sequence of play in RAW2 to put
conquest before Vichy).
Q7> >Can a land unit during the Naval Movement Phase be transported from a
>port hex - via a Naval TRANS - to a second port hex *and then* move
>during that side's following Ground Movement Phase?
Ans> Yes.
Q8> > 2) The (optional) rule of Lend Lease tells:
> You can either transport:
> - 1 build point to each functioning factory controlled by the
> recipient; or
> - a maximum of 1 build point to any one city or major port it
> controls.
>
> First of all I think that the "or" is an "excluding or" (different
from
> "either" ...).
>
> Well usually FF establishes its new home country in an Africans minor
> (why it cannot choose for example UK ?); take as an example Cameroon.
> So it has no factory ... how many points FF can receive a turn from
> US and/or CW in total ?
> I think -1- because the rule says "any one" city or major port that I
> understand as "only one in for".
> >>
>
>Hmmm.... I believe that this one has been a bone of contention before.
The
>limitation is only one BP for all of Free France (sans factories), but the
>real question is whether that is one per recipient or one per donor. The
>interpretation my gaming group uses is one BP per donor (I am unsure if
this
>was ever fully clarified, or what the "official" line is). In other
words,
>the US can give one BP, the CW can give one BP, China could give one BP,
the
>Soviets could give one BP. At least that is our spin on the rule.
>
Ans> You are right, it is one per donor.
Regards
Harry Rowland
ADGDear WiF Players,
More clarifications:
Q1> >Do Synth Oil and Supply Units count as land units for rushed research
categories?
Ans> No.
Q2> I play Japan and in order to avoid a double US entry hit I plan to
>DOW CW after Germany DOWed the Netherland (which will happen sometime
>in 1941 I guess). My question is can I DOW CW in the same impulse
>Germany declares war on the Netherlands and then invade NEI and the
>CW Territories or do I have to wait until the impulse after Germany
>DOWs the Netherlands?
Ans> DoWs are sequential, so you may declare war the same impulse.
Q3> How is it that Spain has no CP and Yougoslavia has ten?
Ans> Yugoslavia has 1 CP, which represents 200,000 tonnes of shipping.
Spain has 1 TRS which represents 750,000 tonnes.
Q4) If New Caledonia is Vichy and Madagascar and Indochina Free French,
can the japanese enter it?
Ans> No, unless Japan installed Vichy (see 17.4~Access to Vichy Territory).
Q4b> WI>Japan can ship the Vichy New Caledonian resources (I assume with
permission
WI>of the installing power) if Vichy is hostile to an Allied major power.
Ans> It can ship its resource provided both Japan and Free France are
active.
Q5> 1. after the US is at total war, all US options are considered chosen,
inkl. US occupies N. Ireland.
Ans> US entry option 53 has changed so now it only happens if the CW agree.
Q5a> Is the N. Ireland now a US or CW controlled factory? Y/N
Ans> Y/N (i.e. it is US controlled).
Q5b> can the US place a Synth. Plant in N. Ireland (and deliver the oil
to the US/CW factory?) Y/N
Ans> No. It is not the home country of the US.
Q5c> Must the allied units therefore be "moved" to the nearest hex? Y/N
Ans> Yes.
Q6> after the US is at war with Japan only, it still rolls for japanese
actions, correct? Y/N
Ans> Yes.
Q7> Can 1 corps break down into 1 Div rather than 2?
Ans> No.
Q8> What entry effect applies if Japan takes Suez? I think the chart
states that the chit goes in the Ge/It pool. Is that correct or do we
follow common sense and put it into the Jap pool?
Ans> You follow the chart (I know it makes more sense that it is a Japanese
chit, but we had to assume the most likely scenarios when we printed the
chart, feel free to option 70 this if you so desire, although if Japan has
Suez, this is the least of your troubles I suspect).
Q9> As a small token of our appreciation for your help, ADG would like to
offer
each of you 1 copy of the Leaders in Flames counters which are currently
being printed. To receive your free copy, pls send an e-mail to our
World-Wide Head of Operations, Beth on Internet:lbj.greene@thegrid.net.
Only send 1 e-mail per WiF list e-mail address. The subject should say "LiF
CS free offer". The body should consist of your name and address.
IF YOU ARE A CURRENT SUBSCRIBER TO LOC, DON'T SEND AN E-MAIL. You are
already receiving an extra copy (i.e. 2) of the LiF CS with your 96/98
Annual which you can give to a friend, or keep as a spare.
<< snip >>
Hello!
Does this offer cancel the receiving of this CS after having sent back
the bugged PiF CS frame from WiF:FE ? Do we nonetheless have to send an
e-mail in that case ?
Ans> No. If you have sent off your CS8 frame (copyright 1996) you will get
two copies if you so desire. When you send the e-mail responding to the
offer to Beth, just point out that you have already sent in the the wrong
CS8, and she will send a second CS with the first. Remember, don't send the
counters, just the frame AFTER you have punched out the counters.
Regards
Harry Rowland
ADGDear WiF Players,
more clarifications:
Q1> With the latest errata Siberia gets the +1 homecountry bonus for
invasions if I'm not misstaken.
What is with Kamchatka (or whatever
that semi-island is called)? It is connected to the rest of Russia
but not within the border of the MAP. Is it part of the homecountry
or is it a territory?
Ans> Kamchatka (that part of the Pacific map containing Petropavlovsk (see
hex P1847) is a territory.
Q1b> What about +0.25 PM for enemies and combat in home country?
Ans> No.
Q2>1. If the USSR has several pockets of troops and aircraft, and each
pocket
has a stored oil, can 2 oil-dependant units *in each pocket* reorg for
free, or 2 units in total? After all, you use less than half of each
pocket's oil.
a. 2 per pocket.
b. 2 in total. To keep the pockets' oil intact, burn oil that
is on the outside of the pockets.
Ans> b.
Q3> If Germany controls Copenhagen and Kiel, and the CW controls
Frederikshavn, can a CW SCS based in Frederikshavn raid the Baltic?
Ans> Yes.
Q3b> Similarly, can the Kriegsmarine rebase (port-to-port move) Kiel ->
North
Sea -> Brest (and then, next turn, enter the Bay of Biscay)?
a. No. 11.4.4 says "...even via Frederikshavn
or Kristiansand" and similar things to imply that this is
illegal.
b. Yes. The "...even via" applies only to a *single* naval move.
Such movement is legal if done in two separate naval moves.
Ans> b.
Q3c> But I have to disagree on your last "Brucification":
Consider the geography: Even if you start the naval move
in Frederikshavn, you must move through the straits further
south. But these straits are impassable lest you control
Copenhagen. By your reasoning, Allied control of, say, Gibraltar
no longer keeps the Italian navy bottled up in the Med.
Italy takes Tangiers, rebases there, and next impulse four
Italian ships roams the Atlantic ... This must be incorrect.
Ans> No it's not.
Q4> Does this offer cancel the receiving of this CS after having sent
back
> the bugged PiF CS frame from WiF:FE ? Do we nonetheless have to send an
> e-mail in that case ?
>
> Ans> No. If you have sent off your CS8 frame (copyright 1996) you will
get
> two copies if you so desire. When you send the e-mail responding to the
> offer to Beth, just point out that you have already sent in the the wrong
> CS8, and she will send a second CS with the first. Remember, don't send
the
> counters, just the frame AFTER you have punched out the counters.
>
Huh? Are those countersheets identical? I thought one was just a
reprint of an old aircraft countersheet, while the other one had some
new counters in it. If both are identical I guess I gotta tell Beth
that I need only one!?
Ans> The new countersheet includes the 17 German aircraft, it is not a
reprint of CS8.
Q5> > RAW3 states, in rule 17.4, Running Vichy France, under the heading
> 'Vichy
> production':
>
> "Vichy France can only give resources and build points to an Axis
> major
> power if she is hostile to an Allied major power. The Axis major power
> that
> installed the Vichy government can always lend resources and build
> points
> to Vichy France."
>
> So Bruce is correct, Vichy must be hostile in order to lend resources.
>
Ans> I agree with whatever the rules say.
Q6> can the US place a Synth. Plant in N. Ireland (and deliver the oil
> to the US/CW factory?) Y/N
>
> Ans> No. It is not the home country of the US.
>
Was there a change in the rules? I believe Synth could be placed like
forts in any controlled hex.
(Bruce here)
I think Harry had a bad day. 4.2, reinforcements, under Where do
reinforcements go, second shaded paragraph:
AfA/MiF options 5 and 14. Fortification units (see 22.4.9) and synthetic
oil plants (see 22.4.11) can arrive in any hex controlled by that major
power not in an ZOC that won't violate stacking. You can't place
fortification units in off map hexes'.
So unless Harry changed the answer from RAW3, I think it can be placed
there
if the US controls Northern Ireland.
Ans> If its in the rules, why are you asking me?
Q7> after the US is at war with Japan only, it still rolls for japanese
> actions, correct? Y/N
>
> Ans> Yes.
>
What? I guess we've played it all wrong for years.
Ans> Does this mean I got one right? Yippeee!!!
Q8> >>> This does not unbalance the game on the Pacific map so much as on
the
>> European map where the French can now stack 3 deep on the defence, etc,
in
>> the same number of hexes.
>>
>> Can Germany ever take Paris without more fudge rules, or a further
change in
>> the CRTs?
>> Bill Popovich [wpopovic@ewrsd.k12.nj.us]
>>
>> In our games France usually doesn't have enough units to cover the
> whole front two deep, so I don't see how they would place three units
> in a stack, afterall the option to have two DIVs for every CORPS in
> your force pool doesn't give you unlimited DIVs, since you don't have
> unlimited BP. Paris is an exception of course but with the RAW you
> have enough DIV/ART to place three units in Paris. The question is
> whether a week DIV does so much good since it might also add another
> +1 to the attacking die roll.
>
Which is actually my entire argument against allowing unlimited
divisions to balance the extra size of the Pacific map. A few extra
Chinese 1
STR Divs are not going to do much except die even more miserable deaths :).
Personally, I think we are making an assumption when we say that the
'unlimited
divisions' are to help the Pacific map change in scale. I do not ever
recall
Chris or Harry saying that this is the reason for unlimited Divisions. I
felt
that they were going with unlimited divisions because they didn't think it
was
worth the hassle to code it. IMO, the extra hassle *is* worth it since it
can
be abused. I'd be interested to hear Chris's or Harry's opinion on this,
actually. Are the unlimited Divisions currently coded to counterbalance
the
extra scale on the Pacific map or not?
Ans> Do you know how big China is on the European scale? Let me tell you,
it's bloody big. We are making this change because
(a) the scale change on the Pacific map; and
(b) the current rule is arbitrary (all corps/armies are made up of
divisions after all).
Although I am yet to playtest the Chinese campaign yet, I can apriori say
that the war in China is going to be a battle of manouver based around the
railroads more than the slugfest it is at present. Supply will also be more
difficult than now (the map has increased 2.3 times in size while supply
range has only doubled). I agree with you though that the Chinese won't
break down the majority of their armies either.
As to the French being able to stack 3 high, just look at their on-map
forces and you will realise this is impossible unless they leave holes in
their lines. In any event, North of the Maginot line you already stack 3
high if playing with artillery, and AT/AA or Art are far better as the 3rd
unit than a 1 or 2 factor Inf div.
Q8c> The problem comes when I take an on map corp and break it down into
two
divisions. That corp then goes back into the force pool to be built
again. I rebuild it and break it down into two more divisions. It then
goes back into the force pool to be rebuilt, etc, etc, etc... Unlimited
divisions!
Ans> This will not be a problem. Each major power will have a manpower no.,
based on its population. Each unit on the map or production spiral costs a
certain number of manpower points. When you reach your limit, that's it.
This manpower no. is modified if conquered (x 0.3), by year (it gradually
increases), and by strat bombing (it goes down).
Q8c> I think the problem is not how to program it the RAW way but how to
keep the game from collapsing due to the scale change of the pacific
map.
If this unlimited div breakdown unbalances the game there are IMO two
options to counter it:
1) To prevent abuse of SCS invasions limit them to MAR Divs.
Ans> I don't think this will be a problem, but if it turns out to be so, we
may make this or other limitations (e.g. you need 4 SCS to invade, if some
are destroyed, the division is reduced in value proportionately).
2) To prevent unlimited forcepools remove units from game for every
two additional Divs. If those Divs are destroyed the previously
removed units reenter the force pool.
Ans> see 8b above.
Finally, thank you for the suggestion to change the breaking down to before
you set-up on the map. This allows both sides to start with as many divs as
you like.
Regards
Harry Rowland
ADG
PS Harry didn't have a bad day (except for getting the rules wrong again of
course). Harry had a bloody good day scoring my 149th and 150th goals for
the University of Canberra, a club record (from 338 games).
This is field hockey in case you don't know what I am raving about. And
before any of you USAians go on about field hockey being a girl's game
(I've heard it all before), we won't be playing you at the grand finals of
the Sydney Olympics when Australia's MEN's and women's hockey teams will be
getting their gold medals. I reckon our women would beat your men any day.
In fact, your women could beat your men any day too.:-)
PPS We won 9-0! Dear WiF Players,
more clarifications:
Q1> You can only set up the units specified in the 'WiF column' on the
setup
chart, and not freely from all the units, hence the parenthetical
clarification that 'you can choose which'. I understand this to mean, for
example, if the CW has 2 FTRs in the WiF column, and 2 FTRs in the PiF
column, it may choose 2 of the 4 to put on map (ie. the number in the WiF
column).
Ans> Correct.
Q1b> Can't agree - further on in the same rule, it states that if also
playing
with pilots, you may set up any one plane from the location listed for each
pilot used. The rest go into the reserve pool.
This replaces the unsetup units returning to the force pools if not using
pilots. This rule would be necessary to prevent keeping the high-cost units
and returning low-cost units to the force pool.
Ans> It is necessary because there is no Reserve Pool in WiF Classic.
Q1c> With pilots, and as the unquoted portion of the rule implies, you keep
everything you draw. There is no reason, and it is not, IMO, supported by
the rule you quote, to keep exactly the planes listed under WIF.
Ans> Afraid so. You are not allowed too much more latitude in WiF Deluxe
and WiF Classic, and why should you when they are supposed to be the same
game (more or less).
Q2> Russia is neutral and then Russia declares war on Vichy France and
there
by becomes active. It's reserves and militia is called out.
Fine.
Russia starts to build the militia and then the Axis collapses Vichy
France. Since Russia is at war with no other Major Power it becomes
Neutral again and has to remove it's reserves and militia. My question
is then: when/in what sequence/step does Russia have to remove it's
reserves and militia:
a) Immediately, in that axis impuls
b) Next Russian impuls
c) End Turn
d) At Harry clarified Time
The underlying reason for the question is that, can Germany collapse
Vichy France in the 1st impuls of an turn and then all of ( of course
minus Ge res.) Russia's reserves and militia is then magically removed
when Germany declares war on Russia in Germany's next impuls. I can't
find anywhere in the rules that it say's when the reserves and militia
is removed, only that they are.
The situation of course goes both ways in that, if the reserves/militia
is removed at the end of a turn, Russia can think in ways of declaring
war, at a possible last impuls of a turn, and if it succeeds, builds
it's militia in the production phase. Then Russia will have it's
reserves and militia in the next turn and if Germany will declare war on
Russia in the following turn it can't do anything about it, less waiting
a turn before declaring war.
Hope my question is understandable now. My apologies if any
inconveniences. My question was meant addressed to Harry since I can
find the sequence in the rules, but any answer is of course appreciated.
>>
Ans> I'll do my best, but as everyone gleefully (and crushingly) points
out, I am far from infallible. d. (actually a, during the Peace step ~ see
13.7.3, 8th para).
Q3> >3) Now, if the CW/French setup their fleets in the Baltic
Bzzt. Only active powers may leave warships at sea.
Ans> Correct. Apart from that small qualification, the perfect plan.
Regards
Harry Rowland
ADGDear WiF Players,
more clarifications:
Q1> It seems that if I attack the Japanese units in Persia with my
land units,
both of us can fly ground support and interception missions (Rule 9.9,
"Land units & combats"). But what about:
(a) Soviet carpet bombing of Japanese units in the Persian hexes;
(b) Soviet port strikes on Japanese naval units based in the Persian
ports;
and
(c) Soviet strategic bombing of Persian oil hexes occupied by the
Japanese
units?
Though the rules are not clear, it seems to me that Rule 9.9, read
literally, permits Russia to fly missions (a) and (b) but does NOT permit
Japan to intercept them. This is because Rule 9.9 ("Aircraft") only
permits the "peacekeeper" to fly air interception missions "in support of a
land combat." Is this correct?
Ans> No. You can fly all these missions and your opponent can intercept (a)
and (b) ((c) is being performed against a Persian controlled oil and cannot
be intercepted, except by people at war with Russia).
Q2> > > > (a) suppose that no port on the Eastern Med is Axis-
> > > controlled; can Italy use the oil in Rome to re-org
> > > the SCS in the Eastern Med?
> >
> > Yes via the Italian Sea. You trace from the unit and don't include
> > the
> > units sea zone just like land units don't include the units hex.
Ans> Correct.
Q3>:>>I agree with you mostly, up unitl this point, Bruce. The problem is
that,
>>the hex belongs to FRANCE, not FREE FRANCE. The reason I make the
>>distinction is the same as the Perisan hexes occupied by Japan. Persia,
is
>>a completely conquered country that still retains control over hexes, in
>>the same way, Occupied France is a completely conquered country, that
>>retains control of some hexes. These hexes are neither CW nor FF, but
>>FRENCH, and therefore the fleet cannot RTB into a CW occupied Bordeaux as
>>it does not fall within the parameters of 17.3, which specifically states
>>Free or Vichy French hexes (any hex in Occupied France, which is occupied
>>by CW units, is neither of these).
Ans> Correct.
>>
>
Q3b> >I agree that Bordeaux is a hex in Occupied France. The problem is
that the
>rule relating to Return to Base for the units at sea must allow it. 17.3,
>French units, paragraph 1:
>
>'The Axis major power installing the Vichy government now moves every
French
>unit at sea (even those face-down) to the nearest Vichy or Free French hex
>(port for naval units and their cargoes) within range. If naval units
>cannot return to a port within range, they are destroyed.'
>
>The problem with saying that the French fleet cannot rebase to Bordeaux
>because it is in Occupied France and not in Vichy France or Free France,
>would then by extention apply to all other minor countries. That is, the
>French Fleet cannot rebase to Algiers, because it is Algerian; Beirut,
>because it is Syrian, etc.
Ans> Not correct. By the time you move the French ships, you have already
figured out Free French and Vichy France territory. Algeria must be free
French or Vichy, Occupied France is neither.
>
Q3c> >I think that the rule means that the fleet can go to French minors.
If the
>French fleet can go to Algiers, I think it is hard to believe that it
cannot
>go to Bordeaux.
Ans> Sorry, but it can't.
>
Q3d> >One potential way out of the problem (and this may be our BEST) is to
>interpret the rule to mean that the French Fleet cannot go into any
>conquered area, even if the port is controlled. So the French Fleet
cannot
>go to Occupied France because it is in a conquered country.
Ans> It cannot go to Occupied France because it is neither controlled by
Free France or Vichy France.
Q3e> I still think
>this interpretation is a little hokey because I don't think Bordeaux
changes
>control on conquest at all, and I think all that has happened to Occupied
>France is that it is conquered.
Ans> Bordeaux is CW controlled (see 17.1, 3rd para).
>
>But it gives us some way out. I really don't want to have to say that the
>French fleet cannot go to Syria, Algeria, Indo-china, etc.
>
Ans> Don't say it then.
Q3f>>>>I really wish we could get out of the problem Marc brought up by
saying
>>>that, in this example, Bordeaux is CW controlled. Unfortunately, I
don't
>>>see how the RAW supports this.
Ans> 17.1, 3rd para says Occupied France is considered conquered. If you
thus go to the conquest rules, you will find that all hexes controlled by
the CW in Occupied France are CW controlled.
>>>
Q3g>>>We do need errata to fix this issue. We all KNOW that we do not want
this
>>>result, so it must be erratisized.
>>
Ans> The only errata required is to add a sentence at the end of the 3rd
para of 17.1 that says:
"Control of occupied France is as for normal conquest (see 13.7.1) except
that every hex in occupied France still controlled by French land units is
controlled by the major power installing the Vichy Government."
This should make things clearer.
>>
Q4> a) The new update to the rules is 3 dated december 98 right?
:
Ans> No. The latest version is February 1998 I believe.
: b) Are there a whole new counter and map reprint and if so where can I
can
: get it and how different are they and do I get rebate?
Ans> The maps have not been re-printed. The counters have been, but the
only change was to put green inside the Marine's symbol. It is not worth
re-purchasing just for this.
:
: c) Are the rules repinted somewhere too other the online...ie being sold
in
: gaming stores?
Ans> Yes & Yes. I believe Vesa has the latest version of the rules on his
web-page. What is your web-address Vesa?
Finally, you will be glad to hear that the Alpha version of WiF:the
Computer game is ready for playtesting. If you can access a Pentium PC and
are interested in playtesting WiF:the computer game, pls contact me on
Internet:Aus_Design_Group@compuserve.com.
We are far too poor to actually pay money for playtesters, but to those who
contribute to the playtesting and assist in the release of WiF:the Computer
game, you do of course get a free copy of the released game as well as
being credited in the Manual.
Regards
Harry Rowland
ADG
PS Does anyone have Auran's e-mail address. We need to inform them that
World in Flames is a registered trade-mark of Australian Design Group, and
is thus unavailable for their computer game release. Dear WiF players,
more clarifications:
Q1> Q3f>>>>I really wish we could get out of the problem Marc brought up by
saying
>>>that, in this example, Bordeaux is CW controlled. Unfortunately, I
don't
>>>see how the RAW supports this.
Ans> 17.1, 3rd para says Occupied France is considered conquered. If you
thus go to the conquest rules, you will find that all hexes controlled by
the CW in Occupied France are CW controlled.
Of course, hexes controlled by the CW remain CW controlled. But the hexes
occupied by CW land units are French controlled!! You are not saying that
the CW gains control of Bordeaux when it occupies it before France is
conquered????? If the Germans rail a unit into Rome, is Rome German
controlled??
The situation we have here is that Bordeaux is CW occupied but French
controlled at the beginning of the peace phase when Germany establishes a
Vichy government.
I suspect that you mean that Bordeaux becomes CW controlled upon Vichy or
conquest. This answer really shocks me! I have read through the conquest
rules and quoted them many, many times. I don't see at all where they say
this. And I think your answer contradicts earlier clarifications that you
posted, defending my position.
Ans> Gosh! You mean you want me to read the rules? You are quite right. It
is French controlled. This is from 17.1, para 3, which refers you to 13.7.
The relevant para in this rule is 13.7.1 ~ Incomplete Conquest, para 6.
Q1b> I agree with Bruce and don't believe Harry has answered the central
question:
If the British occupy a French-controlled hex in what will become Occupied
France, who controls that hex after Vichification--Free France, Germany,
CW?
Ans> France, which after vichification becomes Free France.
Q1c> For example, assume the CW sails Gort into Bordeaux on the second
impulse of
SO39 and he's still there when France is Vichied. As I read 13.7.1, and
Harry's subsequent elaborations thereon, there's no way that Bordeaux
should
pass to the CW. It should stay "French", whatever that means in the context
of Vichification.
The choices, as I see it are: i) Free French because "French" = "Free
French"
after Vichification; or ii) German because in 17.2 it says, "Each hex
France
controls in a territory or home country controlled by another major power
or
minor country reverts to the control of that major power or minor country."
That is, France still controls Bordeaux, but since Bordeaux is in a country
now controlled by the Axis (Occ. France), control passes to Germany.
Option i leads to the fleet abuse that featured so prominently in the
debate.
Option ii brings up the issue of what happens to the CW unit.
Ans> The abuse is illegal. You cannot base the French ships in a CW
occupied port (Bordeaux in your example) because FRANCE doesn't co-operate
with the CW. The ships are not Free French or Vichy French until they have
returned to port, because the port they return to defines whether the ships
are Vichy or Free French. This is obvious, as otherwise you could claim you
are returning Vichy ships to Free French ports and vice-versa.
Since we know they are French ships, 17.3 ~ French Units, 1st para says:
"The Axis major power installing the Vichy Government now moves every
French unit at sea (even those face-down) to the nearest Vichy or Free
French hex (port for naval units and their cargoes) within range."
Like every other rule, this is subject to the stacking rule. Otherwise the
Germans could simply stack all the ships in minor ports and they would all
die from overstacking. As this is an absurd implication, the added words
"at which they can stack" was thought superfluous. But I am happy to add
it, if it assists in the comprehension of this rule.
Q1d> The original idea on this came up from issues dealing with Japanese
peacekeepers in Persia. The USSR declares war on Persia. Japan occupies
Bushehr. The USSR conquers Persia. Who controls Bushehr?
Ans> Persia.
Q1e> To everybody else on the list -- I suspect at lot of you are playing
this
wrong also, especially in Persia. I recognize that a lot of you took my
lead on this. I know that I have made mistakes before, but this is my
first
real, real bad one!
Ans> No its not. This is my umpteenth really, really bad one.
Q1f> For any of you playing wrong because of my
interpretation, I sincerely and humbly apologize.
Ans> Me too.
Q2> It's the Allied impulse during Barbarossa, and all the major powers
except Russia pass. Russia chooses a land. Can Communist Chinese move?
Ans> Yes.
Q3> You are using the option that one can only invade hexes next to sea
dots. The CW places a one hexside fort in Gilbraltar facing due east.
Axis troops invade from the Western Med. Are they affected by the fort?
(the fort faces the only hexdot in the western Med, however, there are two
other coastal hexes, along the Spanish and Moroccan coasts respectively).
Ans> No. Even though you may only invade a hex adjacent to a sea-dot, you
may invade across any all-sea hexside in the sea area, not just the one
adjacent to the hex-dot.
Thank you for Auran's address. I will contact them shortly. I should have
mentioned that World in Flames is also a registered trade-mark for computer
games, not just boardgames.
Next, in a few hours I will forward the latest WiF Global War set-up to the
WiF list. It is an XL file and I will send it straight (via compuserve),
uuencoded and in text format. Download the one you have the best chance of
reading. Remember it is coming from a Mac, and you may need to open up the
document from within XL.
If you have a problem with reading it, contact the list. Someone somewhere
must have a computer that can read my stuff.
You are free to use it personally and/or place it on your web-page provided
you include the copyright notice and the following words as part of the
document:
"World in Flames and all its components and kits, in both its electronic
and printed forms, is Copyright 1985 ~ 1998, Australian Design
Group.
Permission is hereby granted to copy this set-up electronically for your
personal use only, provided that it is copied in its
entirety (including this message). Any deletion or alteration or
on-selling, without the express written permission of Australian
Design Group, is a violation of domestic and international copyright law.
Please refer questions and comments to:
Australian Design Group
PO Box 6253
Los Osos, CA 93412 USA, or
wiflames@slonet.org"
Finally, thank you all for your overwhelming response to our request for
playtesters. We have enough for the moment, but I will write to the WiF
list as we need more testers. To those who ahve already written to me, I
should have responded to you all by now. Thanks again, and Dave Martin, our
head of playtesting will contact you all shortly.
Regards
Harry Rowland
ADGDear WiF Players,
more clarifications:
Q1> << I can not find any such rule in RAW. Nowhere does it say that a
minor
country that comes to peace with a MP does not set up destroyed units when
it re-enters the war. (Only possible in the cases of Finland and
Rumania).
Ans> That is correct. It is assumed that they rebuilt them in the
mean-time. Minors, even at peace are assumed to have some production after
all.
Q2> My brother is practising what I call "aircraft cheating". I guess
> it's legal but I don't know for sure:
> a) Removing a disorganized AC from the map, getting a pilot.
> Setting it up next turn face up in another (or the same) city thus
> using the AC only one of two turns but without oil.
Ans> This is illegal. Only face-up aircraft may be placed into the reserve
pool from the map.
> b) When Russia is at war with Rumania, removing the Rumanian
> aircraft, getting a pilot, when both come to peace, Germany retains
> the pilot. Later when Rumania reenters the war, they set up the
> pilot again, so it has doubled.
Ans> This is legal. The simple response is to crush Rumania. The lost oil
more than makes up for 1 pilot.
(c) I found a clarification that might help with this question
>From 9 Jan 1997:
>Q26> Can pilots be used in allies planes? Say Germans
>in Italian planes and so forth.
>
>Ans> No.
This would seem to imply that Rumanian pilots may not be used in German
planes, and that if the Rumanian plane is removed from the map to the
reserve pool, the Rumanian pilot must be tracked independently of German
pilots. The pilot must also be removed when Rumania comes to peace. This
would also seem to imply that minor country pilots must be tracked
separately from the controlling MP's pilots in all applicable cases
(production, pilot survival of destroyed plane, etc.). Harry?
Ans> You draw too long a bow I am afraid. This answer only relates to
different Major Powers.
Q3> What is the status of a minor country between the DOW phase and
the conquest phase if the minor country is dow`d upon but isn`t aligned
with anybody? Is it still at war with the major power that dow`d it? or
is it immediately completely conquered in the DOW phase?
Ans> It is immediately and completely conquered.
Q3b> in order to align Yugoslavia Germany needs "CONTROL OF ATHEN" and be
aligned/control all other balkan minors including Bulgaria.
If the USSR hasn`t claimed Bessarabia, Bulgaria only aligns with Ge if
Ge is "AT WAR with Greece" NOT "CONTROLS ATHEN" (plus be at war with
Yugoslavia, which in this case is obviuosly not wanted).
So if the allies refuse to align Greece, what is the status of Greece
and Germany? Are Germany and Greece at War long enough for Germany to
align Bulgaria?
Ans> No. Greece is a conquered minor of Germany
Q3c> If yes, then Greece isn`t completely conquered
immediately. So what happens to the Greek units until the conquest
phase, what color are its convoy points if they are set up? If no, then
this is a "gamey" ploy to sabotage
Ge balkan politics
Ans> It's not that gamey. All it means is that you cannot align both
Yugoslavia and Bulgaria in this game. You can align Yugoslavia by declaring
war on Bulgaria or vice versa. I'd rather have Yugoslavia than Bulgaria any
day, so try this "trick" on me and see what happens. After all, Bulgaria is
far easier to conquer than Greece.
Q4> So upon Vichification a CW land unit sits in Bordeaux, are the
railed in Factories in Bordeaux CW or free french or useless, is it a
free french or CW hex. What was the last answer on that one, I lost
track with all this confusion and re-clarifications that just went on
... sorry
Ans> The factories are free french (at least until conquered by the Axis).
Q5> the USA "succesfully attempts" to DOW`s Japan, may it "attempt" a
DOW on Ge in the same impulse? Is a "success" still an "attempt"?
Ans> No and yes. A successful attempt is a type of attempt. The other type
is a failure.
Q6> Ships of a major power that are surprised but stacked together (or
in the same sea box section) with a major power already at war with the
surprising major power aren`t really surprised, are they? since you
can`t fight naval units separately and there is an unsurprised major
power involved, surprise points are distributed normally, correct? I
presume this has already been asked.
Ans> Many times. You are correct.
Q7> I remember having read a clarification that destroyed minor
country units are NOT re-setup upon a new DOW after having previously
come to peace? Does anybody have indexed/on-line clarifications to check
this?
Ans> No, yes, see above.
Q8> >1) When one MP becomes neutral it can only stockpile half of it's
>oil, it's combat ships can't stay at sea and it can't gather
>intelligence. However the peace step is after the return to base and
>after the production, so I presume in the very same turn a MP became
>neutral it can still keep it's ships at sea and store it's oil?
>When exactly is the intelligence step? Presumeably also before peace.
Agreed. Intelligence occurs before the Peace step.
Ans> All correct.
>
>
Q9>) What exactly happens to annual reinforcements when a country is
>conquered. I take it they are put to those counters that were removed
>from the game upon conquest, so that when liberation occurs half
>of all counters are taken back?
Ans> All future additions are added to your units removed from the game.
Half are eligible to come back when liberated (I know this is probably
different to my previous errata, but this seems the simplest and fairest
solution).
>
Q10) What happens with the annual French additions after Vichyfication?
>Do they go directly into the Free French force pool or are they
>removed from the game (to be added after liberation, see above
>question) or is only half of them added to the Free French pool?
They go directly into the FF force pools.
Ans> Correct.
Q11> >> 1) If a notional unit is reduced to 0 strength (due to surprise or
>> supply) an invasion still counts as both a land move and a land
>> attack, right?
>>
>correct
Ans> Correct
>
Q12) Following situation: Japan is at war with CW, then Germany
>> declares war on the Netherlands. Does Japan get a surprise on the
>> NEI (I guess no, but I as Japan don't like it)?
>
>NEI doesn`t exist yet. Ne is surprised and at war with everybody that
>the aligning MP (presumably the CW) is at war with. In your case Japan
>does surprise the NE
This is incorrect.
Rule 15, Surprise states:
"Major powers and minor countries are surprised by a major power when it
declares war on them, even if they are already at war with someone else.
The effects of being surprised last only for that impulse (the "surprise
impulse")."
Since in this case, Japan has not DOW the Netherlands, and is already at
war with the CW, it gets no surprise impulse against the NEI. (It would
need to issue a simultaneous DOW with Germany to get a surprise impulse).
Ans> Correct.
>
Q13> WI>> 4) When playing with engineers, do I need an engineer to bring a
WI>> factory back on line after a partisan occupied the hex?
Ans> Yes, if the partisan occupies the factory during the victory check
step, you can destroy that factory if you want to. In most cases you
wouldn't want to do this though. Your partisan is destroying one of YOUR
blue factories. Your opponent can't use your blue factories, so you are
just helping your opponent make it hard for you when you recapture your
factory. The only exceptions to this are India and Manchuria, so guard
those factories carefully.
Of course destroying your own oil resources may also be worthwhile since
your opponent can use them.
Q14> Does the optional rule 42 (allied combat friction) apply as well
WI>> if one MP only uses it's AMPHs or ATRs to transport the attacking
WI>> units of the other MP (i.e. German units invading from Italian AMPH)?
WI>Harry clarified that it only applies if another major power is giving
WI>"combat factors"
WI>
Ans> Correct.
Q15> I am playing with the Factory destruction rule and synth oil plant
rule. After the NEI is aligned with the CW, can she destroy all the oil in
the NEI to deny giving any to the Japanese?
Ans> No. You may not destroy any oil you are providing to another major
power as part of a trade agreement. So at most, you can only destroy 2 NEI
oil, until after the US has chosen option 41.
Q16> The USSR global war setup was significantly changed in LOC #8, with
the
>addition of a mech, motorized, extra INF/GAR, etc. Your latest, greatest
>setup does not reflect these changes, and mostly appears to go back to
numbers
>close to the originally printed rules. Is your latest list fully correct
in
>this regard, or is there any chance LOC was really correct and your list
>missed a couple of things?
>
Ans> Me, miss something? Never (except the previous 15 questions of
course). The latest set-up I sent you is correct in all regards. The extra
Russian units were scrubbed when we increased Soviet production from 0.25
to 0.5 in 1940 (geez guys, try to keep up with the errata will you:-)).
Regards
Harry Rowland
ADGDear WiF Players,
more clarifications:
Q1> >WI>>So no units get committed if there is no notional unit, again to
quote
>WI>>the rules:
>WI>>
>
>WI>>> During the attack declaration step (see 11.16), you can state that
>WI>>> your notional unit is to be ignored [you might do this to prevent
>WI>>> breakthroughs by units attacking in conjunction with an invasion].
If
>WI>>> you do (and there are no other friendly land units in the hex),
there
>WI>>> is no attack, and the attacker occupies the hex as if debarking onto
a
>WI>>> friendly hex (see 11.13).
>WI>>>
>WI>> The right approach, I think, is to declare your invasion combats
>WI>>first, so you can determine if you have more attacks during a combined
>WI>>impulse.
>
>WI>It is my belief that you declare invasions and paradrops before declare
>WI>the attacks associated with these actions. In other words, I think the
>WI>defender has to deploy or not deplot the notational unit before the
>WI>declarations of attack, he may only know that an invasions or paradrop
is
>WI>occuring in a hex and may not know what lands units will support this
>WI>action.
>
>WI>-Byron
>
>I agree, but wanted to get the rules in front of me before I said so.
>IIRC, Paradrops and Invasions occur before the Land Combat (phase, step,
>whatever). To me that represents the units debarking the ships or
>dropping out of the planes, before any combat occurs. By this
>interpretation, the defender would have to decide if there was a
>notional during the para/invasion step, not the land combat step. In no
>notional was declared and the hex was empty, there would be no attack
>and it would not count against attack limits.
>
>What say others? Benjamin? Bruce?
>
>Russ Craft
>
I disagree with this interpretation. 11.16 is pretty explicit about when
the notional is withdrawn. My interpretation is that the defender is
required to withdraw the notional on an attack declaration-by-attack
declaration basis. That is, the defender must withdraw the notional before
the attacker declares the next attack.
If the defender withdraws the notional, then the attack is negated, and
doesn't count against attack limits. The attacker is then free to declare
other attacks in place of the negated one.
Ans> This is correct, and is the reason you must state whether you are
using your notional during attack declaration. If you don't use your
notional, and there is no attack, you are free to attack elsewhere.
Q2> This clearly state that if the US liberate France in '44, the US player
get
the control of the French units.
But does this mean that the US Player get the French Objective Cities added
to his at the end of the game ?
Ans> Yes.
Q3> 1) Mao, at war with Chiang, is wholly dependent on a
shared oil resource?
Ans> Yes.
Q3b> or can he trace to a Russian oil?
Ans> No.
Q3c) HQI,
built without oil, cannot function without it?
Ans> Correct.
Q3d> Can I voluntarily
destroy Stilwell in order to rebuild him so he arrives face-up?
Ans> No.
Q4> US Entry option 8 reads:
"8. Occupy Greenland & Iceland - You can declare control of Greenland
and
Iceland during any future Allied declaration of war step. When you do, move
any other Allied units in Iceland to the nearest hex their major power
controls. You can only choose this entry option if an Axis major power has
declared war on Denmark *and no Axis land unit is in Greenland or
Iceland.*"
If Greenland and Iceland have been conquered by the Axis, but there are no
more axis land units in either of those territories, can the US still play
this option?
Ans> Yes.
Q5> > My opponent wanted to select the target in naval air2air combat, the
>Kondor is flying behind another (cheaper) nav but for 3 sp he says he
>could chose the Kondor instead, is that correct?
>--
Ans> No. This relates to naval targets only.
Q6> In the scenario-information under production it is stated, that
> Japan receives 1 INF per turn in Japan commencing with the Jul/Aug
> reinforcement segment. But those INF are already included in the
> set-up table. Do they indeed get 2 INF per turn or is one of the
> two redundant notes too much?
I think this is redundant information and maybe should be removed
from production notes.
Ans> Correct, sorry about that.
Q6b) I believe to remember, that British reinforcements have been
> changed to arrive in South Africa, Aden or Canada. In Vesas
> version it is still Bombay. What is correct?
Ans> Vesa's is correct for the Guadalcanal scenario. You are remembering an
errata for the Day of Infamy campaign.
Q6c> Central America is listed as being aligned to the USA at the
> beginning of the scenario (in contrast to the info for the Brute
> Force scenario, which starts the same time). If Central America is
> really aligned, where are its units in the set-up table? Or does
> the note mean, that you can align them later? Or is the real
> purpose of the note to deny the use of the units to you? It
> doesn't matter so much for the land units (1 CAV and 1MIL), but
> the CP could be of importance, if one plays this scenario with
> limited overseas supply. Are the Central American CP already
> included in the 10 US-CP or do you get them in addition? I'm
> confused.
Ans> Central America is still neutral, pls just delete that sentence from
War Status. Sorry about that.
Q7> >>what happens when allied troops attack main land france. they took
from
>>the memtropoltion france a intact blue factory. does it go free french
>>or not. or not untill paris falls. know the germans get the fleet. just
>>want to know if the allies can use factory to build french and send
>>build points. thank you for your help.
>> jim denell
>
>This is not a blue factory in the major power's home country until France
>again becomes the Free French home country and therefore should not be
>usable until Paris falls and France is liberated.
>Bill Popovich [wpopovic@ewrsd.k12.nj.us]
>
Despite this reading of RAW, Harry has issued a clarification (which should
be made errata) stating that FF can use such factories. He has also done
the same thing by clarifing that HQs are needed to collapse a neutral Vichy
France, even though this is an exception to RAW.
Ans> Have I made such a clarification? I make so many I have forgotten that
one. perhaps someone could forward my memory to the list pls. By my reading
of the rules, Bill is right.
Q8> I found this answer of Harry "One change we are considering making to
> >this rule is that you must announce emergency HQ supply at the START of
an
> >impulse, and it lasts throughout that impulse. We are happy to make that
> >change if the majority of players agree. Which would you prefer?" to Q3
of
> >the clarifications of 24 Mar 1998. What is the current ruling ? Can HQs
> >still announce emergency HQ supply at any time for one impulse ? Can
> >emergency HQ supply be announced after the opponent has declared attacks
?
> >
Ans> The rule was not changed due to an overwhelming negative response (2
letters, both no).
Q9>>Ans> You draw too long a bow I am afraid. This answer only relates to
>>different Major Powers.
>
>Ok, ok, so I'll read all my mail next time before responding to
>individual
>letters....
>
>Tom "I can still pluck yew" C.
>@@ HR: i'm sure that Tom's .sig line was not meant to
>sound hostile, but if it was, that would probably be because
>in the USA "to draw the long bow" means to tell a tall tale or
>a far-fetched story, sometimes even an outright lie. from
>the way you used it, it seems to me that in Oz it's used to
>mean what a USan would call "stretching a point", that is,
>pushing a (logical) argument further than it can sensibly go.
>we've seen some examples of that on this elist lately,
>especially in regard to capitals of conquered powers. @@
>
Ans> This is precisely what is meant. It certainly was not to suggest that
Tom was lying (wouldn't that be pointing the bow in the wrong direction?).
Q8b> One more thing: if offense was taken at my sig, I certainly apologize.
Ans> None taken (you bastard:-)).
Regards
Harry Rowland
ADGDear WiF Players,
more clarifications and clarifications of clarifications,
Q1>>>I am a little shocked, as we've (and at least a couple other groups
on-list
>>that I know of) been playing that the FF can use the factories for the
past
>>two games. Do you really mean it Harry? Or do we need a
subsequent
>>clarification/errata? I'm a little confused, I know it is tough, because
>>you get a LOT of questions, and it is difficult to keep everything
>>straight. (Man is this gonna fuck up our current game... Are you rading
>>this Sandy? Regardless of what the official answer winds up being, we
have
>>to figure out what to do in the current game, I think Rod will go into
>>hysterics if we quit - but I am willing to re-start, might be negotiation
>>time on Sunday, actually, we should try to do it before that so we can
work
>>on setting up again. I'm sure Keith will come unglued.)
>>
>>
>>Almost at my wit's end...
>>
>>Benjamin.
WI>Yes. I said in a recent post that I thought Harry's errata here was
WI>'unfortunate'. For instance, does it refer only to Free France? Of can
WI>Italy use the factories it still owns in Northern Italy after it is
WI>conquered? A country can also own factories after conquest, if they
were
WI>railed from their original hexes or reconquered.
WI>I don't see any reason why a special rule exists for Free France. I
would
WI>think that either you can use blue factories in original conquered home
WI>countries, or you can't. I think there are less rules inconsistencies
if
WI>you can't, although I think it makes more 'real life' sense if you can.
Ans> In the interests of justice, I think we should all take a pen to
13.6.2, 3rd para changing it to:
A BLUE factory is usable if you control it in the production step AND it is
either in your current or 1939 major power's home country or in an aligned
(not conquered) minor country.
Q2> I am firmly convinced that an attack must be declared, before the
defender
could actually choose to commit or not commit the notional. Since 11.16
states clearly that, "You declare all your attacks at the same time",
I'm
sticking to my guns that the notional decision must happen after this.
Ans> This is one of those many issues where Greg obviously thinks one thing
and I obviously think the other. I was eventually persuaded that 11.14 ~
Invasion combats, 15 para 1st sentence should be changed to:
At the END of the attack declaration step (see 11.16)...
I apologise for the confusion.
Regards
Harry Rowland
ADG
[A Tip From Hotmail.]
Read Message Dictionary
RELATED:
In-Box Thesaurus
Date: 6 Jul 1998 02:23:39 -0000
Reply-To: wif@lists.pipex.com
From: Harry Rowland Save Address Block Sender
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: More clarifications from ADG
Reply Reply All Forward Delete Previous Next Close
Dear WiF Players,
First off, thank you very much for your comments on Leaders in Flames. I am
gratified that the effort we put in to producing it seems to have been
worthwhile with the extra spice and personality that Leaders in Flames adds
to World in Flames without vast amounts of new rules (of course, not
everyone agrees, see below).
I apologise for Zhukov missing from the countersheet. We are discussing
with Command magazine to print 20 counters which will include Zhukov and
the 17 German aircraft (and maybe even a couple more leaders, who would you
like to see?) which will just be given away to anyone and everyone. If we
are quick enough, we might even have them for WiFCon in August, and we
should certainly have them in time for Euro WiFCon and Essen 98.
Of course I hear you ask "When is this going to end?" We stuff up 17
counters, so we re-print a countersheet. Now we stuff up Zhukov, so we have
to print 20 counters. Now, we will probably forget to print him with a
moustache and have to re-print a moustache counter. I know, I know, I am
pulling out my last stands of hair with frustration, just as much as you.
All I can say is that somewhere out there is the perfect game and I am
still striving for it (if sometimes spectacularly unsuccessfully).
Thank you all for your quick and intelligent questions on LiF. Due to your
queries, we managed to get the corrections to the printers before they
started printing them, including the errata that Halsey's option 100
ability only gives him a -1, not -2.
Now to some clarifications:
Q1> ~>> >> **Option 32, Relocate Pacific fleet to Singapore**
~>> >>
~>> >> Does the USA have to be in a state of co-operation with the CW (ie.
>> Active)
~>> >> in order to play this option?
>> >
>> >As I understand it no.
>>
>> That doesn't make any sense. So this option allows the US to send a
fleet
>> to Singapore, even though it is neutral? Why isn't that specifically
>> stated in the option?
>>
>> Benjamin
>
>
>I', pretty sure this option is allowing the CW to send a fleet to
>Singapore, the Us to send a fleet to Pearl, or a combination of both to
>fulfill the conditions of no +2, as opposed to just a US Fleet at Pearl
>(i.e., Repulse and Prince of Wales with Indomitable)
>
I think this make no sense. The rul;e make absolutely no reference to the
CW,
and the only thing it has to do with relocating the fleet to Pearl Harbour
is
that Opton 31 must be played before this one.
The rule reads as follows:
"32. Relocate Pacific fleet to Singapore
~ It is harder to declare war on Japan if you haven't chosen this or US
entry
option 31. Until you choose it or are at war with Japan, US naval units
can't
base at Singapore.
To avoid the +2 modifier for declaring war on Japan, you need a fleet of at
least 1 CV and 4 BB units (owner's choice) in either Honolulu or Singapore
when
you attempt to declare war.
If you have the fleet there you also have more control over the tension
level
for anti-Japanese entry options.
SiF option 9: When playing with Ships in Flames, the fleet must be at
least 8
SCS and 1 CV. A CV or SCS only counts if it is not the Langley and its
first
cycle cost is at least 2 build points. "
What I am trying to get at here, is whether or not playing this option
means
that the US can send ships to Singapore while it is still neutral, or, if
this
is a limiting option, stating that the US MAY NOT rebase a fleet to
Singapore
(if it is at war with Ge/It and not Japan), until this option is played.
I *think* this is a limiting option (much like NOT being able to reinforce
the
Phillipines or Guam), and that since the rule doesn't specifically overrule
the
limitations found in rule 9.1 (as the escort and unrestricted naval warfare
options *specifically* do).
Rule 9.1, Neutral major powers, reads as follows:
"A major power is a neutral major power if it is not at war with any other
major power. If it is at war with at least 1 major power, its called an
active
major power.
Units controlled by a neutral major power can only enter hexes controlled
by
that major power, by a minor country aligned with it, or by a minor country
it
is at war with. They can also go to sea.
A neutral major power cant co-operate with any other major power (see 18.)
Neutral major powers must always pick either a pass or a combined action
(exception Germany in 1939~ see 10.1). Each naval unit a neutral major
power
moves (rather than each task force) counts as 1 naval move- every 5 convoy
points counts as a naval unit (SiF option 9: every 2 convoy points (and any
spare point) is a naval unit)."
As a consequence, I don't think that this new option 32 allows the USA to
send
units to Singapore until AFTER it has played this option, and after it is
no
longer neutral (ie. in this case, at war with Germany or Italy).
Ans> Not quite correct. US Entry option 32 allows the US to base in
Singapore even while neutral. Of course, unless at war with Germany and
Italy, the CW will not be allowed to stack in Singapore while US units are
there.
Q2> > > >"Cut out the veto charts so that each player has one. Put your
major
> > >power's veto marker on the marked space on your veto chart. This is
how
> > >many vetoes your major power starts with (Germany ~ 5; Italy ~ 2;
Japan ~
> > >3; USSR ~ 4; CW ~ 3; France ~ 2; USA ~ 1; and China ~ 1)."
> > >
> >
> > 4.2 Veto reinforcement
> >
> > At the start of each year, add another infusion of veto points to each
major
> > power's veto chart.
> > Each gets as many as it started with, except that:
> >
> > (e) Russia's annual infusion of vetoes increases by 1 to a total of 4
while
> > at war with
> > Germany;
> >
> > ################################
> > How many vetoes does Russian get each year?
>
Ans> 3 if not at war with Germany, otherwise 4.
Q3> >Put Monty on the Rock! I interpret the rule you quote to mean that if
the
>hex the leader is in is under attack, then the leader can use its
abilities
>in that hex only (similar to artillery). Otherise, he can use them
>normally.
Ans> Correct.
Q4> >>Imagine a Japanese landunit captures the Capital of a French minor
>>country. Before the turn ends the capital is however recaptured by CW
>>troops. What happens in the Conquest phase?
>>
>>a) nothing
>>b) the whole minor becomes conquered by the CW
>>c) only those hexes previously conquered by the Japanese get
>>controlled by the CW.
>
>The answer is c. Take the case of Paris, for instance, if Germany takes
>Paris and then the CW counterattacks and takes it back, they control the
>hex, but Germany wouldn't be able to impose a Vichy government, and
neither
>would the CW conquer France or anything of the kind. Pars, however, would
>be controlled by the CW (he *should* give it back at reversion, but
>probably wouldn't, especially if France was short on resources, and the CW
>could use the red factory provided they got an engineer there).
>
>
>
>Benjamin
>
Let's be careful here. Let's say we are talking about French Indo-china,
which went Free France. Japan attacks, and takes Hanoi. It then moves its
land units south and takes 4 more hexes.
The CW units retake Hanoi before the conquest step by amphibious assault.
What happens?
Indo-china is still French controlled. Hanoi is CW controlled. But the
other hexes that the Japanese entered are still Japanese controlled, even
those not currently occupied by Japanese units.
So I think c is incorrect, because it implies that the CW controls all of
the Japanese controlled hexes in Indo-china.
I think all three answers are incorrect. See my previous post for more
details.
Ans> You are correct Bruce.
Q5> I never knew that [about Balbo]! Anyone smart enough to stand against
two dictators
deserves special abilities. But still doubling the offensive capabilities
of
an army.
Ans> Balbo's ability 63 allows him to double the factors of Italian ARM and
Mech stacked with him, hardly an army (all abilities only affect the hex or
sea-box section you are in unless otherwise stated).
Q6> >One general LiF question: are these abilities cumulative?
>
Ans> Yes.
Q7> >For example, I have no leader for ability 122. Who is the leader with
>ability 122 ?
We noticed the same thing in playtesting -- I think there is no ability122
attached to any leader.
Ans> Please take a closer look at Cunningham. Also, you noticed this during
playtesting but didn't tell us? Well that was useful. Was there anything
else you noticed?
Q7> >> 3. The new US entry options and actions are a little confusing I
have
>some
>>
>> questions regarding almost each action and will go through them by
option
>> and action.
>>
>> The following two questions apply to each of the Options/Actions:
>>
>> Which /entrytension pool is this entry option (action) directed
against?
>> JA or GE/IT or both?
>>
>The new USE charts are color coded. Most options stayed the same as they
>were, a few are now choosable (is that a word?) by the US.
>
>> What is the tension/action number for this option (number needed to
roll to
>> lose/gain a chit)?
>>
>On the chart. Maybe you could get Harry to email that out too.
Ans> Unfortunately, no. We have to have some reasons as to why people might
want to buy our products.
Q8> >Anyhow a glance at the new rules tells me we've got plenty of milage
for
>Wiflist topics.........
Ans> Oh well, it is not a complete waste then.
Q8b> >I'll use the new US entry and units but think I'll give the leaders a
miss
>for a while. It looks like they (the leaders) could quite easily hijack
the
>game.
Ans> I suggest you try it before rejecting it out of hand. I designed the
kit to provide spice without unbalancing the game (if anything it is
slightly pro-Allied, both in the number of leaders and the number of vetoes
you get).
Q8c>I'm wondering already if this might be another lemon like DODII?
Ans> There is one way to find out.
Q8d> >Adding 122+ rules to a game already this complex is alot to ask of
the game
>system.
>
>comments??
Ans> Plenty. Each rule is simple, and you only have to worry about the
leaders that you have on the map.
Q9> As far as LiF goes, I tend to agree with you that it looks like it may
be a
lemon. My WiFCon team has already agreed with me not to play LiF at WifCon
this year because I estimated that doing so would add 18 hours to the game
time, figured at 1/2 hour per turn, 15 minutes for each side.
Ans> Well this is just wrong, which you will quickly discover if you play
for as little as 2 minutes, as that is how long the veto reinforcement
system adds to each turn (or 72 minutes in total).
Q9b> My teammates
agreed that my extra time estimate was reasonable considering that we are
not familiar with the LiF rules or abilities, and that the LiF rules are
not
particularly well written and it looks like we will waste a lot of time at
the tournament getting rulings on various things. Even if we were
completely familiar with LiF I still think it would add another 9 hours to
playing time at 15 minutes per turn and I think I am being conservative
here - it could take more than that.
Ans> give or take 8 hours.
Q9c> While I have been told by one of the playtesters that playing LiF is a
lot
of fun, philisophically I have to ask why LiF was designed.
Ans> Pls read the Designer's notes. It adds spice and gives leaders their
historical importance. I believe Zhukov, Rommel, Ike etc. had profound
impacts on the war. LiF provides some of this historicity.
Q9d> Every other
module with the possible exception of DOD II (which I have never played)
has
definitely improved World in Flames in terms of realism or playablility.
LiF certainly doesn't improve the playability
Ans> How do you know? You've never played it.
Q9e> and as far as realism goes,
LiF looks to me like 1) a bunch of magical abilities?
Ans> Which ones?
Q9f> and 2) that it
introduces more critical luck. Harry likes to claim how he is going around
eliminating critical luck with each new set of rules and charts. I would
like him to see the same claim made here.
Ans> Leaders in Flames reduces critical luck. Each effect is not dramatic,
and every country has leaders that give them benefits.
Q9g> Although I have not yet played
LiF, it looks to my like only few misfires on the voting system, and/or
having one side drawing better leaders than the other (especially if the
Germans get some good ones early) and the other side will be in deep
trouble. I think your comment about LiF hijacking the game is well put.
Ans> Not one person who has actually played LiF has made this charge. It
affects the game, but we were always aware not to make the abilities too
powerful, and cut them back where necessary.
Q9h> I hope some tables at the tournament use LiF so I can see it being
played,
but I don't want to be the one to debug it.
Ans> No worries.
Q9i> I will use the extra counters
for now and wait for at least the LiF Gold Edition before I bother to play
it.
Ans> Oh well, I am glad to see that at least some of the counters we gave
you were not a complete waste of time.
Q9j> Now I shall don my flame retardant suit.
Ans> Now why do you think you might need that Jeff? I thought your post was
one of your more temperate e-mails (should I put mine on now:-)).
Now, a brief run-down of the latest WiF products.
WiF Deluxe Rulebook & Charts set ~ All the rules scenarios, player's and
designer's notes, etc., for WiF Final and its kits, all consolidated into
one easy-to-access rulebook. Only the standard rules are needed to play
Classic WiF. With the addition of the optional rules, the complete world of
WiF becomes available. Also includes a production-circle, 1 combat chart,
and 3 builds charts.
Classic WiF ~ 1400 counters, 4 x A1 (840 x 594mm) size maps (West & East
Europe, Asia & the Pacific), 1 x A3 (420 x 297mm) map of the Americas, WiF
Deluxe Rulebook & Charts set, an additional combat chart and two 10-sided
dice.
Deluxe WiF ~ 3600 counters, 4 x A1 size (Classic WiF) maps, 1 x A3 map of
the Americas, an African map, a Scandinavia map, WiF Deluxe Rulebook &
Charts set, 2 additional combat charts and two 10-sided dice. Incorporates
SiF, MiF, AsA, AfA, & PiF. This is truly WiF with the lot.
WiF1-5 Deluxe Update kit ~ Classic WiF game without the box or dice. Now
you can update to the latest version of WiF without wasting your kits.
AfA/AsA Update kit (NEW) ~ Contains the Africa and Scandinavian maps
printed to the same graphic quality as WiF Final. It also contains 400
re-printed Africa Aflame and Asia Aflame counters to be fully compatible
with WiF, the Final edition as well as the latest combat chart. You do not
need the original AfA/AsA kits, this kit replaces both.
WiF Classic~Deluxe Update kit (NEW) ~ Contains the Africa and Scandinavian
maps printed to the same graphic quality as WiF Final. It also contains
2200 re-printed Africa Aflame, Asia Aflame, Ships in Flames and Planes in
Flames counters and 1 combat chart to upgrade your WiF Classic to WIF
Deluxe in 1 easy step.
*******************************************
Next, the products we are releasing this year are (in order of release) the
1998 WiF Annual (including Leaders in Flames), America in Flames, 7 Ages
and WiF: The Computer game.
The 1998 WiF Annual is brand new and available now. It contains:
(a) Strategy articles for each major power;
(b) A 1940 ~1945 Campaign Scenario;
(c) WiF:FE after-action replay (ADG (Aust) vs the Gamekeeper (USA) at last
year's World in Flames World Championships);
(d) The 1997 WiF World Championship report;
(e) an optional expansion to the US entry system;
(f) All the latest errata;
(g) numerous historical and general strategy articles; and
(h) Leaders in Flames, 140 counters which includes:
1. Leaders in Flames optional units, including all the great leaders of the
war;
2. More late war kit for all major powers (esp. France and Italy);
3. New minor country units (e.g. the Finnish Vainamoinen and Dutch Subs);
4. the Russian Guards Banner Armies; and
5. those 17 pesky German a/c.
The next product we will be releasing is America in Flames. Here is the
blurb from the back of the box to give you some idea of what it is about:
********************************************
It is 1945. The iron fist of Fascism lies sprawled across the Globe. Asia
and Europe are in ashes, their beautiful cities destroyed. You are all that
stands between Democracy and darkness. And they are coming........
You are not totally defenceless, and your scientists are feverishly
developing a weapon of unimaginable power. Can you defend the Western
Hemisphere or at least the land of the free and the home of the brave long
enough to give your scientists that precious commodity they need most,
time. The fate of the free world is in your hands.
America in Flames is a complete game. It allows 2-5 players to fight for
control of the Americas. Germany, Italy and Japan must attempt the largest
invasion in history. Pitted against them are the USA and the remnants of
the Commonwealth, both desperately attempting to turn back the swelling
tide of fascism.
The theatre of action is North and South America, and one of your many
tasks is to woo the neutral minor countries onto your side to help
overthrow the enemy. 840 counters and 2 large maps give you everything you
need to re-fight the greatest war that never happened. Can you save the
World?
********************************************
America in Flames consists of 2 Maps, 840 counters, one Rulebook, 2 combat
charts, 1 production Circle and 2 x 10-sided dice. It is expected to be
released at WiFCon in August this year. It's recommended retail price is
US$55 for US/Canadian residents and Australian$100 for other residents.
We are pleased to announce a special pre-publication mail-order price for
America in Flames of US$45 for US Residents (or only US$40 if you are a LoC
subscriber) or Australian$82.50 for other residents (or only Australian$75
for LoC subscribers) PROVIDED you purchase AiF before July 31, 1998.
If you already have WiF:FE, we also offer the America in Flames Update Kit
which gives you everything that America in Flames has, except for the box,
the dice and the standard WiF:Final rules (it will include a special rule
supplement that adds the America in Flames rules not covered by the
standard rules).
The pre-publication price of the America in Flames Update kit is US$40 for
US/Canadian residents (and only US$35 if you are a LoC subscriber) or
Australian$75 for other residents (or only Australian$65 for LoC
subscribers) PROVIDED you purchase the AiF Update kit before July 31, 1998.
********************************************************
And now, some of our other upcoming products:
7 Ages: 6000 years of Human History is Australian Design Group's most
ambitious project. 7 Ages is the first game ever to include over 100
civilisations spanning the history of humanity.
You control the fate of the world in your hands. Can your civilisations,
through religious, scientific and cultural progress, dominate the world so
that you become the most glorious ruler of all.
7 Ages comes with 2 x A1 maps, 700+ 5/8" counters, 200 x 1/2" counters and
144 cards.
WiF: The Computer game is World in Flames Final on the computer. The entire
world is represented on the European scale on a wrap-around map of the
world. At 360 x 195 hexes, this is the largest computer wargame ever
produced.
For those who play WiF Final, this game will be very familiar and will
require minimal time to get into. It will be playable hot-seat, direct
connection, modem, over the internet and by e-mail.
Now you can play your favourite game anywhere in the world.
Both of these products are expected to be released October this year.
*********************************************
Our current prices (including postage) are:
US/Canadian address (US$) Elsewhere (Aus$)
WiF Classic Game 60 110
WiF Deluxe Game 120 220
WiF Deluxe Rulebook 20 37.50
WiF 1-5 to Deluxe update 55 100
WiF Classic~Deluxe update (NEW!) 80 145
Classic counters (CS 1-6 & 24) 25 45
Deluxe CS (1-9,14,15 & 18-24) 65 120
Final Ed. CS (each) 7 13
Final ed. Maps (5) 25 45
Planes in Flames 25 45
Asia Aflame 20 37.50
Africa Aflame 20 37.50
AfA/AsA Update (NEW!) 30 55
Ships in Flames 30 55
WiF 94/95 Annual (incl. MiF) 20 37.50
WiF 98 Annual (incl. LiF) 25 (newer than new) 45
Fatal Alliances II 25 45
WiF Newsletter sub (4 issues) 30 55
WiF Virtual Newsletter sub 20 37.50
WiF virtual+Annual sub 25 45
Other Games
America in Flames (avail. soon) 55 100
America in Flames Update 45 82.50
Days of Decision II 50 90
World Cup Football 45 82.50
Rub Out 15 27.50
Reduce the prices of each of these products by 25% (except for each LoC
Newsletter subscription) if you are a current subscriber to the World in
Flames Newsletter (yes, you may subscribe and get the 25% reduction
immediately, thus you save US$10 or Australian$17.50 if you buy the WiF
Deluxe and the virtual sub together, rather than just buying the WiF Deluxe
by itself).
*****************************************
The WiF LoC Newsletter keeps you up-to-date with everything to do with
World in Flames. For one year's subscription, you get 3 newsletters of 24
pages each, and one Annual of 64+ pages plus inserts that increase it to a
minimum of 72 pages and 1 countersheet.
Due to the wonders of modern technology, we can now offer two reduced rate
subscriptions called the "Virtual" Sub and the "Virtual + Annual"
Subscription.
For a year's subscription, and regardless of the type you choose, you get
the usual benefits:
* 3 normal issues (24 pages on all aspects of World in Flames, including
designer's and player's notes, new scenarios, after-action-replays
historical info and much more)
* 1 special Annual issue, 72 pages on WiF, a brand new countersheet of WiF
counters and the rules to incorporate them into your next game of WiF; and
* a 25% discount on all normal prices, or 10% off any special deal offered
on all our mail-order ADG games.
The "Virtual" sub will save you US$10 per year. With a virtual sub, you
will be sent the electronic version of the newsletters and Annual instead
of a paper version.
You will also receive an authorisation that will allow you to make 1 copy
of the electronic version of the newsletters and annual for your own use.
You will still of course be sent the Countersheet separately, as we can
hardly expect you to play with virtual counters.
Other benefits of the Virtual sub are:
1) Timeliness - As soon as it is finished being laid out it will be
e-mailed to all virtual subscribers. Thus you will get your version up to 2
weeks before paper subscribers.
2) Complete Subscriber's list - Instead of just your region you can receive
the listing of all subscribers who are listed and thus keep in contact with
opponents around the world.
3) More Colour images - If we have color images you will get them in color
where the printed version may only be in Black & White.
The virtual + Annual sub gives you all the benefits of the virtual sub,
except you get the paper version of the Annual, instead of the electronic
version.
Many LoC subscribers have already signed on as subscribers to the virtual
Line of Communication newsletter. All those who have, should have received
their PDF version by now. If not, pls contact Larry Whalen on
Internet:fmf@pipeline.com.
All of Australian Design Group's products including World in Flames(tm),
the 1998 World in Flames Annual, Leaders in Flames and all its components
are copyright 1985-1998 Australian Design Group. Virtual WiF LoC
subscribers are reminded that it is provided for your personal use only.
Any deletion, alteration, copying, down-loading or placing of this material
on any web-site or server, without the express written permission of
Australian Design Group, is a violation of domestic and international
copyright law.
***********************************************************
If you are interested in any of these products directly from Australian
Design Group, please send a cheque to either:
ADG
PO Box 6253
Los Osos
CA 93412 USA,
or
ADG
25 Quandong St.,
O'Connor
ACT 2602 Australia
The cheque must be in US$ drawn from a US bank or Australian dollars drawn
from an Australian bank. All other cheques will be returned and your order
not accepted, as the cost of collection of any other type of cheque is
about AuD$100 (owning a bank is apparently much more profitable than a game
company).
Alternatively, you may send an e-mail to:
Internet:Aus_Design_Group@compuserve.com giving details of what you would
like to order as well as your M/C or Visa details (no., expiry date and
name on card). All M/C and Visa orders are deducted by DESKTOP COMPUTER
SYSTEMS converted into Australian dollars after placement of order.
If you are worried about the security of the internet, you may fax your
orders to 61 (country code) +2 (area code) 62572048.
Your games will be shipped to you from France, the USA or Australia,
whichever is closer.
Finally, although I am endeavouring to do so, I may not be able to attend
the 1998 WiFCon this year. Not only does Australian Design Group not have
the money available to spend on me jaunting halfway around the world, but
America in Flames will probably be being printed at the time, and I have a
responsibility to you all to get America in Flames released in as timely a
fashion as possible.
It is a shame as I would love to be there, especially since WiFCon is being
held inside the fantastic hotel that Larry has such a great deal on (50%
off). This allows players to just go upstairs for a rest whenever they
want, which dramatically increases the enjoyment of tournaments. I was also
hoping to rope a few of you into a game of America in Flames (I was
expecting to take the full-colour playtest version of AiF with me) as well.
I of course strongly recommend everyone who can go, to go, as last year's
WiFCon was the best convention I have ever attended (for details, pls
contact Larry Whalen on Internet:fmf@pipeline.com). It included some of the
nicest, most mature (emotionally, and sometimes in age) gamers I have ever
met, and I was looking forward to shoot the breeze with you again this
year. I will still try to get there, but If I can't make it, have fun guys
and I will be thinking of you.
I will still be going to Euro WiFCon and Spiel 98 in Europe in October
(Spiel 98 in Essen is financially our most important convention each year
these days, and AiF will be out of my hair by then). If you are interested
in Euro WiFCon which is being held in Kassel, pls contact Harold
Martin-Vignette on INTERNET:Harold.Martin-Vignerte@sifi.daimler-benz.com.
Thank you for your continuing support of our products and I hope you enjoy
Leaders in Flames.
Regards
Harry Rowland
ADG
PS If you want to know why ADG is sometimes less than timely, a small clue
is this e-mail took 3 hours to compose. Now back to AiF.
Reply Reply All Forward Delete Previous Next Close
[A Tip From Hotmail.]
----------------------------------------------------------------
© 1996-1998 Hotmail. All Rights Reserved. [Contact Us|Help]
[Click our Sponsor's banner, with Easy Return to Hotmail.]
Read Message Dictionary
RELATED:
In-Box Thesaurus
Date: 7 Jul 1998 15:06:16 -0000
Reply-To: wif@lists.pipex.com
From: Harry Rowland Save Address Block Sender
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: More clarifications from ADG
Reply Reply All Forward Delete Previous Next Close
Dear WiF Players,
more clarifications:
Q1> A leader can turn face-down only due to ground strike or movement. Are
there
any other possibilities? "Simply using an ability does not require the
leader
to turn face-down."
Ans> Leaders are land units for all purposes except where specified in the
rules. Thus leaders turn face-down when land units do (e.g. participating
in combat).
2) When do you announce the leader abilities used in a combat? HQ support
phase?
Ans> Before combat (see rules).
3) There are no "Res"-marked leaders but there are "Ja"-marked leaders. I
suppose that the sentence "Put those with "Res", "Ge" on their back in the
reserve pool." should be changed a bit.
Ans> Yes.
4) How does the vetoing work? If no-one vetoes the leader will appear (that
is
clear). If an allied leader is drawn and an allied MP vetoes, then the
leader will always appear (regardless of number of vetoes)??
Ans> Correct.
Q4b> If the allies
would not veto and the Axis would veto, the the leader would never appear
(regardless of number of vetoes)??
Ans> Correct.
Q4c> If both veto, then what happens??
Ans> You get the leader.
Q4d> What does
canceling of a veto mean?? Could someone help me here?
Ans> It means the owning side can override the other side's vetoes.
5) Harry: what are the vetoes at start officially? Are they "(Germany ~ 5;
Italy ~ 2; Japan ~ 3; USSR ~ 3; CW ~ 3; France ~ 2; USA ~ 1; and China ~
1)."
Ans> Correct.
5b> You clarified that USSR gets one more after at war with Germany and
then
+1 every year;
Ans> No I didn't. Russia gets 3 while not at war with Germany and 4 when at
war.
Q5c> please make a change to the rules too (LiF RAW v2).
Ans> Why? It is on the chart which you receive as part of the Annual.
Q5d> May I add
the answer to the LiF-rules?
Ans> Sure.
6) "Each major power can only use the black-print abilities of 1 leader of
each rank on each map in any one impulse or stage. " So Manstein can act in
the
WestEuropean map while Rundsted attacks in the EastEuropean?
Ans> Correct.
6) Ability 3: "All ground units in his hex may co-operate with one other
Major
Power when attacking the same hex." Does this allow also the Nationalist
and
Communist chinese to co-operate?
Ans> No.
7) If a leader is on a ship, how is his range calculated?
Ans> He has no range.
7b> Can he choose the
hexdot from where to start the range (frex. DeGaulle raising Partisans in
France with ability 7)?
Ans> No.
8) Ability 21: "Reduce the time taken to produce 1 pilot to 2 turns, for
each
functioning red factory controlled by this major power within range." Does
this
mean that if Dowding is close to 3 red factories, CW can build up to 3
pilots
per turn with reduced time?
Ans> Yes (what else could it possibly mean?).
9) Ability 28: This ability od Rundstedt has a sentence "Turn 2 attacking
corps/armies face-down no matter what the result (including gaining the
benefit
of other abilities, e.g. 40 below)." but Rundstedt does not have ability
40!?!
Ans> So what? Another leader could have something similar that could keep
them face-up. Perhaps e.g. 41 would have caused less confusion though.
10) Ability 31: "-1 to every land combat die within range, defended by 1
German
and 1 Italian corps, and you choose the blitz table." This must be a
defensive
ability. I guess the ability does not apply unless the Italians can/must
choose
the blitz table? So this is an ability to retreat gracefully ;)
Ans> Correct.
11) Ability 58: "Units attacking across a river are not halved." Why does
Rommel have this ability; there weren't many rivers in Africa to cross?
Ans> That's not his fault.
12) Ability 67: "1 INF is treated as a MTN unit for all purposes while
within
range of this leader." When is this determined?
Ans> Any step required.
Can the Chinese player decide
this when determining the odds (effectively stopping the Japanese attack
along the mountain front)?
Ans> Sure, provided that leader is eligible to use its abilities that step
(e.g. he is using his ability on a unit in range while not being attacked
himself).
13) Ability 77: "You may fly offensive ground support missions to any hex
within range of the leader after the defending bombers and escorts have
flown."
Does this happen before the AtA battle is resolved??
Ans> No it is immediately after the escorts have flown.
13b> Or may the new units
freely fly without fear of interception?
Ans> No, they fly after the enemy escorts, the interceptors still get to
fly.
14) Ability 90: "1 aircraft is not turned face down anytime during this
impulse
provided it returns to base within range of this leader." Can the airplane
also
stay face-up if returning to base at the end of the turn?
Ans> No, as that does not occur in an impulse.
Then to other parts of LiF:
15) You answered:
>>> What is the tension/action number for this option (number needed to
roll
>>> to lose/gain a chit)?
>>>
>>On the chart. Maybe you could get Harry to email that out too.
>
> Ans> Unfortunately, no. We have to have some reasons as to why people
might
> want to buy our products.
I don't think that is useful because the information can be passed by email
if
needed. I think the players still need the counters so they have to buy the
annual. Can this information be put on the web pages when I get the charts?
Please, consider allowing this (don't understand me wrong but I think
counters
and maps are the "real" copyright stuff as copying them even for home use
is
too cumbersome).
Ans> The US entry chart is an integral part of the Annual. To compensate
purchasers for their 17 dud German aircraft counters, we provided 140
counters free of charge, as well as the rules required to use most of them.
What you are now asking is that everything to do with the counters be given
away. If this philosophy was followed to its logical conclusion, there
would soon be no more WiF products to place on web-pages.
I feel that this level of support ADG has provided to our customers in this
case is above and beyond the call of duty and far more than most companies
provide. If players want more of ADG's products, we would appreciate an
equivalent show of support in the game that many profess to love.
16) US entry option 12: If you choose this, you _must_ give all
lendleasable
future airplanes as LL-planes to your allies. You get to decide only about
the
ones that are eligible as builds at the moment. Is this correct?
17) US entry options 18&33: "The US rolls once for each major power that
the US
desires to give resources to." I guess this means one _tension_ die roll
per
MP? If a chit is put to the tension pool for CW, can USA roll for France
during
the same turn? If USSR is not at war with Ge at the time, then this option
should be allowed to be chosen multiple times.
17a) BTW, Why is the requirement to use US convoy points different in
options
18 and 33?? I guess also option 33 can be chosen multiple times if there is
an
eligible MP to receive the BPs?
18) Are options 23, 33 and 48 are abolished?
19) Please put in the rules the fact that USA can rebase into Singapore
after
choosing option 32 even if neutral.
20) "US units may now enter, operate and base in Canada." I guess this
means
US units may now enter and draw supply to any hexes in Canada.
21) In entry option 49 the rules refer to militarising the Marshalls but
the
new and revised entry actions replace that with another rule?
22) Can Japan occupy NEI even when USA has oil embargoed Japan?
Ans> The answers to questions 16-22 I have passed on to Larry Whalen as he
has developed the US entry system that comes with the Annual. He will write
the answers directly to the list shortly.
Q23> As always when looking through the rules, the little rules lawyer in
me
>wonders how to maximize/abuse the RAW. Reading ability 25 which allows
>Pretelat to conveniently put some French troops in Belgium in
>preperation for the coming onslaught. It looks to me like Pretelat is
>allowed to leave the units in Belgium and run back to France and get
>some more (of course with a US entry for each stack). This looks to me
>like it isn't intended.
Looks fine to me. Ability 25, LiF reads:
"Units stacked with this leader may enter any neutral minor country
provided Vichy France is not currently installed. Each time they enter a
minor country, roll for US entry. If you roll '3' or less, remove a chit
from the Ge/It Entry Pool and return it to the common pool.
While in the minor country, the units may trace supply through the neutral
hexes as if they controlled them, and may freely move inside the country
(and attack out of it) provided they all move with the leader (you cannot
drop off units during movement)."
Since it says 'each time they enter a minor country, roll for US entry', I
see no reason why the leader need stay with the units in order for them to
be in the minor country. The rule says that the units MAY ENTER, it
doesn't say that they must stay with him, only the later caveat that they
cannot move in the country unless they are with the leader.
Ans> Not quite correct. THe general rules state that you must be stacked
with the leader to gain the benefit unless otherwise stated. Thus you MUST
remain stacked with the units to enter a neutral minor country.
Q23b> Furthermore,
France is acutely short of manpower to cover all necessary hexes in
Belgium, I think they would have to leave either Maginot or Italian border
hexes open to cover much more than one hex in Belgium. If Germany doesn't
DOW Belgium before France has a glut of forces, they are probably asking
for it. Further, the use of Pretelat probably encourages a German DOW on
the Netherlands to get the additional hexes from whcih to attack in the
north. Probably not a bad situation as far as the historical situation is
concerned. Perhaps this isn't what Harry intended, but if Pretelat was
required to stay with the units, I think the ability would say so, instead
it only talks about 'entering' the minor country.
>Then for the next question. Are the French units in Belgium surprised
>when GE dow's Belgium?
Ans> Not unless they are stacked with Belgiques.
Q24> Regarding Balbo's infamous ability 63 (double It Mech and Arm),
I'm troubled: not because I think it's too powerful, but because
I think it's inappropriate to Balbo. I'm curious about Harry's
sources on the italian leaders (perhaps Jack-il Duce?)
After all, who knows? Balbo was killed after 18 days of war...
Ans. Spot on, Balbo is the Jack Greene (almost) memorial counter. He is of
the firm belief that Balbo was THE war winning General for Italy (if
only.....).
Q25> Does occupying Vichy Corsica make Vichy hostile?
Ans> Yes.
Q26> As I am reading, rereading and pondering the Veto voting for
leaders: It
seems that a side only decides how many veto's to spend after veto voting
is revealed. So, Russia and Germany both Veto Rommel, now if Germany spends
two veto's Rommel is placed as a reinforcement. Russian veto being an anti
Rommel vote and the German being a pro Rommel vote, which can get some
power behind it to override the Russian [or any other] veto.
Ans> Not correct. A veto from the other side always costs 1, a veto from
the leader's major power costs 2 and a veto from any other major power on
that side costs 3. Note that ANY veto on the leader's side vetoes ALL
vetoes of the other side.
Q27> >Since WIFFE RAW3 states that you can never scrap a unit which doesn't
have
>a date on the back, GBA units can never be scrapped. (Why any sane Soviet
>player would *ever* want to scrap a GBA is completely beyond me)
>
Ans> Correct & correct (quick, gimme some more of those 2-1's, I'm bored of
the 12-5).
Regards
Harry Rowland
ADG
Reply Reply All Forward Delete Previous Next Close
[Click our Sponsor's banner, with Easy Return to Hotmail.]
----------------------------------------------------------------
© 1996-1998 Hotmail. All Rights Reserved. [Contact Us|Help]
[A Tip From Hotmail.]
Read Message Dictionary
RELATED:
In-Box Thesaurus
Date: 8 Jul 1998 01:22:35 -0000
Reply-To: wif@lists.pipex.com
From: Harry Rowland Save Address Block Sender
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: More clarifications from ADG
Reply Reply All Forward Delete Previous Next Close
Dear WiF Players,
more clarifications:
Q1> Is there anything in the Annual that will deal with the LiF and
USE
changes required to existing scenarios?
Ans> There are no changes. The same US entry options and actions have still
been chosen and you start with 1 leader (of course you can get more at the
start by spending vetoes.
Q2> Oops! Do you mean that sides can't collaborate during the spending of
veto
points. Is this so? If it is, we've certainly pooched our game (both sides
conferred with all their side's allies to determine who would spend what.)
I'd like a clarification before we add the leaders to my other game on
Thursday.
Ans> This is left up to the players discretion. This was because during
play-testing, we found each group vehemantly supported their way of
playing, and was not willing to play another way. Thus we leave that up to
you.
We play that you can table-talk, but it must be open across the table so
that both sides can hear. This is faster than going away and discussing it
amongst your team every turn, and not as cut-throat as no table-talking.
Q3> my understanding is that WiF:FE's (undeniable) discounting of total
USA oil production (far more than all the rest of the world put
together, i think) has been rationalized on the grounds that the USA
domestic economy used far more oil, both absolutely and per capita,
than any other in the period 1935-1945, thereby reducing the amount
available for military purposes. i wasn't convinced, myself, but iirc
that was the explanation. furthermore, someone hinted, i believe,
that the USA fueled merchant ships with oil (rather than the coal
which was abundant in the UK) and therefore needed not only to
send loaded convoys 3,000 miles to the European theater but also
to send with them enough oil that they could refuel and sail back empty.
Ans> This issue periodically pops up and we periodically answer it. The 2
reasons the US oil was discounted was due to:
(a) There was a much higher proportion of the US oil used in the Civilian
economy due to the much laxer rationing restrictions; and
(b) The US used much higher octanes of fuel in their ships and aircraft
which requires more barrels per ton of fuel to produce. As these factors
are included in the US counters, any lowering of this octane would result
in a corresponding reduction in performance.
Whether you accept these arguments or not is completely up to you. It is
your game. If you think the US should have more oil, by all means feel free
to double, triple or multiply their wells by 10 if that fits in better with
your perception of history.
Q4> 1. Shouldn't the P.663 (French large ATR) have a 0 or a (0) in A2A
value ?
He have a *.
Ans> Yes. * = (0).
What happens when he is intercepted and fights ?
Ans> It has 0 value.
Q5> What are the nationalities of the new MIL (the Croat, the Vlad, the
Nanking) ? Are they respectively Croatian, Vladivostokian, Nankinese ?
Ans> Yes. You use them as part of the expanded US Entry System.
Q5b> I mean are do they treat their home city (Zagreb, Vlad, Nanking) as a
primary supply source ?
Ans> No. They are like all other militia.
Q5c> I thought the Manchurian & Korean MIL (Japanese) were supplied by
Harbin &
Seoul and not by a Japanese city. Am I wrong ?
Ans> Yes
Q5d> I would have the same question for the Frank SS MIL. Is it supplied by
Paris
or by any German city ?
Ans> No, it is a normal German unit.
Q5e> I have the same question about the Ost SS MIL. Is it supplied by Kiev
or
by any German city ?
Ans> No, it is a normal German unit.
Q6> Let's assume that Zhukov was picked from the cup.
The Russian player Vetoes him (to guarranty he will come).
The Axis players don't Veto him, because they are sure the Russian has
over-vetoed them.
How much Veto points does it cost the Russian ?
The rules say (LiF 4.1) :
"It costs 1 veto point to veto a neutral minor country leader or leader
from
the other side. It costs 2 veto points to cancel a veto of a leader from
your major power. It costs 3 veto points to cancel a veto of any other
leader on your side."
The Russian didn't cancel a veto (no one vetoed him). So How much does he
pay ? 0 Veto points ? 1 Veto Point ? 2 Veto Point ?
Ans> 2.
Q7> > Ability 4: Wawell is stacked with a CW HQ (since his abilities will
only
> apply to CW units). He now increases the range for this CW HQ to 6
> Hexes. Well, are US unis in supply over that HQ if that HQ needs to use
> the 6 Hexes in order to be in supply? Well, yes, right. Wavell gave his
> benefit to a CW HQ, correct? Well maybe not, since the US troops are
> getting supply only through the Wavell leader and ... This could lead to
> a case where US and CW troops stacked together are partially in supply,
> one yes, one not. Maybe a rule lawyer can fix this immediately, but I`m
> sure that these sort of things will cause lots of discussions in some
> groups.
>
As I understand it:
Units trace to a supply source. Units tracing to Wavell have only
a basic supply length of 4. This ability would allow that HQ only to
have a basic supply length of 6 to trace to another supply source.
So the US & CW units are all in supply if within 4 hexes of Wavell's
HQ and that HQ can trace to a supply source.
Ans> Correct, except for the fact that Wavell is one of those xenophobic
leaders that doesn't like working with Allies (he has ability 1). Thus in
the above case, the CW would be in supply but the US units wouldn't.
Q8> I thought the Zhukov "mistake" was deliberate Stalinist
revisionism. As
Zhukov was quickly removed from sight after the war, you were helping stop
the Cult of Personality! Humor intended, very much so. Thank you for the
leaders BTW, not every game may use them, but I foresee much fun from them.
Ans> It is true that picys of Zhukov after the war are few and far between.
Q9> >> Tricky. Can Germany ground strike or attack such units in a minor
>> country without having to DOW that minor?
>>
>> Glen
>>
>Per section 9 of the rules:
>
>You can't enter a hex controlled by:
>
>* a neutral minor country;
>
> So it appears you cannot attack or ground strike French units in
>Switzerland. But can the French trace supply through Switzerland? I do
>not think so, so the French would be limited to hexes adjacent to
>France.
>
> Brian Frew
This is incorrect. Rule 9.9, Multiple states of war allows units to attack
enemy units regardless of whether they are at war with the controller of
the hex they are in. See my earlier post for the quoted rules.
Ans> You may trace supply through the minor, and you could not attack the
units if there were intervening neutral hexes between the French units and
the attacking units.
Q10> > 7) If a leader is on a ship, how is his range calculated? Can he
choose the
> hexdot from where to start the range (frex. DeGaulle raising Partisans in
> France with ability 7)?
I suppose that when on sea, the leaders can only give "naval" benefits.
In your case, isn`t return to base before partisan phase? Maybe we need
an Harrification that Naval units may not stay at sea while a leader is
on them (idiotic when you have a naval leader)? sounds silly, but it is
stated to treat them just as land units ? so they would be a cargo?
Ans> All correct.
Q11> >If Germany doesn't
> DOW Belgium before France has a glut of forces, they are probably asking
> for it. Further, the use of Pretelat probably encourages a German DOW on
> the Netherlands to get the additional hexes from whcih to attack in the
> north. Probably not a bad situation as far as the historical situation
is
> concerned. Perhaps this isn't what Harry intended, but if Pretelat was
> required to stay with the units, I think the ability would say so,
instead
> it only talks about 'entering' the minor country.
This needs clarification. If the units were allowed to stay behind,
then I don't understand why units can't be dropped off along the way
as P moves.
Ans> While in the neutral, they must remain with pretelat at all times.
Q12> "While in the minor country, the units may trace supply through the
neutral hexes as if they controlled them,..."
This will allow them supply up to the German or Italian border, and they
are able to attack out of Switzerland, but if they advanced into Germany
or Italy would they be out of supply? It does state "While in the minor
country..."
Ans> Yes.
Q13> Are you playing Devil's Advocate again Benjamin or are you serious?
IMHO,
the "(you cannot drop off units during movement).", says that you cannot
leave them there and pick others up. Now I know it says "during
movement", but whether dropping them off in one impulse, or moving them
into a location on one impulse and then the next impulse going back to
get more, would still be dropping units off during that impulse. I think
Harry's intention is to allow one maximally stacked hex to travel into a
minor with Pretelat and no more. I just don't think smuggling the entire
French Army through Switzerland, Belgium or any other minor is what Harry
intended.
Of, course I may be wrong, it wouldn't be the first or last time...
Ans> But not this time.
Q14> >For example, I have no leader for ability 122. Who is the leader with
>ability 122 ?
We noticed the same thing in playtesting -- I think there is no ability122
attached to any leader.
Ans> Please take a closer look at Cunningham. Also, you noticed this during
playtesting but didn't tell us? Well that was useful. Was there anything
else you noticed?
Ans to the Ans> The playtester involved has complained long and loudly
about my brutal wit as he intended to send this mail to me personally
rather than via the list.
I did not mean to single out this playtester personally, which is why I
removed his name from the clarification. I was however trying to make the
point (however clumsily) that to be useful, playtest reports should be sent
to ADG directly before publication rather than to the WiFlist after. I
apologise for any anquish I may have caused.
Regards
Harry Rowland
ADG
Reply Reply All Forward Delete Previous Next Close
[A Tip From Hotmail.]
----------------------------------------------------------------
© 1996-1998 Hotmail. All Rights Reserved. [Contact Us|Help]
[A Tip From Hotmail.]
Read Message Dictionary
RELATED:
In-Box Thesaurus
Date: 9 Jul 1998 08:13:58 -0000
Reply-To: wif@lists.pipex.com
From: Harry Rowland Save Address Block Sender
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: More clarifications from ADG
Reply Reply All Forward Delete Previous Next Close
Dear WiF Players,
more clarifications:
Q1> If i understand correctly Pretelat can't leave the units in a neutral
country. What happens to the units if he is GS and recalled?
Ans> They are placed on the production circle to arrive as reinforcements
in the following turn.
Q2> The rules says:
"If a minor country is aligned by a major power from the other side
while the leader and the units stacked with him are in the country,
remove the units and leader and place them on the production circle
to arrive as a reinforcement in the following turn."
Is Russia "a major power fromn the other side"?
For exampel what happens if Pretelat and troops are brought into the
Baltic states and the country is then aligned by Russia?
Ans> You remove them if any major power you do not co-operate with aligns
the minor.
Q3> >Q7> > Ability 4: Wawell is stacked with a CW HQ (since his abilities
will
>only
>> apply to CW units). He now increases the range for this CW HQ to 6
>> Hexes. Well, are US unis in supply over that HQ if that HQ needs to use
>> the 6 Hexes in order to be in supply? Well, yes, right. Wavell gave his
>> benefit to a CW HQ, correct? Well maybe not, since the US troops are
>> getting supply only through the Wavell leader and ... This could lead
to
>> a case where US and CW troops stacked together are partially in supply,
>> one yes, one not. Maybe a rule lawyer can fix this immediately, but I`m
>> sure that these sort of things will cause lots of discussions in some
>> groups.
>>
>As I understand it:
> Units trace to a supply source. Units tracing to Wavell have only
>a basic supply length of 4. This ability would allow that HQ only to
>have a basic supply length of 6 to trace to another supply source.
>So the US & CW units are all in supply if within 4 hexes of Wavell's
>HQ and that HQ can trace to a supply source.
>
>Ans> Correct, except for the fact that Wavell is one of those xenophobic
>leaders that doesn't like working with Allies (he has ability 1). Thus in
>the above case, the CW would be in supply but the US units wouldn't.
While I understand that the leader can only provide the benefit to units
from his own MP and aligned minors, I don't understand why the US unit
would be out of supply. Ability 4 affects the HQ, not the US unit tracing
to the HQ, so the leader in this case isn't applying his ability to a US
unit at all, but rather to a CW unit (the HQ). The supply range of the US
unit hasn't changed at all, and since supply is traced from unit to the
source, the US unit should be in supply. Wavell is not using his ability
on any US unit in this case.
I agree that Wavell couldn't, however, use ability 4 (or any ability) on a
US HQ.
Ans> I don't agree. By giving the US an effective extra supply range, they
are benefiting from Wavell's ability, even though he is the sort of bluff,
hearty chap who would rather see his Yankee allies starve to death first.
Q4> can a supply unit from the other side walk onto a leader from our side?
Ans> Yes.
Q4b> can a leader from the other side walk onto a supply unit from our
side?
Ans> No.
Q4c> consider the following alternatives:
supply unit is (at war with the leader's country)/(at war
otherwise)/(neutral);
leader is (at war with the supply unit's country)/at war
otherwise)/(neutral);
hex is friendly-controlled/neutral/enemy-controlled.
leader onto leader?
Ans> No.
Q4d> supply unit onto supply unit?
Ans> Yes, if the stack containing the supply unit also has an ARM, MECH or
HQ-A (see 11.11.6 ~ Overrunning Land Units, 4th para.
i estimate that there are some 60 questions folded in above.
Ans> 60? I count 4.
Q5> Reading your posts, the rules and thinking, it appears that the
rules
allow that *if* Pretelat leads troops into a neutral minor country he can
be
attacked. To put it mildly, what a mess for my brain to conceptualize.
i.e..
the Germans [let us say] attacking and fighting French on ground they can
not advance onto, could not otherwise interact with and are not at war
with.
Icke. So be it. But it will be a rare occurrence, especially since knowing
the attack is possible, Pretelat will only move such when he feels ok with
the possible attack. Now, is the any other leader with an ability that
really messes with reality?
Ans> The truth, as they say, is out there.
Q6> >From: Harold
>Martin-Vignerte[SMTP:Harold.Martin-Vignerte@sifi.daimler-benz.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 1998 4:29 AM
>> 6) "Each major power can only use the black-print abilities of 1
>leader of
>> each rank on each map in any one impulse or stage. " So Manstein can
>act
>> in the WestEuropean map while Rundsted attacks in the EastEuropean?
>
>correct
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----------------
>note that we've been assuming that the phrase "on each map" modifies
>"leader", but i now think that it must modify "use"; otherwise the
>example
>(under "Recall") implying that if two leaders on the same side and of
>the
>same rank are both contributing a black-print ability to a battle then
>they
>must be from different countries would be incorrect. so if a leader (on
>
>map "A") near the edge of map "B" wants to contribute a black-print
>ability to an action on map "B" then no leader of the same rank from
>that
>same country can contribute a black-print ability to that action, even
>if he
>is on map "B".
>
Ans> Quite correct.
Q7> > so if there is an enemy land unit in a hex controlled by
> a minor neutral, and the hex is completely surrounded
> by other hexes controlled by minor neutrals, then the
> enemy unit can neither be attacked nor be ground-struck?
Correct.
Ans> Correct
Q8> > A GE should be able to take a comb impulse on demand in a POL 1st
> strategy. This 1) gets SB support into the Baltic, 2) frees the pilot to
> man a FTR, & 3) allows ops over a greater range than a JU52 (For Ex: FIN,
> NET, BEL, other places limited only by cunning and imagination).
You are forgetting that it is also typical of the UK to port attack
the
AMPH/TRS stack(s) on the surprise impulse. We did this and killed the AMPH
and
aborted the TRS, which is the only reason why I (the USSR) did the
invasion.
While it's unlikely to get an 'X', all you need are two aborts on the AMPH
and
TRS and your reinforcement of Copenhagen is completely stopped.
Ans> Which is why we base the German AMPH and TRS in Memel, which is out of
range of those pesky British bombers.
Q9> > Dave,
> Why would ZOC extend into a neutral country, minor or major?
> Looking at 2.2 Zones of control, 4th para "ZoCs don't extend:" (last
bullet):
"into a hex controlled by a major power you are not at war with."
It says nothing about minor countries you are not at war with.
Unless Harry has clarified that a ZoC doesn't extend into a neutral minor
country, then I believe they do.
Ans> Correct.
Q10> While working on other projects, a very serious rules contradiction
came to
light which I think requires immediate attention and change in RAW4.
RAW3 reads as follows:
Rule 18.2, Not co-operating under the heading 'Foreign troop commitments':
"A major power or minor country unit can only end a step in the home
country of
a friendly major power it doesn't co-operate with if:
- it started the step there; or
- it started the step elsewhere and the unit satisfies the foreign
troop commitment limit.
A minor country unit can only end a step in the home country of an aligned
minor country on the same side if:
- it started the step there; or
- it started the step elsewhere and the unit satisfies the foreign
troop commitment limit."
I call attention specifically to the second part of this rule concerning
minor
coutnry units. Note also that the rule is a change from RAW1 which talked
about units 'entering' non-cooperating countries, and was specifically
changed
to read 'end a step in'.
Rule 19.3, Who can enter the minor reads:
"Your units can enter hexes controlled by a minor country if:
- you are at war with it or with the major power that controls it;
or
- it is conquered by you or another active major power on your
side; or
- it is aligned with any active major power on your side and the
unit
entering is an active major power unit; or
- it is aligned with a neutral major power on your side and the
unit
entering is one of that major powers unit; or
- it is aligned with any active major power on your side and the
minor
country unit entering it satisfies the foreign troop commitment rules (see
18.2)."
In this case, I draw your attention to the last provision. This rule talks
only about entering a minor country which is in direct contradiction with
rule
18.2 which talks about ending a step there. This change was made to
prevent
the retreat of a unit stacked with an HQ in such a manner and order that
the
non-HQ unit would be retreated into an illegal hex and destroyed before the
HQ
got there. I think the change needs to be implemented in rule 19.3 as well
Harry, do you have a ruling for this?
Ans> This is not a contradiction. The last section of 19.3 says you can
only enter it in line with 18.2 which says that you can't end the step
there except under certain circumstances.
Q11> There is a rather urgent ruling needed on the issue of Aden.
While Aden is printed on the MAP in the font and typeface for a minor
country according to the TEC (Terrain Effects Chart), it lacks a capital
city.
Should Aden be a minor country or a territory? It is important for
determining the nationality of any notional in Aden, as well as supply
sources for the Adenese TERR.
HR> ADEN is a territory (the city symbol always take precedence over the
size of the font (which is redundant info).
Regards
harry Rowland
ADG
Reply Reply All Forward Delete Previous Next Close
[A Tip From Hotmail.]
----------------------------------------------------------------
© 1996-1998 Hotmail. All Rights Reserved. [Contact Us|Help]
[A Tip From Hotmail.]
Read Message Dictionary
RELATED:
In-Box Thesaurus
Date: 9 Jul 1998 22:11:56 -0000
Reply-To: wif@lists.pipex.com
From: Harry Rowland Save Address Block Sender
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: More clarifications from ADG
Reply Reply All Forward Delete Previous Next Close
Dear WiF Players,
more clarifications:
Q1> And, please Harry, would you make a clear example of each and eveery
possibility happening with the Leader Reinforcement step, with the proper
use
of Vetoes and their cost. I know you did give many explanations but with
so
many messages on the subject I tend to get confused. So a proper and final
ruling and explanation would be greatly appreciated.
Ans> It is really quite simple. Randomly pick a leader. If no one vetoes
him, or if any major power from the same side as the leader vetoes the
leader, the leader arrives as a reinforcement. Note that in this case, a
veto from the same side is not a veto of the leader. It is a veto that will
override any potential enemy veto of that leader.
If no major power on the side of the leader vetoes, and ANY major power on
the other side does veto, the leader is returned to the cup and you pick
again.
To place your veto marker veto side up, you must have at least 1 veto point
if you are a major power on the other side, 2 if you are the major power
controlling the leader, or 3 if any other major power on that side. If you
don't have the veto points, you are considered to have played your veto
marker "no veto" side up, regardless of its facing.
If you do have the points, and your veto marker is veto side up, you must
expend the above points (1-3) REGARDLESS of whether or not ANY other major
power has or has not played their veto marker veto or no veto side up.
Thus, if the owning side is going to override the opposing side's veto,
then they might as well not veto. If they do, any more than one veto from
one side is just a waste of points. A lot of the system relies on you
trying to out-bluff your opponents as to whether you intend to veto or not
veto. If you are better at this than your opponents, you will end up with
more spare veto points to get your own leaders, and veto your opponents.
Q2> I really am loving LiF!!
Originally, I was against using LiF at Origins 98, because I thought it
would take too much time and there would be too many rules problems. But I
am finding LiF just too much fun.
I am really having a great time with it. I think it is a wonderful. I
know
the law of averages would say that Harry should be turning out bad modules,
but it hasn't happened! My hat is off to ADG again.
Why do I like this module so much? First, I think it adds realism. That
is, the game allows leaders to do specific events associated with them
during W.W.II that would be awkward for general rules. Now, with the
inclusion of leaders, these specific instances can be accurately simulated
without changing the general rules. Moreover, it adds 'flavor' to the
countries, making them less generic.
Second, even more important, it is great gaming. The stuff that the
players
can do is really neat. The game is more random, because of the randomness
of the leader process. The other pieces, that can be built by production,
allow the players to tailor specific strategies. The advent of LiF,
however, through some uncertainty together, because it is very difficult
(or
very expensive in Veto points) to get your way.
I think it is rare to have a module that simultaneously makes a game more
realistic and more fun this much! I am even finding it fun even though I
am
living the difficulties of playing it solitaire.
I recognize that it will be frustrating at the beginning, because the
nature
of the module will lead to rules questions, but I think we should sit back
and see the possibilities that are now open.
Harry, if you are there, THANK YOU!
Lif reminds me a bit of the leader expansion to A House Divided. This
reprint really changed the game for the better. It was always fun, but
putting the leaders in allowed the game to simulate the American Civil War
better. The South won the early battles because they go the Lee,
Longstreet, Jackson situation rolling -- but the Union was a killer when
they finally got their leaders on the board. In that game, they had higher
level commanders (Lee and Grant, for instance), and lower level ones.
IIRC,
each higher level commander allowed two of the lower level ones, so Lee got
Jackson and Longstreet, etc.
Bruce Jurin
Ans> Go Bruce, Go. You win customer of the month award (and I don't think
you've even bought anything this month have you, you naughty boy, if not
pls explain in 50 words or less to our customer complaints department (i.e.
our complaints about customers department, we don't have any of the other
sort)).
I'm glad you like LiF. What I love most is when you manage to bluff out
your opponents that you are going to override any veto they try on one of
your leaders, and then get him without haveing to spending vetoes (by not
vetoing him either). Unfortunately, some leaders like Zhukov are so
valuable, you really can't afford not to override.
Q3> As stated in an earlier post we have *always* (within my memory of 10
years
of WiF) played that all information that would be available in a 2 -player
game, should be available in a multiplayer game. I can understand not
doing so in a cut-throat tournament where each player has bid for
individual victory, but prohibiting players from discussing vetoes would
simply lead to just what Morgan says, a series of winks, nudges, ear
scratching, nose rubbing, etc, etc. I think that it makes no sense,
especially in a non-bid game (another constant here for the last 10 years)
to keep the vetoing secret.
Ans> In our games, all nose rubbers are politely asked to leave the room.
Nose rubbing is only allowed on the front steps in polite society.
Regards
Harry Rowland
ADG
Reply Reply All Forward Delete Previous Next Close
[A Tip From Hotmail.]
----------------------------------------------------------------
© 1996-1998 Hotmail. All Rights Reserved. [Contact Us|Help]
[A Tip From Hotmail.]
Read Message Dictionary
RELATED:
In-Box Thesaurus
Date: 11 Jul 1998 01:44:30 -0000
Reply-To: wif@lists.pipex.com
From: Harry Rowland Save Address Block Sender
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: More clarifications from ADG
Reply Reply All Forward Delete Previous Next Close
Dear WiF Players,
Thank you very much for your questions on Leaders in Flames. I have
included the release version in the next e-mail in MacWord RTF format. It
is not encoded and is a text file. It should be readable on a PC or MAC by
starting Word on your machine and then opening the document. It may not
open if you just double-click on the document. It should also be importable
into Word Perfect in the same manner.
Australian Design Group is releasing the Leaders in Flames Rules booklet on
the net free of charge for your personal use only. World in Flames and all
its components and kits, in both its electronic and printed forms, is
Copyright 1985 ~ 1998, Australian Design Group. Permission is hereby
granted to copy these rules electronically for your personal use only,
provided that they are copied in their on-selling, without the express
written permission of Australian Design Group, is a violation of domestic
and international copyright law.
You may also place it on your web-site provided you:
(a) register your Web-site with Australian Design Group (if you have not
already done so). To register, pls send an e-mail to
Aus_Design_Group@compuserve.com stating your name, address, e-mail and web
address; and
(b) Attach the following statement to the rules on your web-site:
"World in Flames and all its components and kits, in both its electronic
and printed forms, is Copyright 1985 ~ 1998, Australian Design Group.
Permission is hereby granted to copy these rules electronically for your
personal use only, provided that they are copied in their entirety
(including this message). Any deletion or alteration or on-selling, without
the express written permission of Australian Design Group, is a violation
of domestic and international copyright law.
Please refer questions and comments to:
Australian Design Group
PO Box 6253
Los Osos, CA 93412 USA, or
wiflames@slonet.org"
Now to some more clarifications,
Q1> > >While I understand that the leader can only provide the benefit to
units
> >from his own MP and aligned minors, I don't understand why the US unit
> >would be out of supply. Ability 4 affects the HQ, not the US
> unit tracing
> >to the HQ, so the leader in this case isn't applying his ability to a US
> >unit at all, but rather to a CW unit (the HQ). The supply range
> of the US
> >unit hasn't changed at all, and since supply is traced from unit to the
> >source, the US unit should be in supply. Wavell is not using his
ability
> >on any US unit in this case.
> >
> >I agree that Wavell couldn't, however, use ability 4 (or any
> ability) on a
> >US HQ.
> >
> >Ans> I don't agree. By giving the US an effective extra supply
> range, they
> >are benefiting from Wavell's ability, even though he is the sort
> of bluff,
> >hearty chap who would rather see his Yankee allies starve to death
first.
>
> So ANY derivative ability from a leader that has a 1, 2 or is an
> Italian or
> minor cannot be extended in any way shape or form to other units? For
> instance, Cunnigham's ability 110 allows him to pick targets in a surface
> action as if it were an air action, but this ability would be invalidated
> if say, any French units were involved in the same combat as CW units?
>
Ans> Correct.
Q2> Bradley gives the ability for MECH and ARM to invade. These types
> > aren't allowed on AMPHIB, so they can invade from TRS? (I assume yes)
>
Ans> In Classic yes, if playing with Amphs, they may only invade from
Amphs. The only time they may stack on Amphs is when they are stacked with
Bradley.
Q3> Eisenhower allows TRS in 4 box to not flip when invading/unloading.
> > Does this apply to AMPHIB also? (I assume yes)
>
Ans> Yes. Amphs are TRSs for all purposes except where otherwise stated.
Q4> > could FR spare a DIV to land in Lisbon with Pretelat the
> impulse before the CW DoWs Portugal?
>
Ans> It doesn't help. Ability 25 now reads:
25 Units stacked with this leader may enter any neutral minor country
provided Vichy France is not currently installed. Each time they enter a
minor country, roll for US entry. If you roll '3' or less, remove a chit
from the Ge/It Entry Pool and return it to the common pool.
While in the minor country, the units may trace supply through the neutral
hexes as if they controlled them, and may freely move inside the country
(and attack out of it). They must remain stacked with the leader while in
the minor country, however.
If the minor country is aligned by a neutral major power or a major power
on the other side while the leader and the units stacked with him are in
the country, remove the units and leader from the map and place them on the
production circle to arrive as a reinforcement in the following turn. You
would aloso place the units on the production circle to arrive as
reinforcements in the following turn if the leader is recalled or killed
while in a neutral minor.
Q5>>That aside, units attacking across a frozen lake hexside treat it as
>river. Are units attacking from a lake hex assumed to be attacking in a
>similar way?
Ans> No.
Q6> Quick question, sorry if this has been covered before, but do face-down
defending leaders provide an additional +1 for the attacker? I don't
see anything in the rules which states otherwise, but this seems a bit
harsh.
Ans> You must be face-up to use your abilities (see LiF 3.2).
Q7> >I'm sort of in charge of clarifications? I thought that was Harry's
job!
Ans> That's funny, so did I?!?
Q8> Harry I have been being on this list since sunday and I notice that
each
days you take time to answer to a large amount of the questions . It's
great
, simply great .
If one day I'll lead a customer service , you'll be THE man I'll refer to .
Here's my question :
Now , what may I do to win the customer of the month award ? :-)
Ans> Well you know what they say, the way to a man's heart is through his
wallet.
Q9> Good point Fred. In the future I will try to delete the frequently
ascerbic
tone of my posts when referring to new ADG products, even if I don't like
them. I will try LiF at some point and I would like to make it clear that
my main problem with LiF is not conceptual as much as it is poorly edited
rules. Poorly edited rules seem to be a staple of ADG products ever since
WiF5 was released.
Ans> This is talking up a product?
Q9b> I have just gotten tired of 8 years worth of work trying
to debug rules, so for LiF I am going to let someone else do the work.
Ans> I will try to relieve you of your heavy burden.
Regards
Harry Rowland
ADG
Reply Reply All Forward Delete Previous Next Close
[A Tip From Hotmail.]
----------------------------------------------------------------
© 1996-1998 Hotmail. All Rights Reserved. [Contact Us|Help]
[A Tip From Hotmail.]
Read Message Dictionary
RELATED:
In-Box Thesaurus
Date: 12 Jul 1998 23:12:50 -0000
Reply-To: wif@lists.pipex.com
From: Harry Rowland Save Address Block Sender
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: More clarifications from ADG
Reply Reply All Forward Delete Previous Next Close
Dear WiF players,
more clarifications:
Q1> > 2) Using GBA's for the USSR, do they "cost" as a causality for
leader
>recall, because they do not have a cost on them, but did come from a unit
>that did have a cost? Icke.
Ans> Yes, you still have had an ARM, MOT or whatever destroyed.
Q2>So, in the case mentioned above, if the Soviets OCCUPY the oil hex(es)
when
the
conquest occurs, they would retain control of those hexes, any others would
come under the control of the CW.
Ans> yes.
Q3> So units in a frozen lake hex, attacking across a lake hexside are not
halved, despite rule 8.2.9 stating that frozen lake hexsides are treated as
a river?
Ans> They would be if it were a laake hexside. A frozen lake hex consists
of a frozen lake hex, not a Frozen lake surrounded by 6 lake hexsides.
Q4> >Q6> Quick question, sorry if this has been covered before, but do
face-down
>defending leaders provide an additional +1 for the attacker? I don't
>see anything in the rules which states otherwise, but this seems a bit
>harsh.
>
>Ans> You must be face-up to use your abilities (see LiF 3.2).
The question, I think, Harry, was asking whether or not a face-down leader
added +1 to the die roll if his stack was being atacked, simply because the
leader is face-down.
Ans> Whoopsie. They do not add +1 to the die-roll.
Q5> Harry, I am still mystified about the situation with foreign troop
commitments.
Case 1: A stack of CW units in Belgium includes an INF and an HQ-I. A
german attack on this stack achieves an 'R' result. The only eligible
retreat path is to a hex in unconquered France and at the time of the land
combat, the foreign troop commitment for CW units in France is not enough
to allow the CW INF to stack in France.
Question 1: Can the Germans retreat the CW units into hexes in France in
such a way that because the foriegn troop commitment is not met and the INF
unit arrives in France before the HQ and is thus destroyed for illegal
stacking?
Ans> No. The German must retreat you so that you don't die if that is
possible.
Case 2: A stack of Rumanian units in Poland includes an INF and an HQ-I.
A Soviet attack on this stack achieves an 'R' result. The only eligible
retrat path is to a hex in German-aligned, unconquered Czechoslovakia, and
at the time of the land combat, the foreign troop commitment for Rumanian
units in Czechoslovakia is not enough to allow the Rumanian INF to stack in
Czechoslovakia.
Question 2: Can the Soviets retreat the Rumanian units into hexes in
Czechoslovakia in such a way that because the foreign troop commitment is
not met and the INF unit arrives in Czechoslovakia before the HQ and is
thus destroyed for illegal stacking?
(Note that in both cases, only the units and the countries involved are
different, but the event is mechanically identical).
Ans> No, see above. Furthermore Czechoslovakia is not an aligned minor so
would not be an issue in any event.
Q6> Just so I've got this straight, under the provisons of 18.2 a MAJOR
POWER
unit can enter the home coutnry of a non-cooperating MP and can end the
step there provided the MP meets the foreign troop commitment, but minor
units cannot do so with non-cooperating minor countries or MP countries as
a consequence no of 18.2 but 19.3??
Ans> No. 19.3 says treat minors in the same way as 18.2 when entering a
minor. 18.2 says you can't end the step in a home country. Thus 18.2
applies to BOTH major powers and minor countries.
Regards
Harry Rowland
ADG.
Reply Reply All Forward Delete Previous Next Close
[A Tip From Hotmail.]
----------------------------------------------------------------
© 1996-1998 Hotmail. All Rights Reserved. [Contact Us|Help]
[A Tip From Hotmail.]
Read Message Dictionary
RELATED:
In-Box Thesaurus
Date: 14 Jul 1998 01:10:18 -0000
Reply-To: wif@lists.pipex.com
From: Harry Rowland Save Address Block Sender
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: More clarifications from ADG
Reply Reply All Forward Delete Previous Next Close
Dear WiF Players,
more clarifications:
Q1> >Question 2: Can the Soviets retreat the Rumanian units into hexes in
>Czechoslovakia in such a way that because the foreign troop commitment is
>not met and the INF unit arrives in Czechoslovakia before the HQ and is
>thus destroyed for illegal stacking?
>
>(Note that in both cases, only the units and the countries involved are
>different, but the event is mechanically identical).
>
>Ans> No, see above. Furthermore Czechoslovakia is not an aligned minor so
>would not be an issue in any event.
>
19.10 states that Austria and East Prussia are part of the German Home
Country. Since Czechoslovakia is clearly a minor country and is not
considered to be part of the German home country by virtue of 19.10, it
must
be either aligned or counquered.
The "Control" paragraph of the scenario instructions sections 23.2.1,
23.3.1, 23.4.1, 23.4.2, 23.4.3, 23.4.4, 23.4.5 all indicate that
Czechoslovakia is an aligned minor. None of the scenario instructions ever
indicate that Czechoslovakia is ever conquered. 23.4.6, which is the
Global
war scenario instructions doesn't mention Czechoslovakia but I assume that
is should be aligned as it is in all of the other scenarios.
Please clarify why Czecholslovakia is not aligned with Germany if I am
missing something.
Ans> Oh alright. Czechoslovakia is considered an aligned minor country in
all respects except that you can't place her units in the German force
pools.
Q1b> Maybe Harry means
Czecholslovakia has the same status as Austria. Isn't it 'annexed?' Feel
free to make up your own term - all I'm interested in is the intent. Can I
do a rebase mission over Czech hexes with a Rumanian (Hungarian, Bulgarian
or other aligned minor) aircraft?
Ans> No.
Q2> > Since artillery bombardement is treated like
> ground strikes, can I reroll the artillery dice in a surprise
> impulse?
Ans> You roll twice, yes.
Q3> Assuming that Leaders are Good for the Axis in '40 - '41 (which I
believe
is true) they have a simple way to assure that they have all their leaders.
Just use all their Veto points to continue leader selection. They get
roughly 10/year (I don't have the charts yet) so that's 23 leaders by
Jan/Feb '40, and that's about how many leaders total. Essentially, they
can assure that every leader is on board bu Summer '40. When '41 starts,
they get 10 more leaders.
If this is indeed a problem, there should be some way to veto leader
continuation. Probably costing 2 Veto points.
Ans> Thanks for picking that up. We had noticed this during play-testing
(it does not guarantee getting all the leaders on the map though, as there
are some recalls) and had fixed it but it got lost in the editing. It has
now been found again and fixed. The 4th last para of 4.1 (the one starting
"Reveal all markers.") should be changed to:
All major powers simultaneously reveal their votes. If no major power has
voted (put their veto marker forward) or any major power has their veto
marker "veto" side-up, go on to normal reinforcement. Otherwise, go back to
step 1. Putting your veto marker forward "no veto" side-up (i.e. you want 1
more leader) costs 1 veto point, putting it forward "veto" side-up costs 2
(not voting at all costs 0).
Regards
Harry Rowland
ADG
Reply Reply All Forward Delete Previous Next Close
[A Tip From Hotmail.]
----------------------------------------------------------------
© 1996-1998 Hotmail. All Rights Reserved. [Contact Us|Help]
(
geocities.com/timessquare/maze) (
geocities.com/timessquare)