From: dxb105@huxley.anu.edu.au (David Bofinger)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: ADG Replies to USENet (Long)
Followup-To: rec.games.board
Date: 17 Dec 1992 09:58:28 GMT
Organization: Australian National University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.203.3.32
Keywords: WIF

More news from the ADG, I've included the last lot of answers I got in the
same file. Everything I say below still applies.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Over the past few months I've been collecting World in Flames questions,
comments and suggestions and doing my best to pass them on to the ADG. It's
taken a lot longer to get a reply than I expected (partly my fault, partly
ADG's, mostly nobody's) but here are some replies I got from Harry Rowlands.

This list was sort-of official up until the stage it reached me, but obviously
ADG is not responsible for any errors in transcription or interpretation since
then. I'll continue to collect WIF questions and I'll pass them on as the
opportunity presents itself. For the sake of brevity, I've condensed the USENET
threads, so my apologies to anyone who feels I scrambled their meaning.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dramatis Personae
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

DB>	David Bofinger, dxb105@phys.anu.edu.au
DB+>	David Bofinger, dxb105@phys.anu.edu.au, some time after DB>
AS>	Avi Solomon, Member of Australian Design Group
HR>	Harry Rowlands, Member of ADG and Co-designer of World in Flames
EH>	Eiji Hirai, hirai@cc.swarthmore.edu
DC>	Dave Casper, casper@vxcrna.cern.ch
CK>	Charles Krueger, cwk@athena.mit.edu
BJ>	Brian Jarvinen, brj@terminator.cc.umich.edu
PD>	Paul Dale, grue@cs.uq.oz.au
CS>	Carl Schnurr, cjs@phy.duke.edu
S?>	Steve ? (seem to have lost this guy's name)
SW>	std_wilson@hg.uleth.ca
RD>	Robert Delwood, robertd@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
EM>	Ethan McKinney, mckiney@athena.mit.edu
PJ>	Paul Jayne, prj@pyuxf.cc.bellmore.com
CB>	Christian Beijner, d88-cbr@dront.nada.kth.se
EE>	Edward E. Ericson III, writing in Canadian Wargamers' Journal and
	reported by Carl Schnurr.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
EH>	Russia is at war with Germany, Germany has declared war on Persia
	Commonwealth assumes control of Persia. Russians occupy Tehran.
	Commonwealth surrenders Persia to Germany. Russia liberates Persia
	(since it occupies Tehran). Effectively, the rule prohibiting transfer
	of minors between allies has been circumvented. Is this legal?
HR>	You can't surrender any more in 5th edition so the question is moot.
DB>	Why can't you transfer minors, anyway?
AS>	So Italy doesn't give it's minors to Germany before it is conquered,
	for instance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
EH>	Germany occupies Paris. France coups Spain. Germany installs Vichy
	France. Is Spain aligned with the allies or the axis?
HR>	Axis. Rule 16.1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
EH>	Why does the partisans table have an entry for the USA?
S?>	I'd love to see the play test that made Harry think he needed it.
EH>	How about replacing it with one of {Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Morocco,
	Formosa, Hainan, Malaya, New Caledonia}? We chose Morocco.
DB>	I think Czechoslovakia would be better, and if you don't believe me ask
	Reinhard Heydrich about it.
HR>	Changed in errata.
DB>	Why not make partisans active before conquest, as well as after?
HR>	Correct.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
EH>	Under some circumstances the Russians are excused from gearing
	restrictions. The rules say "on the turn that Germany or Italy declares
	war on it", the scenarios say "on the turn of war between Germany and
	Russia". Which is right?
HR>	The scenario is a subset of the rules.
DB>	I take this to mean that the scenario is wrong and the rules right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
EH>	Can Russia assume control of the Baltic states, and declare war on
	Germany in the same turn?
HR>	No. Not sequential.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DB>	How about these rules for pilot casualties. Change some of the AX and
	DX results on the air combat table to AD and DD (damaged). A damaged
	aircraft is placed in the repair pool and can be rebuilt somewhat
	cheaper and much faster than a dead one. It represents pilots without
	planes, in the same way that "damaged" CVs represent carriers without
	planes.
HR>	(a large tick)
DB>	What's this tick mean, Avi? That he was intending something like this
	anyway?
AS>	Probably that you can play this variant if you want to.
HR>	See Planes in Flames, the new Supergame from ADG.
DB>	Planes in Flames? Pronounced "Piffle", no doubt?
AS>	It's a gamette, an expansion for WIF.
DB>	Still sounds like a bit of a rip-off to me. Ought to be in the standard
	rules.
DB+>	I still think a simple set of pilot casualties rules could be added
	to WiF, since many of us don't own/use the PiF extension, which is far
	more complex than I intended.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DB>	Of course, this is only half what you need for the Battle of Britain.
	You also need to be able to kill aircraft on the ground.
HR>	See "carpet bombing" in PIF.
DB>	"Carpet bombing"? Doesn't _sound_ like a method of killing airbases...
DB+>	And indeed it isn't a method of killing fighters, because they fly
	away and fight one round of air combat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DB>	How about being able to intercept bombers en route to their target
	rather than over it? It's a pain having Strategic bombers overfly your
	fighters to reach Prague or somewhere.
HR>	See "optional interception" in PIF.
DB+>	Didn't happen.
HR>	We decided it slowed play too much.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DC>	Can a DoW on a major power lapse?
HR>	No. Minors only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BJ>	If the Netherlands is axis influenced, can Germany lend resources to
	Japan from it before they are at war with the same major power?
HR>	Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BJ>	If the Netherlands is pro-axis or controlled, when can the Japanese
	enter the NEI?
HR>	After it has joined the axis side.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BJ>	Can the US apply pressure on a German-controlled NEI to stop the oil
	flow to Japan?
HR>	No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BJ>	If Japan plays Axis option 3, (trade links to Europe, 1 NEI resource to
	Japan each turn) can the US force an embargo of this?
HR>	Yes, if it's not on the axis side.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BJ>	When can Japan only get 2 resource from the NEI, and when can they get
	all 7?
HR>	Changes when Japan at war with US.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BJ>	If the Netherlands is pro-allied, when can the CW start militarizing
	the NEI and at what US entry cost?
HR>	No special changes, the usual cost on the US entry option table.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BJ>	What if the NEI is in the axis camp, can they do it then?
HR>	No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PD>	If a country does national effort (e.g. France) and is conquered, then
	liberated, is it still under national effort?
HR>	No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DB>	Shouldn't a power be able to stop a national effort eventually? Or must
	it last a thousand years?
HR>	Yes, when you have won the game you can stop the national effort.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS>	(quoting "the magazine", Canadian Wargamer's Journal?) 11.5.2, new US
	entry modifier, -(year dependent number) for each unmodofied 6 rolled
	by the Japanese in land combat.
EH>	Shouldn't this be + rather than -?
CS>	Says - in the magazine.
AS>	I don't believe this rule is official. Chinese gearing does go up after
	the first 6 according to some rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
EE>	Coup cells in Turkey and Spain are too powerful/unbalancing
	/anhistorical. Treat Spain and Turkey like Sweden and Switzerland.
HR>	New rules for coup setup in the WiF annual.
EE>	US enters the war too early on the average.
HR>	I have also heard the opposite.
EE>	No provision for the US entering in only one theatre.
HR>	Maybe require US entry to reach 20 before it can DoW Germany.
DB>	Big change. Also, since the Germans can't be relied on to DoW the USA
	as they did historically, not likely to lead to "Germany first"
	policies. Might lead to some interesting games though.
EE>	How about two numbers (Europe and Pacific) for US entry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SW>	If Poland doesn't go down first turn (unlikely but possible) Germany
	may find it doesn't satisfy the garrison requirements on the Eastern
	front. Russia DoWs Germany, game over.
HR>	So leave something on the East Prussian : Russian border.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RD>	In a recent game, the Italian navy left the med while neutral and
	rebased into Japanese-controlled ports.
HR>	Not possible, cooperation.
RD>	They DoWed NEI and conquered it, then sent the RPs to Japan on
	Japanese CONVs.
HR>	There is new errata on MPs with the same status.
HR>	If the Italians can get there on ports they conquered themselves the
	loss of the NEI is the CW's least problem.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EM>	If the Chinese play their surrender option prior to General War, do
	all Japanese-controlled hexes outside Occupied China revert to China?
HR>	Yes, but Japan gets all of Occupied China. When Japan and the USA are
	at war, garrison requirement for China drops to >1:1.
AS>	China still gets off too lightly. Make them pay resource points each
	turn as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EM>	In WiF ed.5, the US and CW get an escort bonus in J/F 43 which
	improves in J/F 44.
HR>	Represents hundreds of CVEs.
EM>	If you are playing DoD, when does this come?
HR>	Second (third for +2) J/F after Japan at war with US.
DB>	So Pearl Harbour was _lousy_ timing. :-)
EM>	If France is still in the war at this time, does it get the bonus?
HR>	No, they weren't into building CVEs.
DB>	They might have been if they'd still been there in '43. Note that
	Russia doesn't get the bonus though, suggesting it should only be
	given to countries that can cooperate with the US/CW.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EM>	US CVs cost 8 BPs until the appropriate entry option is chosen. Is
	this the case even for required builds?
HR>	Yes.
EM>	The Chinese can't build aircraft until the US choose option 1. But
	there are several Chinese ACs in the 1936 force pool that represent
	Russian models. Can you build those?
HR>	Yes.
EM>	If Russia has been offered a Russo-German Pact but not yet accepted
	or declined, may they all-out DoW Rumania/Poland?
HR>	Yes.
EM>	And accept the pact?
HR>	Yes.
EM>	Could Germany react to this by playing the "war with Russia" card?
	(Remember there's a pact outstanding.)
HR>	No.
DB>	Being Joe Stalin means never having to say "I'm sorry".
EM>	And retain control of Poland/Rumania?
HR>	No.
DB>	I knew there was a catch.
EM>	What is the status of Poland and Rumania after this?
HR>	They are German controlled.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PJ>	The cost for couping Poland is given in the rules, but since Germany
	has to DoW Poland before the first coup phase this doesn't work. Does
	this rule only apply in DoD/Wif games?
HR>	No. This is the rule.
DB>	Anyone understand that reply? I like Paul's theory myself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PJ>	Can the CW DoW NEI ...
DB>	I love these acronyms. :-)
HR>	Yes.
PJ>	Or does this count as "militarisation" for US entry purposes.
HR>	Yes.
DB>	I take this to mean you have to pay the US entry cost for
	militarisation when you actually do the invasion (which may be after
	you DoW).
PJ>	Can you coup a Pacific map minor? DoD says you can only coup minors on
	the same map, vanilla WiF has no such restriction.
HR>	Yes. The restriction applies if you are playing DoD.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PJ>	Does the new rule for rounding replace the old one? e.g. Suppose the
	CW is invading Italy with two 8-factor INF.
HR>	Yes. 16/3=5. 16/3 (INF) + 16/3 (air) + 16/3 (shore bombardment) = 16.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PJ>	What are French made-in-USA planes for? Are they available initially?
HR>	The back of the counter tells you when they are available. Note that
	the French can build these planes for themselves, the US doesn't have
	to lend-lease them.
PJ>	Only one A-bomb and one V-2?
HR>	Yes. Extra counter sheets are available for US$25+postage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PJ>	Western Samoa is mixed up.
DB>	And Kuwait, and Stockholm, and Sakhalin.
HR>	Blame Greg!
DB>	Can't possibly talk you into using a sensible projection can I?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EM>	Take away the supply source status of the capitals of Kenya, Sudan,
	Italian East Africa, etc. Armies in those places were heavily
	dependent on overseas supply.
HR>	Actually Ethiopia and Kenya were completely self-sufficient with very
	large garrisons.
DB>	Anyone able to settle this argument? I vaguely remember the Italians
	were pretty desperately short of fresh water in Ethiopia but were
	fairly OK otherwise. Or was it the other way around... :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EM>	Offensive chits cost a lot because they are useful after General war
	breaks out. But that makes them too expensive to use beforehand.
HR>	Pay the pre-General War cost and pay to upgrade them when war comes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RD>	When using the optional factory destruction rule, do the French, when
	liberated,  still get back factories destroyed by the Germans? Can
	they lose factories the Germans didn't destroy?
HR>	Yes to both questions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RD>	What happens to forts when captured? Do they function all game?
HR>	Yes, unless you want the bookwork.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EM>	Damaged naval units should die if isolated.
HR>	As you prefer.
DB>	I think they should have to limp back to port while being harrassed by
	the enemy.
RD>	Usually the system encourages you to have a mixed fleet. But sometimes
	it can be an advantage not to have any HS.
HR>	So what? You don't want to buy HS you don't have to.
DB>	Problem is everyone knows carriers are better value for money, so they
	tend to buy them. One of my heretical beliefs is that there is no need
	to distinguish between CVs and BBs because in grand strategic terms
	they are almost identical. They are both surface units that take a
	long time to build, are good at sinking other ships and bombarding
	coastlines, and don't like meeting subs or aircraft too much. The
	major difference is that carriers are just better at everything.
HR>	If you don't buy HS I'll sink your weedy LS fleets every game.
DB>	Carriers are trickier though. :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CB>	(A series of questions on Fatal Alliances)
HR>	(The answers, in order, are "NO", "What the hell does this mean?" and
	"Oh, is this Fatal Alliances? If so, contact CWG, Keith Martens,
	Phone 1+(403)2666260." All the rest are left unanswered. :-))
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CB>	How do you abort a V-weapon?
HR>	Aborts kill V-weapons.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Bofinger	AARNet:	dxb105@phys.anu.edu.au
                Snail:	Dept. of Theoretical Physics, RSPhysSE, ANU, ACT, 2601
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The greatest fallacy is that the game is first and last about winning. It is
 nothing of the kind; it is about doing things in style, with a flourish, about
 going out and beating the other lot, not waiting for them to die of boredom."
							-- Danny Blanchflower