Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Japan's Home Country

Expand Messages
  • paulderynck
    I didn t mean the sea zone indicator makes things part of the home country. I meant that it substitutes for marking control by that country hex by hex. After
    Message 1 of 50 , Aug 31, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I didn't mean the sea zone indicator makes things part of the home
      country. I meant that it substitutes for marking control by that
      country hex by hex.

      After that, you have the Marine walking rule and the named territory
      rule left to confuse things.

      --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "lbinflorida42"
      <lbinflorida42@...> wrote:
      >
      > I did not respond to Patrice because I did not have the latest maps
      > home and wanted to check but I don't think there is a (JA) under the
      > Ryuku or Kurile Islands either; moreover, the arguement about the
      > control indicator in the seazone doesn't make sense to me. Borneo
      > is entirely within the South China Sea and has (NEI) written under
      > Borneo and the South China Sea has an NEI control indicator. I
      > really do not believe that a seazone control indicator makes
      > everything in the seazone part of a home country. I can think of
      > nothining in the rules to indicate that.
      >
      > I can readily believe that the Ryuku and Kurile islands are meant to
      > be part of the home country of Japan. However, and I think Patrice
      > agreed, there really is nothing in the rules to indicate this and
      > every reason to believe otherwise.
      >
      > Lane
      >
      >
      > --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "paulderynck" <pderynck@>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > > My map (1996) has no JA control marked for the Ryukus and Kuriles
      > > other than the "JA" in the sea zones. Perhaps this extends to why
      > so
      > > many of the NEI hexes are marked individually - because they touch
      > > upon sea zones that are not default NEI control and/or they are on
      > > islands that are split control with the CW, such as Borneo and
      > Dutch
      > > New Guinea. See also hex 1220 in the Bay of Bengal which is in an
      > > otherwise CW controlled sea zone.
      > >
      > > If the sea zone control indication means there is a default "JA"
      > under
      > > the Ryukus and Kuriles, then IMO this supports an argument that
      > they
      > > must be part of the JA HC, just as all of the NEI possessions are
      > part
      > > of the NEI HC.
      > >
      > > --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "Patrice Forno" <froonp@>
      > wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Hello,
      > > >
      > > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > > From: "lbinflorida42" <lbinflorida42@>
      > > > To: <wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com>
      > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 8:33 AM
      > > > Subject: [wifdiscussion] Re: Japan's Home Country
      > >
      > > > > RAW in 2.5 says things are either HC or territories. I do not
      > see
      > > > > how it's possible for a territory to be part of a HC without
      > either
      > > > > an exception (Sicily) or a control label under the named
      > territory
      > > > > label (Sumatra, etc.) What mechanism within the rules allows
      > the
      > > > > Ryuku or Kurile islands do be anything but named territories?
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > > The control label, the Ryuku and Kurile both have it. Sicily
      > too, so
      > > there
      > > > would be no need of making it an exception in the rule.
      > Technicaly
      > > all those
      > > > would be Territories, but as they are adjacent to a Home Country,
      > > they are
      > > > part of this Home Country.
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • zpmu061
      the stuff from patrices website cited by paul are ammendments to the maps. its a free comparison for all those who do not own the 2004 maps but want to play
      Message 50 of 50 , Sep 4, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        the stuff from patrices website cited by paul are ammendments to the
        maps. its a free comparison for all those who do not own the 2004
        maps but want to play with the latest status.

        so essentially, before you start a game, you have to agree on the
        maps you play with, frex there was a time you had to agree on
        status american minimap, which is of course was much more critical
        due to the resoruces/factories.

        if you agree to play with the 2004 maps, then you can look at your
        own 2004 maps for the (small) differences. as an alternative, even
        if you do not own the maps, you can reference patrices website as
        guideline.

        sometimes major changes are addeed to adg site as errata, frex
        originally rostov was not a city, then erratecised and then when
        reprinted marked so on the maps. obviously maps are seldomly
        reprinted due to large batch and high cost.

        as far as i know, everytime they were reprinted, changes were added.

        i'm not 100% sure why you state that the 2004 maps contradict raw,
        but i hope they don't.

        needless to say, the way patrice describes the changes has no
        bearing on raw or maps. he could for example mispell astrakahn. that
        wouldn't mean, that the city would have a new name and thus the mil
        would not be able to reinforce there.

        harold

        --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "lbinflorida42"
        <lbinflorida42@...> wrote:
        >
        > There's a FAQ list out there too. Your citation does not appear
        to
        > be official but if it were then it conflicts with RAW.
        >
        > I am perfectly willing to believe that the Ryuku and Kurile are
        > intended to be part of Japan, as well as the defender not taking
        > required losses, 2217 being CW, etc. The point however, is that
        the
        > rules do not say that.
        >
        > The standard of understanding the game can not be I found it off
        > somebody's website and it might be official, or Harry once said
        such
        > and such three years ago according to somebody else, or frankly
        > anything but the rules and any other thing officially released by
        > ADG and widely available so Joe Newbie who buys the game and takes
        > it home can understand what the rules mean so he can understand
        and
        > enjoy the game. Some people call this customer satisfaction and
        > seem to think it has something to do with long term corporate
        > profits and market share.
        >
        > All this aside if your citation ever came from ADG the portions of
        > RAW I cited below (1-3) are from RAW Aug 04 and according to that
        > those Islands are named territories and not part of Japan and
        > nothing anyone has yet cited from RAW contradicts that in any way
        > whatsoever. If ADG wants those islands part of Japan all it need
        do
        > is say so somewhere in the rules. Given there is 1 exception
        within
        > the body of the rules clearly stated it seems clear there are no
        > others within the rules and the only on map exception is clearly
        > marked (NEI). Holding up 1 example, however valid or invalid,
        does
        > not refute seperate and redundant portions of RAW.
        >
        > Lane
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "paulderynck" <pderynck@>
        > wrote:
        > >
        > > I would like to bring to your attention the documents that are
        > linked
        > > to the ADG site but are sourced off of Patrice's web pages. They
        > bear
        > > an ADG copyright notice which admittedly may only be there to
        > ensure
        > > ADG's original intellectual property is acknowledged.
        > >
        > > On the one referenced as "See here for the listing of differences
        > > between the © 1996 (original) WiF FE Maps and the © 2000 ones
        > released
        > > in PatiF, and the new ones © 2004 reprinted in 2004", the
        following
        > > info is provided:
        > >
        > > -"Added a border between Formosa and Japan (hex 3130)". Note it
        > says
        > > between Formosa and Japan, not between Formosa and the Ryukus
        > territory.
        > >
        > > -"Added (Ja) to Kurile Islands for normal WiF FE games". Draw
        your
        > own
        > > conclusion.
        > >
        > > This is the same document that mentions items that appear from
        > > postings in this group to be accepted by many players, FREX: the
        > > increased partisan values, the rail line linking Astrakan to
        Baku,
        > and
        > > Aden becoming a minor country.
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "lbinflorida42"
        > > <lbinflorida42@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Not only do you wish to make unclear in the rules what
        actually
        > is
        > > > clear but you further wish to make my clear argument unclear.
        > > >
        > > > I stated repeatedly the only exception in the rules was Sicily
        > which
        > > > is a fact. The map also makes an exception by including the
        > named
        > > > territories of Sumatra and Borneo within the minor country of
        > NEI by
        > > > putting an NEI control indicator under the name.
        > > >
        > > > I never "accepted" the seazone indicators were germaine to
        this
        > and
        > > > was attempting to clarify the map.
        > > >
        > > > In any case I will restate the case that except for Sicily, as
        > > > stated in the rules, and parts of the NEI as shown on the map
        > that I
        > > > am unaware of any other exception and that to my knowledge
        > nobody
        > > > has mentioned any; however, exceptions are just that
        exceptions
        > and
        > > > thus help to prove the rule they except.
        > > >
        > > > If there is a single named territory that is not actually a
        > > > territory I am totally unaware of it.
        > > >
        > > > You may maintain the rules are not clear all you wish and may
        > rely
        > > > on CWiF too. CWiF is not WiF. The only legal authority for
        WiF
        > is
        > > > the rules and charts. If they are not clear they should be
        made
        > > > clear and if they are clear then there should not be an effort
        > to
        > > > make them unclear.
        > > >
        > > > Finally exactly where in the rules or charts does it mention
        how
        > a
        > > > named territory can be part of a home country, other than by
        > > > specific exception when 1) 2.5 clearly states something is
        > EITHER a
        > > > HC or territory 2) 2.5 clearly states when crossing a sea
        > hexside a
        > > > hex can NOT be part of a HC if that hex does not have to cross
        > an
        > > > all sea hexside to be within the HC or "named" (in italics)
        > > > territory 3) 2.1 says the TEC is the controlling authority on
        > > > terrain and the TEC clearly defines what a named territory is
        > > > consistent with the wording in 2.5?
        > > >
        > > > If the Ryuku and Kurile Islands are not named territories then
        > > > somebody needs to say why. By the rules it's crystal clear
        and
        > by
        > > > the TEC. It's redundantly clear. If either named territory
        was
        > > > part of the home country of Japan some exception would have to
        > > > exist. What is that exception? Where is it in the rules,
        > within a
        > > > chart, or on the map?
        > > >
        > > > Lane
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "paulderynck"
        <pderynck@>
        > > > wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > > They just aren't as clear as you make out.
        > > > >
        > > > > You started early in the thread claiming Sicily as the one
        and
        > only
        > > > > exception. Many more were identified, which you now
        > acknowledge by
        > > > the
        > > > > reference to NEI. If you accept the possibility (only a
        > > > possibility)
        > > > > that the default control indicators in the China Sea and Sea
        > of
        > > > Japan
        > > > > are equivalent to putting a bracketed (JA) underneath the
        > Kuriles
        > > > and
        > > > > Ryukus, then they become no different then Borneo, Sakalin,
        > etc.
        > > > >
        > > > > It appears possible that not all "named territories" are
        > > > territories,
        > > > > some may just be geographical references. Below the three
        > > > paragraphs
        > > > > you cited, is the definition of both unnamed and named
        > territories.
        > > > > Unfortunately the status of the Kuriles and Ryukus is left
        > > > ambiguous
        > > > > by the two sub-points of that definition.
        > > > >
        > > > > You would like an absolutely clear RAW-supported answer. I
        > > > maintain it
        > > > > isn't there and you must settle things hopefully pre-game-
        > start
        > > > with
        > > > > the other players. When the HC issue with the Ryukus and
        > Kuriles
        > > > came
        > > > > up during our game in-progress awhile back, we reached the
        > > > conclusion
        > > > > that RAW was ambiguous and decided to let CWiF decide. It
        > shows
        > > > them
        > > > > as part of Japan.
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "lbinflorida42"
        > > > > <lbinflorida42@> wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Exactly how a named territory can possibly ever be part of
        a
        > HC
        > > > > > without some kind of exception (either specific in the
        rules
        > > > like
        > > > > > Sicily or specific with a control indicator under the
        named
        > > > > > territory like Sumatra and Borneo) entirely escapes me.
        The
        > > > rules
        > > > > > all state otherwise and IMO quite clearly.
        > > > > >
        > > > >
        > > >
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.