But then, why would it be free to rail an entire factory from a city to
another..... and to be able to do it without engineers?
Or maybee in this case the Russian should need an engineer to put the new
factory online?
So, the conqueror needs engineers to repair an existing factory, while you can
disassemble and reassemble the whole infrastructure without it.... .there is
some obvious lack of symetry there.

--- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, Håkon Fløystad <hakon.floystad@...>
wrote:
>
> Personally, I think construction engineers make some sense. Think of it as
using the manpower of the engineer division to do the required labor. I think
many such operations (maybe building ports more so than building factories) were
often in fact done by military engineering units.
>
> If you want civil engineers to be able to do the same job, this could be an
additional rule (or house rule). This should probably either have an additional
cost, take some additional time, or both.
>
> For instance, putting a major port or red factory on line, could cost 1 bp and
take 2 turns if you didn't want to use military engineers for it.
>
> Cheers
> Hakon
>
>
> From: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com [mailto:wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Wendell
> Sent: 13. november 2009 14:32
> To: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [wifdiscussion] Re: construction engineers pros &cons
>
>  
> True, engineers help the attacker more.  The Axis is the first on the attack
(and we all know games often don't get to the Allied attack times), ergo they
help the Axis a bit more I think.
>
> But regardless - using them to fix factories and ports is fiddly, and takes
them away from what they are best at (combat).  And as others have pointed out,
combat engineers (not equal to) civil engineers.  I like WIF so obviously I'm
not afraid of fiddly, but fixing factories and ports with individual units in a
game with two-month turns is fiddly!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Wendell
>

I think it was in battalion.


-----Original Message-----
From: alexanderinglis <alex.inglis@...>
To: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:45 am
Subject: [wifdiscussion] Re: query -par drops






really in corp strength? or even divisional strength?

--- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, RG1066@... wrote:
>
>
> There was a situation in Sicily where German reinforcement paratroopers were
dropping onto the same dropzone on the same night as British reinforcing
paratroopers..................
>
> Rich Gause
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: alexanderinglis <alex.inglis@...>
> To: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, Nov 12, 2009 9:55 pm
> Subject: [wifdiscussion] Re: query -par drops
>
>
>
>
>
>
> My WifZen for that situation is Paradrops are operations that quite a long
time to plan and execute. I imagine it would take quite a while just to find the
appropriate LZs and brief the pilots and Paratroops.
> You could argue that if your on the offensive and landing in the enemy hex
you've planned ahead and done all the preperation. If for some reason your
landing in your own hexes you're nearly always reacting to the enemy movements
and desperately trying to plug a hole. This speaks to me of a rush operation
where your side hasn't had time to do the neccesary recon and planning. If you
had you would be landing them in the nearest airfields and walking there anyway.
>
> --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, RG1066@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > You can't even Para drop into the hexes if they are friendly.
> >
> > Rich Gause
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: lavisj <lavisj@>
> > To: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thu, Nov 12, 2009 4:13 pm
> > Subject: [wifdiscussion] Re: query -par drops
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes....
> > But strangely enough you can not air transport into such hexes if those are
friendly. But paradroping casn be done in ANY enemy hex.
> >
> > Jerome
> >
> > --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "mcld1972" <mcld1972@> wrote:
> > >
> > > can you para drop onto enemy mountain and swamp hexes
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Personally, I think construction engineers make some sense. Think of it as using
the manpower of the engineer division to do the required labor. I think many
such operations (maybe building ports more so than building factories) were
often in fact done by military engineering units.

If you want civil engineers to be able to do the same job, this could be an
additional rule (or house rule). This should probably either have an additional
cost, take some additional time, or both.

For instance, putting a major port or red factory on line, could cost 1 bp and
take 2 turns if you didn't want to use military engineers for it.

Cheers
Hakon


From: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com [mailto:wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Wendell
Sent: 13. november 2009 14:32
To: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [wifdiscussion] Re: construction engineers pros &cons

 
True, engineers help the attacker more.  The Axis is the first on the attack
(and we all know games often don't get to the Allied attack times), ergo they
help the Axis a bit more I think.

But regardless - using them to fix factories and ports is fiddly, and takes them
away from what they are best at (combat).  And as others have pointed out,
combat engineers (not equal to) civil engineers.  I like WIF so obviously I'm
not afraid of fiddly, but fixing factories and ports with individual units in a
game with two-month turns is fiddly!

Cheers,

Wendell

True, engineers help the attacker more.  The Axis is the first on the attack
(and we all know games often don't get to the Allied attack times), ergo they
help the Axis a bit more I think.

But regardless - using them to fix factories and ports is fiddly, and takes them
away from what they are best at (combat).  And as others have pointed out,
combat engineers (not equal to) civil engineers.  I like WIF so obviously I'm
not afraid of fiddly, but fixing factories and ports with individual units in a
game with two-month turns is fiddly!

Cheers,

Wendell

--- On Fri, 11/13/09, Håkon Fløystad <hakon.floystad@...> wrote:

From: Håkon Fløystad <hakon.floystad@...>
Subject: RE: [wifdiscussion] Re: construction engineers pros &cons
To: "wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com" <wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Friday, November 13, 2009, 9:44 PM







 









       Their defensive abilities are not that powerful, given that engineers are
also available for attack. Say for instance, that the Germans have the SS Eng in
Paris, and the US tries to attack. (Across river). Without attacking engineers,
the allies will be at -6.5 before odds, flips, etc. (-3 for ENG, -3 for
factories -1 for city, +0.5 for attacking HQ across river).





However, by using 2 engineers, (a 1-factor and a 2-factor), and adding an OC
(which is normal vs Paris anyway), then they can cancel all of this. (+6 for
engineers, and the HQ across river is no longer halved), which allows for a very
good attack.





So, I think it is safe to say that the engineers are much better on the
offensive than on the defensive. Furthermore, I think that combat engineers are
more important for the allies than for Germany, since Germany (while still on
the attack) tend to have a higher attack advantage and is more likely to be able
to find alternative weak spots in enemy lines if a city is well defended.





So, it can be argued that using only combat engineers, but not construction
engineers, is kind of cherry-picking for the allies....





Cheers


Hakon














From: wifdiscussion@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:wifdiscussion@ yahoogroups. com]
On Behalf Of Wendell


Sent: 12. november 2009 16:45


To: wifdiscussion@ yahoogroups. com


Subject: Re: [wifdiscussion] Re: construction engineers pros &cons





 


Put a three-point engineer DEFENDING Paris and see how powerful they are.  Or a
two-point engineer using an offensive  chit to become a FOUR point engineer.


 


My concern is more with their defensive abilities which I think are way
overpowered.


 


Cheers,


 


Wendell
























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Their defensive abilities are not that powerful, given that engineers are also
available for attack. Say for instance, that the Germans have the SS Eng in
Paris, and the US tries to attack. (Across river). Without attacking engineers,
the allies will be at -6.5 before odds, flips, etc. (-3 for ENG, -3 for
factories -1 for city, +0.5 for attacking HQ across river).

However, by using 2 engineers, (a 1-factor and a 2-factor), and adding an OC
(which is normal vs Paris anyway), then they can cancel all of this. (+6 for
engineers, and the HQ across river is no longer halved), which allows for a very
good attack.

So, I think it is safe to say that the engineers are much better on the
offensive than on the defensive. Furthermore, I think that combat engineers are
more important for the allies than for Germany, since Germany (while still on
the attack) tend to have a higher attack advantage and is more likely to be able
to find alternative weak spots in enemy lines if a city is well defended.

So, it can be argued that using only combat engineers, but not construction
engineers, is kind of cherry-picking for the allies....

Cheers
Hakon




From: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com [mailto:wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Wendell
Sent: 12. november 2009 16:45
To: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [wifdiscussion] Re: construction engineers pros &cons

 
Put a three-point engineer DEFENDING Paris and see how powerful they are.  Or a
two-point engineer using an offensive  chit to become a FOUR point engineer.
 
My concern is more with their defensive abilities which I think are way
overpowered.
 
Cheers,
 
Wendell

If you land your planes in order to let the paras off, something went seriously
wrong in training! :-)

Von: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com [mailto:wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com] Im
Auftrag von tfancher@...
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 12. November 2009 23:02
An: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
Cc: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: Re: [wifdiscussion] Re: query -par drops



Right. The enemy fire as you are air-assaulting levels off the mountains
(or fills in the swamps) and leaves you with a nice flat area to land on.




RG1066@...<mailto:RG1066%40aol.com>
Sent by: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com<mailto:wifdiscussion%40yahoogroups.com>
11/12/2009 04:55 PM
Please respond to
wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com<mailto:wifdiscussion%40yahoogroups.com>


To
wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com<mailto:wifdiscussion%40yahoogroups.com>
cc

Subject
Re: [wifdiscussion] Re: query -par drops








You can't even Para drop into the hexes if they are friendly.

Rich Gause

-----Original Message-----
From: lavisj <lavisj@...<mailto:lavisj%40yahoo.fr>>
To: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com<mailto:wifdiscussion%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Nov 12, 2009 4:13 pm
Subject: [wifdiscussion] Re: query -par drops

Yes....
But strangely enough you can not air transport into such hexes if those
are friendly. But paradroping casn be done in ANY enemy hex.

Jerome

--- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com<mailto:wifdiscussion%40yahoogroups.com>,
"mcld1972" <mcld1972@...> wrote:
>
> can you para drop onto enemy mountain and swamp hexes
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yes, but not your own (often houseruled differently).

Von: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com [mailto:wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com] Im
Auftrag von mcld1972
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 12. November 2009 21:56
An: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: [wifdiscussion] query -par drops



can you para drop onto enemy mountain and swamp hexes



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

No, the BoA just doesn't work all that well in WiF. Most of all, it is too
mercurial: sometimes - albeit infrequently - the u-boats score a success
completely out of line with their  historical ability by chasing away all CPs in
cutting the lifeline. More frequently they have a negliable impact.
Historically, it was more of a constant sometimes almost overwhelming pressure.
It just doesn't seem to work like that in WiF.
There are times for concentrating and times for spreading out. Of course, your
opponent could've just made the wrong decisions but in general, repeat. IN
GENARAL, spreading out is no more effective than concentrating, there are
advantages and disadvantages an answers by the Brit to both options.

Von: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com [mailto:wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com] Im
Auftrag von jdbsrb
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 12. November 2009 20:10
An: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: [wifdiscussion] Battle of the Atlantic



It's start of M/A 1941, and the the German Navy is pretty much gone or in the
repair pool. He did around 25-30 CP of damage, but based on the fact I received
about 35-40 CP (Neth-10, Greece-10, Norway-13, Den-6, Poland/Belgium-3, minus a
few who didn't escape) and building 2 CP/turn I ended up losing only 4 PP. In
general he concentrated his surface and subs but I generally left a few guys in
the zero box, reacted with NAV when he did attack. I moved out in force to the
area he was in and eventually the search rolls came thru and I pummeled him. His
surface fleet did damage alot of my ships, but eventually the numbers tell.
Seemed like a dud for him, was his mistake searching with the subs after I moved
out? His rolls were not all that good overall, is the BoA just pretty variable
based on search rolls. Should he have spread the subs out more?

Bibs



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Or it is just that the para are far too much scarred by the ennemy AA fire to
care about where they are dropping... they just want to get out of the F* plane
before it blow up... (remember 101st Airborne video game :p)








To: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
CC: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
From: tfancher@...
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:02:19 -0500
Subject: Re: [wifdiscussion] Re: query -par drops





Right. The enemy fire as you are air-assaulting levels off the mountains
(or fills in the swamps) and leaves you with a nice flat area to land on.




RG1066@...
Sent by: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
11/12/2009 04:55 PM
Please respond to
wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com


To
wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
cc

Subject
Re: [wifdiscussion] Re: query -par drops








You can't even Para drop into the hexes if they are friendly.

Rich Gause

-----Original Message-----
From: lavisj <lavisj@...>
To: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, Nov 12, 2009 4:13 pm
Subject: [wifdiscussion] Re: query -par drops

Yes....
But strangely enough you can not air transport into such hexes if those
are friendly. But paradroping casn be done in ANY enemy hex.

Jerome

--- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "mcld1972" <mcld1972@...> wrote:
>
> can you para drop onto enemy mountain and swamp hexes
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail: Your friends can get your Facebook updates, right from
Hotmail®.
http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/windows/windowslive/see-it-in-action/social-\
network-basics.aspx?ocid=PID23461::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-xm:SI_SB_4:092009

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

But a unit is well able to land a divison on a defended beach, hunt submarines
and bump off a few enemy cruisers. There is no problem with multifunctionality
there.
Same goes for heavy flak.
LND4/3 as ATRs.
HQs.
Ftr bombers.(List not exhaustive.)

Von: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com [mailto:wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com] Im
Auftrag von Wendell
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 12. November 2009 15:12
An: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: Re: AW: [wifdiscussion] construction engineers pros &cons



I would tone down engineers' offensive and defensive powers significantly and
STILL not bother with the construction engineer role.  It's the only example of
having to use a unit to prepare or repair a location, and it's silly IMHO to
have the same unit that can defeat enemy fortifications also be able to repair
factories.

Cheers,

Wendell

--- On Thu, 11/12/09, Gratz, Herbert
<herbert.gratz@...<mailto:herbert.gratz%40oenb.at>> wrote:

From: Gratz, Herbert <herbert.gratz@...<mailto:herbert.gratz%40oenb.at>>
Subject: AW: [wifdiscussion] construction engineers pros &cons
To: "'wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com<mailto:%27wifdiscussion%40yahoogroups.com>'"
<wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com<mailto:wifdiscussion%40yahoogroups.com>>
Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 9:12 PM



We use them all the time. What I can't understand is that people complain that
they are too powerful, yet refuse to use their non-combat functions! They are no
more 'fiddly' to use than 8 range Ftrs which need to be based 'just so' in order
to have the best impact or ART or a dozend other units.
There are two positive effects: production (red factories) increases a bit
slower and people are MUCH more reluctant to use them in combat particular in
the early game.

Von: wifdiscussion@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:wifdiscussion@ yahoogroups. com] Im
Auftrag von Wendell
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. November 2009 23:12
An: wifdiscussion@ yahoogroups. com
Betreff: Re: [wifdiscussion] construction engineers pros &cons

I think I played construction engineers once, and we abandoned that rule
half-way thru the game. Sometimes I've played with a one-turn delay for using
major ports etc, but running engineers around to fix stuff is too fiddly,
especially when they are such powerful offensive and defensive units. (Too
powerful perphaps...)

Cheers,

Wendell

--- On Thu, 11/12/09, dewargamer <dewargamer@yahoo. com<mailto:dewargamer%
40yahoo.com> > wrote:

From: dewargamer <dewargamer@yahoo. com<mailto:dewargamer% 40yahoo.com> >
Subject: [wifdiscussion] construction engineers pros &cons
To: wifdiscussion@ yahoogroups. com<mailto:wifdiscussi on%40yahoogroups .com>
Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 7:36 AM

we generally don't play with the construction eng rules (i.e. need to ship an
Eng to factories and ports to "fix them up". Mainly because it's a pain in the
neck rule.

On the other hand, I am curious how many of you do use that rule because the
down side is no delay in utilizing captured ports.

for example, Manila can be IJN occupied for years, and suddenly at the end of
the turn the USA captures it, the entire American fleet moves in and bases
there.

Just wondering what people's thoughts are. Seems there should be some delay in
getting full utilization of ports and maybe factories but the construction eng
rule seems too awkward.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sounds like an interesting situation for all involved. (in the chinese proverb
usage of interesting).


--- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, RG1066@... wrote:
>
>
> There was a situation in Sicily where German reinforcement paratroopers were
dropping onto the same dropzone on the same night as British reinforcing
paratroopers..................
>
> Rich Gause
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: alexanderinglis <alex.inglis@...>
> To: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, Nov 12, 2009 9:55 pm
> Subject: [wifdiscussion] Re: query -par drops
>
>
>
>
>
>
> My WifZen for that situation is Paradrops are operations that quite a long
time to plan and execute. I imagine it would take quite a while just to find the
appropriate LZs and brief the pilots and Paratroops.
> You could argue that if your on the offensive and landing in the enemy hex
you've planned ahead and done all the preperation. If for some reason your
landing in your own hexes you're nearly always reacting to the enemy movements
and desperately trying to plug a hole. This speaks to me of a rush operation
where your side hasn't had time to do the neccesary recon and planning. If you
had you would be landing them in the nearest airfields and walking there anyway.
>
> --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, RG1066@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > You can't even Para drop into the hexes if they are friendly.
> >
> > Rich Gause
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: lavisj <lavisj@>
> > To: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thu, Nov 12, 2009 4:13 pm
> > Subject: [wifdiscussion] Re: query -par drops
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes....
> > But strangely enough you can not air transport into such hexes if those are
friendly. But paradroping casn be done in ANY enemy hex.
> >
> > Jerome
> >
> > --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "mcld1972" <mcld1972@> wrote:
> > >
> > > can you para drop onto enemy mountain and swamp hexes
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

really in corp strength? or even divisional strength?

--- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, RG1066@... wrote:
>
>
> There was a situation in Sicily where German reinforcement paratroopers were
dropping onto the same dropzone on the same night as British reinforcing
paratroopers..................
>
> Rich Gause
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: alexanderinglis <alex.inglis@...>
> To: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, Nov 12, 2009 9:55 pm
> Subject: [wifdiscussion] Re: query -par drops
>
>
>
>
>
>
> My WifZen for that situation is Paradrops are operations that quite a long
time to plan and execute. I imagine it would take quite a while just to find the
appropriate LZs and brief the pilots and Paratroops.
> You could argue that if your on the offensive and landing in the enemy hex
you've planned ahead and done all the preperation. If for some reason your
landing in your own hexes you're nearly always reacting to the enemy movements
and desperately trying to plug a hole. This speaks to me of a rush operation
where your side hasn't had time to do the neccesary recon and planning. If you
had you would be landing them in the nearest airfields and walking there anyway.
>
> --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, RG1066@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > You can't even Para drop into the hexes if they are friendly.
> >
> > Rich Gause
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: lavisj <lavisj@>
> > To: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thu, Nov 12, 2009 4:13 pm
> > Subject: [wifdiscussion] Re: query -par drops
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes....
> > But strangely enough you can not air transport into such hexes if those are
friendly. But paradroping casn be done in ANY enemy hex.
> >
> > Jerome
> >
> > --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "mcld1972" <mcld1972@> wrote:
> > >
> > > can you para drop onto enemy mountain and swamp hexes
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

There was a situation in Sicily where German reinforcement paratroopers were
dropping onto the same dropzone on the same night as British reinforcing
paratroopers..................

Rich Gause


-----Original Message-----
From: alexanderinglis <alex.inglis@...>
To: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, Nov 12, 2009 9:55 pm
Subject: [wifdiscussion] Re: query -par drops






My WifZen for that situation is Paradrops are operations that quite a long time
to plan and execute. I imagine it would take quite a while just to find the
appropriate LZs and brief the pilots and Paratroops.
You could argue that if your on the offensive and landing in the enemy hex
you've planned ahead and done all the preperation. If for some reason your
landing in your own hexes you're nearly always reacting to the enemy movements
and desperately trying to plug a hole. This speaks to me of a rush operation
where your side hasn't had time to do the neccesary recon and planning. If you
had you would be landing them in the nearest airfields and walking there anyway.

--- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, RG1066@... wrote:
>
>
> You can't even Para drop into the hexes if they are friendly.
>
> Rich Gause
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lavisj <lavisj@...>
> To: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, Nov 12, 2009 4:13 pm
> Subject: [wifdiscussion] Re: query -par drops
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes....
> But strangely enough you can not air transport into such hexes if those are
friendly. But paradroping casn be done in ANY enemy hex.
>
> Jerome
>
> --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "mcld1972" <mcld1972@> wrote:
> >
> > can you para drop onto enemy mountain and swamp hexes
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

My WifZen for that situation is Paradrops are operations that quite a long time
to plan and execute. I imagine it would take quite a while just to find the
appropriate LZs and brief the pilots and Paratroops.
You could argue that if your on the offensive and landing in the enemy hex
you've planned ahead and done all the preperation. If for some reason your
landing in your own hexes you're nearly always reacting to the enemy movements
and desperately trying to plug a hole. This speaks to me of a rush operation
where your side hasn't had time to do the neccesary recon and planning. If you
had you would be landing them in the nearest airfields and walking there anyway.

--- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, RG1066@... wrote:
>
>
> You can't even Para drop into the hexes if they are friendly.
>
> Rich Gause
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lavisj <lavisj@...>
> To: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, Nov 12, 2009 4:13 pm
> Subject: [wifdiscussion] Re: query -par drops
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes....
> But strangely enough you can not air transport into such hexes if those are
friendly. But paradroping casn be done in ANY enemy hex.
>
> Jerome
>
> --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "mcld1972" <mcld1972@> wrote:
> >
> > can you para drop onto enemy mountain and swamp hexes
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Right.  The enemy fire as you are air-assaulting levels off the mountains
(or fills in the swamps) and leaves you with a nice flat area to land on.




RG1066@...
Sent by: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
11/12/2009 04:55 PM
Please respond to
wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com


To
wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
cc

Subject
Re: [wifdiscussion] Re: query -par drops








You can't even Para drop into the hexes if they are friendly.

Rich Gause

-----Original Message-----
From: lavisj <lavisj@...>
To: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, Nov 12, 2009 4:13 pm
Subject: [wifdiscussion] Re: query -par drops

Yes....
But strangely enough you can not air transport into such hexes if those
are friendly. But paradroping casn be done in ANY enemy hex.

Jerome

--- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "mcld1972" <mcld1972@...> wrote:
>
> can you para drop onto enemy mountain and swamp hexes
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

You can't even Para drop into the hexes if they are friendly.

Rich Gause


-----Original Message-----
From: lavisj <lavisj@...>
To: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, Nov 12, 2009 4:13 pm
Subject: [wifdiscussion] Re: query -par drops






Yes....
But strangely enough you can not air transport into such hexes if those are
friendly. But paradroping casn be done in ANY enemy hex.

Jerome

--- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "mcld1972" <mcld1972@...> wrote:
>
> can you para drop onto enemy mountain and swamp hexes
>







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yes....
But strangely enough you can not air transport into such hexes if those are
friendly. But paradroping casn be done in ANY enemy hex.

Jerome

--- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "mcld1972" <mcld1972@...> wrote:
>
> can you para drop onto enemy mountain and swamp hexes
>

can you para drop onto enemy mountain and swamp hexes

It's start of M/A 1941, and the the German Navy is pretty much gone or in the
repair pool.   He did around 25-30 CP of damage, but based on the fact I
received about 35-40 CP (Neth-10, Greece-10, Norway-13, Den-6, Poland/Belgium-3,
minus a few who didn't escape) and building 2 CP/turn I ended up losing only 4
PP.  In general he concentrated his surface and subs but I generally left a few
guys in the zero box, reacted with NAV when he did attack. I moved out in force
to the area he was in and eventually the search rolls came thru and I pummeled
him.  His surface fleet did damage alot of my ships, but eventually the numbers
tell.  Seemed like a dud for him, was his mistake searching with the subs after
I moved out?  His rolls were not all that good overall, is the BoA just pretty
variable based on search rolls.  Should he have spread the subs out more?

Bibs

Put a three-point engineer DEFENDING Paris and see how powerful they are.  Or a
two-point engineer using an offensive  chit to become a FOUR point engineer.
 
My concern is more with their defensive abilities which I think are way
overpowered.
 
Cheers,
 
Wendell

--- On Fri, 11/13/09, lavisj <lavisj@...> wrote:


From: lavisj <lavisj@...>
Subject: [wifdiscussion] Re: construction engineers pros &cons
To: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, November 13, 2009, 2:36 AM


 



And those engineers are not needed to rail said fact factory.
But are engineers that powerfull? They die often, and without them, crossing
rivers is extremely difficult especially when attacking German units on the
other side.

Jerome

--- In wifdiscussion@ yahoogroups. com, "micheljq" <micheljq@.. .> wrote:
>
> Why construction engineers would be needed to repair factories, this is
normally done by civil engineers.
>
> --- In wifdiscussion@ yahoogroups. com, Wendell <wifwendell@ > wrote:
> >
> > I would tone down engineers' offensive and defensive powers significantly
and STILL not bother with the construction engineer role.  It's the only
example of having to use a unit to prepare or repair a location, and it's silly
IMHO to have the same unit that can defeat enemy fortifications also be able to
repair factories.
> >  
> > Cheers,
> >  
> > Wendell
> >
> > --- On Thu, 11/12/09, Gratz, Herbert <herbert.gratz@ > wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Gratz, Herbert <herbert.gratz@ >
> > Subject: AW: [wifdiscussion] construction engineers pros &cons
> > To: "'wifdiscussion@ yahoogroups. com'" <wifdiscussion@ yahoogroups. com>
> > Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 9:12 PM
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > We use them all the time. What I can't understand is that people complain
that they are too powerful, yet refuse to use their non-combat functions! They
are no more 'fiddly' to use than 8 range Ftrs which need to be based 'just so'
in order to have the best impact or ART or a dozend other units.
> > There are two positive effects: production (red factories) increases a bit
slower and people are MUCH more reluctant to use them in combat particular in
the early game.
> >
> > Von: wifdiscussion@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:wifdiscussi on@ yahoogroups.
com] Im Auftrag von Wendell
> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. November 2009 23:12
> > An: wifdiscussion@ yahoogroups. com
> > Betreff: Re: [wifdiscussion] construction engineers pros &cons
> >
> >
> >
> > I think I played construction engineers once, and we abandoned that rule
half-way thru the game. Sometimes I've played with a one-turn delay for using
major ports etc, but running engineers around to fix stuff is too fiddly,
especially when they are such powerful offensive and defensive units. (Too
powerful perphaps...)
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Wendell
> >
> > --- On Thu, 11/12/09, dewargamer <dewargamer@ yahoo. com<mailto:dewargam er%
40yahoo.com> > wrote:
> >
> > From: dewargamer <dewargamer@ yahoo. com<mailto:dewargam er% 40yahoo.com> >
> > Subject: [wifdiscussion] construction engineers pros &cons
> > To: wifdiscussion@ yahoogroups. com<mailto:wifdiscu ssi on%40yahoogroups
.com>
> > Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 7:36 AM
> >
> >
> >
> > we generally don't play with the construction eng rules (i.e. need to ship
an Eng to factories and ports to "fix them up". Mainly because it's a pain in
the neck rule.
> >
> > On the other hand, I am curious how many of you do use that rule because the
down side is no delay in utilizing captured ports.
> >
> > for example, Manila can be IJN occupied for years, and suddenly at the end
of the turn the USA captures it, the entire American fleet moves in and bases
there.
> >
> > Just wondering what people's thoughts are. Seems there should be some delay
in getting full utilization of ports and maybe factories but the construction
eng rule seems too awkward.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

And those engineers are not needed to rail said fact factory.
But are engineers that powerfull? They die often, and without them, crossing
rivers is extremely difficult especially when attacking German units on the
other side.

Jerome

--- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "micheljq" <micheljq@...> wrote:
>
> Why construction engineers would be needed to repair factories, this is
normally done by civil engineers.
>
> --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, Wendell <wifwendell@> wrote:
> >
> > I would tone down engineers' offensive and defensive powers significantly
and STILL not bother with the construction engineer role.  It's the only
example of having to use a unit to prepare or repair a location, and it's silly
IMHO to have the same unit that can defeat enemy fortifications also be able to
repair factories.
> >  
> > Cheers,
> >  
> > Wendell
> >
> > --- On Thu, 11/12/09, Gratz, Herbert <herbert.gratz@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Gratz, Herbert <herbert.gratz@>
> > Subject: AW: [wifdiscussion] construction engineers pros &cons
> > To: "'wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com'" <wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 9:12 PM
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > We use them all the time. What I can't understand is that people complain
that they are too powerful, yet refuse to use their non-combat functions! They
are no more 'fiddly' to use than 8 range Ftrs which need to be based 'just so'
in order to have the best impact or ART or a dozend other units.
> > There are two positive effects: production (red factories) increases a bit
slower and people are MUCH more reluctant to use them in combat particular in
the early game.
> >
> > Von: wifdiscussion@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:wifdiscussion@ yahoogroups.
com] Im Auftrag von Wendell
> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. November 2009 23:12
> > An: wifdiscussion@ yahoogroups. com
> > Betreff: Re: [wifdiscussion] construction engineers pros &cons
> >
> >
> >
> > I think I played construction engineers once, and we abandoned that rule
half-way thru the game. Sometimes I've played with a one-turn delay for using
major ports etc, but running engineers around to fix stuff is too fiddly,
especially when they are such powerful offensive and defensive units. (Too
powerful perphaps...)
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Wendell
> >
> > --- On Thu, 11/12/09, dewargamer <dewargamer@yahoo. com<mailto:dewargamer%
40yahoo.com> > wrote:
> >
> > From: dewargamer <dewargamer@yahoo. com<mailto:dewargamer% 40yahoo.com> >
> > Subject: [wifdiscussion] construction engineers pros &cons
> > To: wifdiscussion@ yahoogroups. com<mailto:wifdiscussi on%40yahoogroups
.com>
> > Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 7:36 AM
> >
> >
> >
> > we generally don't play with the construction eng rules (i.e. need to ship
an Eng to factories and ports to "fix them up". Mainly because it's a pain in
the neck rule.
> >
> > On the other hand, I am curious how many of you do use that rule because the
down side is no delay in utilizing captured ports.
> >
> > for example, Manila can be IJN occupied for years, and suddenly at the end
of the turn the USA captures it, the entire American fleet moves in and bases
there.
> >
> > Just wondering what people's thoughts are. Seems there should be some delay
in getting full utilization of ports and maybe factories but the construction
eng rule seems too awkward.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

Why construction engineers would be needed to repair factories, this is normally
done by civil engineers.

--- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, Wendell <wifwendell@...> wrote:
>
> I would tone down engineers' offensive and defensive powers significantly and
STILL not bother with the construction engineer role.  It's the only example of
having to use a unit to prepare or repair a location, and it's silly IMHO to
have the same unit that can defeat enemy fortifications also be able to repair
factories.
>  
> Cheers,
>  
> Wendell
>
> --- On Thu, 11/12/09, Gratz, Herbert <herbert.gratz@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Gratz, Herbert <herbert.gratz@...>
> Subject: AW: [wifdiscussion] construction engineers pros &cons
> To: "'wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com'" <wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 9:12 PM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> We use them all the time. What I can't understand is that people complain that
they are too powerful, yet refuse to use their non-combat functions! They are no
more 'fiddly' to use than 8 range Ftrs which need to be based 'just so' in order
to have the best impact or ART or a dozend other units.
> There are two positive effects: production (red factories) increases a bit
slower and people are MUCH more reluctant to use them in combat particular in
the early game.
>
> Von: wifdiscussion@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:wifdiscussion@ yahoogroups. com]
Im Auftrag von Wendell
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. November 2009 23:12
> An: wifdiscussion@ yahoogroups. com
> Betreff: Re: [wifdiscussion] construction engineers pros &cons
>
>
>
> I think I played construction engineers once, and we abandoned that rule
half-way thru the game. Sometimes I've played with a one-turn delay for using
major ports etc, but running engineers around to fix stuff is too fiddly,
especially when they are such powerful offensive and defensive units. (Too
powerful perphaps...)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Wendell
>
> --- On Thu, 11/12/09, dewargamer <dewargamer@yahoo. com<mailto:dewargamer%
40yahoo.com> > wrote:
>
> From: dewargamer <dewargamer@yahoo. com<mailto:dewargamer% 40yahoo.com> >
> Subject: [wifdiscussion] construction engineers pros &cons
> To: wifdiscussion@ yahoogroups. com<mailto:wifdiscussi on%40yahoogroups .com>
> Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 7:36 AM
>
>
>
> we generally don't play with the construction eng rules (i.e. need to ship an
Eng to factories and ports to "fix them up". Mainly because it's a pain in the
neck rule.
>
> On the other hand, I am curious how many of you do use that rule because the
down side is no delay in utilizing captured ports.
>
> for example, Manila can be IJN occupied for years, and suddenly at the end of
the turn the USA captures it, the entire American fleet moves in and bases
there.
>
> Just wondering what people's thoughts are. Seems there should be some delay in
getting full utilization of ports and maybe factories but the construction eng
rule seems too awkward.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

I would tone down engineers' offensive and defensive powers significantly and
STILL not bother with the construction engineer role.  It's the only example of
having to use a unit to prepare or repair a location, and it's silly IMHO to
have the same unit that can defeat enemy fortifications also be able to repair
factories.
 
Cheers,
 
Wendell

--- On Thu, 11/12/09, Gratz, Herbert <herbert.gratz@...> wrote:


From: Gratz, Herbert <herbert.gratz@...>
Subject: AW: [wifdiscussion] construction engineers pros &cons
To: "'wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com'" <wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 9:12 PM


 



We use them all the time. What I can't understand is that people complain that
they are too powerful, yet refuse to use their non-combat functions! They are no
more 'fiddly' to use than 8 range Ftrs which need to be based 'just so' in order
to have the best impact or ART or a dozend other units.
There are two positive effects: production (red factories) increases a bit
slower and people are MUCH more reluctant to use them in combat particular in
the early game.

Von: wifdiscussion@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:wifdiscussion@ yahoogroups. com] Im
Auftrag von Wendell
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. November 2009 23:12
An: wifdiscussion@ yahoogroups. com
Betreff: Re: [wifdiscussion] construction engineers pros &cons



I think I played construction engineers once, and we abandoned that rule
half-way thru the game. Sometimes I've played with a one-turn delay for using
major ports etc, but running engineers around to fix stuff is too fiddly,
especially when they are such powerful offensive and defensive units. (Too
powerful perphaps...)

Cheers,

Wendell

--- On Thu, 11/12/09, dewargamer <dewargamer@yahoo. com<mailto:dewargamer%
40yahoo.com> > wrote:

From: dewargamer <dewargamer@yahoo. com<mailto:dewargamer% 40yahoo.com> >
Subject: [wifdiscussion] construction engineers pros &cons
To: wifdiscussion@ yahoogroups. com<mailto:wifdiscussi on%40yahoogroups .com>
Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 7:36 AM



we generally don't play with the construction eng rules (i.e. need to ship an
Eng to factories and ports to "fix them up". Mainly because it's a pain in the
neck rule.

On the other hand, I am curious how many of you do use that rule because the
down side is no delay in utilizing captured ports.

for example, Manila can be IJN occupied for years, and suddenly at the end of
the turn the USA captures it, the entire American fleet moves in and bases
there.

Just wondering what people's thoughts are. Seems there should be some delay in
getting full utilization of ports and maybe factories but the construction eng
rule seems too awkward.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

We use them all the time. What I can't understand is that people complain that
they are too powerful, yet refuse to use their non-combat functions! They are no
more 'fiddly' to use than 8 range Ftrs which need to be based 'just so' in order
to have the best impact or ART or a dozend other units.
There are two positive effects: production (red factories) increases a bit
slower and people are MUCH more reluctant to use them in combat particular in
the early game.

Von: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com [mailto:wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com] Im
Auftrag von Wendell
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. November 2009 23:12
An: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: Re: [wifdiscussion] construction engineers pros &cons



I think I played construction engineers once, and we abandoned that rule
half-way thru the game.  Sometimes I've played with a one-turn delay for using
major ports etc, but running engineers around to fix stuff is too fiddly,
especially when they are such powerful offensive and defensive units.  (Too
powerful perphaps...)

Cheers,

Wendell

--- On Thu, 11/12/09, dewargamer
<dewargamer@...<mailto:dewargamer%40yahoo.com>> wrote:

From: dewargamer <dewargamer@...<mailto:dewargamer%40yahoo.com>>
Subject: [wifdiscussion] construction engineers pros &cons
To: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com<mailto:wifdiscussion%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 7:36 AM



we generally don't play with the construction eng rules (i.e. need to ship an
Eng to factories and ports to "fix them up". Mainly because it's a pain in the
neck rule.

On the other hand, I am curious how many of you do use that rule because the
down side is no delay in utilizing captured ports.

for example, Manila can be IJN occupied for years, and suddenly at the end of
the turn the USA captures it, the entire American fleet moves in and bases
there.

Just wondering what people's thoughts are. Seems there should be some delay in
getting full utilization of ports and maybe factories but the construction eng
rule seems too awkward.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

This is a trans-Pacific game being played via Vassal. Following is the latest
turn, November/December 1942. Old turns and rules summary below the ====. "Peace
in Flames" seems an appropriate name since wars are busting out all over...

The players: Stewart - Axis
myself - Allies

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1942:  CHINESE TAKE KWEI-YANG AND WUHAN; SOVIETS PUSHING BUT
GERMANS MOSTLY HOLDING; JAPAN TAKES PATNA; MARINES CAPTURE KWAJALEIN

Again stormy weather for most of the turn.  The Soviets tried various attacks in
the snow with little effect, but then managed to push forward a little west of
Gomel.  The Soviets finally pushed over the main Dnepr line between Kiev and
Dnepropetrovsk without being pushed back (one hex).  However, Soviets took much
heavier losses than they inflicted.

The Allies reinforced the Med and the Bordeaux region; a hoped-for invasion of
Sicily didn't happen due to poor weather.  When the storms briefly abated late
in the turn (too late!), a wave of British and American bombers went after the
Italian fleet patrolling defensively near the coast, damaging the battleship
Impero.  

In the Pacific when the weather lifted, US marines captured Kwajalein and
Eniwotok, which were only lightly defended (notional).  But the US Navy suffered
an embarrassing defeat in the Solomons; a large battleship and cruiser
contingent went on a raid during storm but were caught out there when the skies
cleared.  Japanese naval air damaged the Washington and North Carolina. 
Japanese marines walked into Brunei, causing the Soviet submarines vacationing
there to redeploy to the Seychelles.  The Soviet submariners were sad to leave
Brunei, but agreed the beaches in the Seychelles were probably even better;
they  hope that Stalin doesn't realize they still exist...

Much fighting on the Asian mainland.  Yamashita's armies pushed west in India;
in mid-December they assaulted and took the city of Patna.  Mountbatten and the
Indian 3rd infantry are defending Benarcs, and the Free French Billotte
headquarters railed from southern India to Cawnpore, joined by Australian
infantry, to defend the main objective, which MI-5 reports is Delhi.

With all these Japanese in India, there are relatively few in China.  The KMT
took a chance; an artillery bombardment disorganized Umezu's troops in KweiYang,
and an assault captured that city in late December.  At the same time, Maoist
forces in the north assaulted Wuhan, defended by the Nanking militia, and
captured that city.  The Chinese did more damage to the Japanese this turn than
the Americans and British combined.

BP lost:  USSR 20, Germany 17, Japan 15, CW 11, US 8, Italy 7, China 4

===================

Rules: Same as in the Scandinavia in Flames game, we're using most of the normal
options (partisans, etc), SIF, PIF, new MIF, divs/guns, terrs, Cruisers in
Flames, 2d10 combat, "Stalin's War" Soviet production (+.25 in '42 OR when
Germans declare war; '42 city mods become '43, '43 city mods deleted), EZ oil
rules. We are also trying Devin's victory point system, and Italian and Japanese
surrender. We are using Line of Command Vichy rules. We are also using the
errata from the 2008 WIF Annual as well some of the new options including
Offensive Points rules, randomized naval losses, revised Chinese attack
weakness, lending limits, and face-down aircraft rebasing.

1939: Germany crushes Poland, Netherlands. No Japan-USSR war.

JAN/FEB '40: Japan takes ChangSha. Graf Spee sunk off coast of Canada. German
subs hit shipping in North Atlantic. US occupies Iceland and Greenland.

MAR/APR '40: Germans declare war on Belgium, take Brussels with difficulty;
French hold Antwerp. Soviets build up along Manchurian border. US seizes French
carrier Bearn.

MAY/JUNE 1940: Germans smash through Belgium into France; French government
teeters. Italy declared war on France, attacked in Alps, took Tunis. USSR
invaded Manchuria, Japanese stripped China to defend.

JULY/AUG 1940: France collapses, Free French government set up in Senegal.
Soviets advance in Manchuria. Germany redeploys east, with Italy and Romania,
declares war on USSR. US embargoes strategic materials to Japan, gives
destroyers to CW.

SEP/OCT 1940: German and allied troops enter USSR proper; Bulgaria, Finland,
Hungary join war. Finns snatch Murmansk (oops). Stalin gives up Soviet Far East
to get peace with Japan. Commonwealth declares war on Italy, sends BEF to
Karelia, lands division in Sardinia. US authorizes resources to W. Allies.

NOV/DEC 1940: Germans take Minsk, Kiev. Royal Navy sinks last Italian transport
(and kill Balbo HQ), several cruisers, damage Littorio for no loss.

JAN/FEB 1941: Japan occupies French Indochina, seizes Kunming. US freezes
Japanese assets, builds five Essex-class carriers. Germans take Pskov. Germany
and Italy eject British from Sardinia.

MAR/APR 1941: Germany takes Dnepropetrovsk. US first gear up, FDR authorized
navy to base at Pearl Harbor. Axis air attacks against Malta but no invasion.
Australians liberate Ethiopia. Japan attack against Nanning fails.

MAY/JUNE 1941: Storms in Russia, Germany stalled before Smolensk. Japanese take
Nanning, move marines to Truk. British, Finns maneuver in north but no battle.
Air battles rage over Malta, CW reinforces the island and deters an invasion.
South Africans occupy Tobruk, Bardia. Kriegsmarine relocates to Brest.

JULY/AUGUST 1941: Germans take Smolensk with heavy losses. Germans capture
Gomel, Kursk, Stalino, but retreat from Kursk before being cut off. Italy,
Germany invade Greece; British, Australians, and Indians reinforce. Japanese
fleet relocates to Truk. RAF damages Graf Zeppelin in Brest. Italian subs wreak
havoc on CW shipping. US reinforces Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbor.

SEP/OCT 1941: Heavy fighting in Russia but front moves little. Yugoslavia joins
the Allies; Axis conquer Greece. Free French take Italian Somaliland. Japanese
massing near Kunming.

NOV/DEC 1941: Soviets push Germans back from Bryansk. Japanese take Kweiyang.
Naval wars in Atlantic.

JAN/FEB 1942: Japan declares war on Commonwealth, invades India, Borneo,
captures Singapore, Rabaul. Free French reinforce India. Germans, Italians take
Zagreb. General Soviet winter offensive does little damage to Germans; assault
on Gomel repulsed. British, Soviet bombers damage German war production. US
imposes oil embargo on Japan, approves North Atlantic escorts.

MAR/APR 1942: Japan takes Chittagong, Hyderabad in India. US second gear-up.
Soviets retake Gomel. Finns destroy Gort HQ. CW marines land in Tunisia.

MAY/JUNE 1942: Japanese carriers sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, sink the Ranger;
they land in the Philippines and Netherlands East Indies. US declares war on
Germany and Italy. Yamamoto advances in India and approached Calcutta. Free
France declares war on Japan. British, Canadian, Indian, American troops take
Tripoli; Italians take Cyprus. Yugoslavia still holds out. Russian Front is
static, battles along the Dnepr River. Soviets attack Estonia.

JULY/AUGUST 1942: Belgrade falls. Japan conquers Netherlands East Indies,
advances in India. British land in Sardinia, take Tunis. Heavy fighting in
Russia; Soviet assault on Dnepropetrovsk fails. Soviets force the Dnepr, but
Germans push them back.

SEPT/OCT 1942: Japanese take Calcutta and Manila.  Chinese take Kunming. 
Soviets cross the Dnepr in the woods.  Admiral Hipper sunk in the Atlantic.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I think I played construction engineers once, and we abandoned that rule
half-way thru the game.  Sometimes I've played with a one-turn delay for using
major ports etc, but running engineers around to fix stuff is too fiddly,
especially when they are such powerful offensive and defensive units.  (Too
powerful perphaps...)

Cheers,

Wendell

--- On Thu, 11/12/09, dewargamer <dewargamer@...> wrote:

From: dewargamer <dewargamer@...>
Subject: [wifdiscussion] construction engineers pros &cons
To: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 7:36 AM







 









       we generally don't play with the construction eng rules (i.e. need to ship
an Eng to factories and ports to "fix them up".  Mainly because it's a pain in
the neck rule.



On the other hand, I am curious how many of you do use that rule because the
down side is no delay in utilizing captured ports.

for example, Manila can be IJN occupied for years, and suddenly at the end of
the turn the USA captures it, the entire American fleet moves in and bases
there.



Just wondering what people's thoughts are.  Seems there should be some delay in
getting full utilization of ports and maybe factories but the construction eng
rule seems too awkward.

























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

We use it. We do not find it a pain in the butt. How hard is it to rail an ENG
to a site and then fix it in the production phase?




________________________________
From: dewargamer <dewargamer@...>
To: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, November 11, 2009 12:36:54 PM
Subject: [wifdiscussion] construction engineers pros &cons

 
we generally don't play with the construction eng rules (i.e. need to ship an
Eng to factories and ports to "fix them up". Mainly because it's a pain in the
neck rule.

On the other hand, I am curious how many of you do use that rule because the
down side is no delay in utilizing captured ports.
for example, Manila can be IJN occupied for years, and suddenly at the end of
the turn the USA captures it, the entire American fleet moves in and bases
there.

Just wondering what people's thoughts are. Seems there should be some delay in
getting full utilization of ports and maybe factories but the construction eng
rule seems too awkward.







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Well, construction engineers is really a pro-Axis rule for the most part.  The
Japanese rarely care if a major port is available to them, but the Americans
really care, and the CW somewhat cares.

Given the importance of using engineers for combat (against cities/rivers etc.),
it seems unfair to force the Americans to use one or their few ENG to go around
the Pacific and repair major ports, which can slow down their offence quite
significantly.

The red factory issue is somewhat moot for the Axis, as you can build an Italian
ENG and just use it to fix red factories, without significantly harming the
German's combat effectiveness (given that the 2-factor and 3-factor ENG are much
more powerful than a 1-factor ENG).

That's just my opinion though, there is no real right answer here.

Ken

--- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "dewargamer" <dewargamer@...> wrote:
>
> we generally don't play with the construction eng rules (i.e. need to ship an
Eng to factories and ports to "fix them up".  Mainly because it's a pain in the
neck rule.
>
> On the other hand, I am curious how many of you do use that rule because the
down side is no delay in utilizing captured ports.
> for example, Manila can be IJN occupied for years, and suddenly at the end of
the turn the USA captures it, the entire American fleet moves in and bases
there.
>
> Just wondering what people's thoughts are.  Seems there should be some delay
in getting full utilization of ports and maybe factories but the construction
eng rule seems too awkward.
>

we generally don't play with the construction eng rules (i.e. need to ship an
Eng to factories and ports to "fix them up".  Mainly because it's a pain in the
neck rule.

On the other hand, I am curious how many of you do use that rule because the
down side is no delay in utilizing captured ports.
for example, Manila can be IJN occupied for years, and suddenly at the end of
the turn the USA captures it, the entire American fleet moves in and bases
there.

Just wondering what people's thoughts are.  Seems there should be some delay in
getting full utilization of ports and maybe factories but the construction eng
rule seems too awkward.

For repair it's always 2 turns.

For your CA Chapayev, it will take at all 10 turns to build it from scratch :
2X5 turns.  After the first 5 turns cycle, it goes in the construction pool. 
Then, to finish it, you take it from the construction pool and pay the second
cycle cost, after another 5 turns, it is going as reinforment on the map.

--- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "grafspee4" <bob.van.aelst@...> wrote:
>
> 2.Building naval units.
>   How does this work .?
>   Take for example the Soviet CA Chapayev from this scenario(cost3/4-takes 5
turns to build)
>   I know this :
> Naval units have two cost on their backs
> first cost=repair cost and the cost to put the unit on its its first
production cycle(face down)
> How many turns does this take?
> second cost=the naval unit from the construction pool to its second production
cycle(face-up)
> How many turns does this take?
>
> Thanks
> Bob
>