Two questions/clarifications, hopefully for the FAQ, and a comment on negativity

[molinar13]

Virtual High-five. Like everyone the lack of bombers got to me but other than that i can deal with the rest.

[Imperious Leader]

errors in rulebook - I wish that these were more avoidable, but I know a little about how things like this work at large companies, so if I’m right about this, it’s easy to see how they happen.  First off, the people developing the game don’t write the rulebook.  They hand off a list of rules to the technical writers sometime midway through development.  Then the rulebook is written and laid out in parallel with the later part of development.  As rules change, regular meetings are held to update the rulebook team.  There are also several passes to review it and make sure that the rules as written are accurate.  There are lots of misunderstandings between the two teams, but most are caught and cleaned up.  There will be some rules that are hard to word, and in an attempt to make them easy to understand, they may get corrupted slightly. There are weird interactions and corner cases that you need to cover.  Some, the rules team misses.  Others they intentionally leave out because to include everything, you make the rulebook unreadable (ever read the SFB rules?).  There are lots of mistakes that creep in, and several passes to keep them out, but there are two strikes against the rules team.  One is that there are probably at most a dozen people working the rules, and those numbers pale against the thousands of people we have to catch errors.  The second is that every designer/developer proofreading the rules knows how the game is “supposed to work”, which gives them a blind spot that makes you miss omissions and ambiguities, because you fill in the missing data.  It would be great if these kinds of things didn’t happen, but they always will.

The problem with this assessment is that the existence of a spell checker would fix such items. If they got chimps who can’t be bothered to install a simple checker for grammar and spelling… this is inexcusable. They even got typo’s on the box… come on. Anybody in the business of having a job called an editor must have such a program. I researched this Cal Moore guy and i find a pattern of this laziness in other things he has worked on.

I don’t see the rules themselves as the problem. They seem very clear, except a number of cases were not addressed till the FAQ.

[purplebaron]

@Imperious:

The problem with this assessment is that the existence of a spell checker would fix such items. If they got chimps who can’t be bothered to install a simple checker for grammar and spelling… this is inexcusable. They even got typo’s on the box… come on. Anybody in the business of having a job called an editor must have such a program. I researched this Cal Moore guy and i find a pattern of this laziness in other things he has worked on.

On this, I have to agree with you.  Where automatic tools can be used, there really is no excuse.  The one exception is for ‘on the box’ typos, I believe that it is a sometimes common practice in graphic design to do text entirely graphically rather than as a text block.  In that case, your spellchecker cannot save you.

[purplebaron]

@RJL518:

Yes…u should go back to work…but here-here on your thoughts…there will always be negative people on these forums…but i applaud you sir on your thoughts…

As far as your questions go…i will let the KriegHund answer you when he gets to this post…

+5 Karma to you sir

Thanks

[katfishkris]

+1 purplebaron, amen brother.

and also, i am kind of tired of the whole “chimps” thing.  i am not an apologist, but calling names never got anyone anywhere.  :|

[A Former User]

@katfishkris:

and also, i am kind of tired of the whole “chimps” thing.  i am not an apologist, but calling names never got anyone anywhere.  :|

Maybe it is a Nebraska thing, but I agree with you.

[Krieghund]

Thanks for your insightful comments, purplebaron!  Thanks also to those that expressed support for them.

@purplebaron:

1. Movement restrictions while neutral - Based on both the rulebook and variouos threads here, my understanding is that if you are not at war, your pieces cannot coexist with any other country’s pieces or territories (UK and ANZAC are the exception).  Some consequences of this are:  US cannot land units in UK or ANZAC territories before declaration of war; a handful of surface units can screen an enemy force if they block a continuous line.  Assuming that surface combatants do block navies if you’re not at war, do transports and subs also block them?  I think not, but please clarify.

You’re partially right.  When you’re not at war, your units can’t occupy the same territories as other powers (with the exception of UK and ANZAC).  However, sea zones are another matter.  The units of a power not at war may move and mix freely in sea zones with those of all other powers, including those on the other side.  They may not, however, move planes or land units onto each other’s carriers or transports.  The sea units of a power not at war never block other powers’ movements, nor are they blocked by them.

@purplebaron:

2. Scrambling fighters - The rulebook says that you can scramble fighters into combat even if the sea zone is empty.  To clarify what you can and can’t do, I have four questions based on the following setup:

Japanese fleet in SZ 16
US fighters/tac bombers and airbase on Midway
US fleet in SZ 26 (Hawaii)

Situation 1: Japanese fleet combat moves to SZ 25 to amphib assault Midway.  My understanding is that the air units can defend in the sea zone.

Correct.

@purplebaron:

Situation 2: Japanese fleet combat moves to SZ 26 to attack US fleet.  Can the Midway fighters scramble and defend SZ25, forcing the fleet to stop?  I think not, but please clarify

You’re right, they can’t.

@purplebaron:

Situation 3: Remove US fleet.  Japanese fleet non-combat moves to SZ 26.  Can the Midway fighters scramble and force combat, making the move a combat move, and stopping the fleet in SZ 25?  Again, I think not, but please clarify.

You’re right again.

@purplebaron:

Situation 4: Repeat scenario 1 but add a submarine to SZ 25.  Ordinarily, the attacking units can decide whether they’re attacking the sub or not.  Since the fighters are scrambling and forcing combat, does that mean that the sub is automatically involved?  Or can the attackers still choose to ignore the sub?  I think if there’s an attack, the sub has to be involved, but again, please clarify.

You’re right yet again.

[Krieghund]

Yup.

[Bigtiti]

i’m messed up, i though the attacker always chose if he would attack the sub or not?

[Vareel]

@Frontovik:

i’m messed up, i though the attacker always chose if he would attack the sub or not?

There is a sub in a sea zone with an airbase on an island containing a fighter.

Attacker moves 2 cruisers and a transport into the sea zone, they choose to ignore the submarine and conduct an invasion of the island.

Defender chooses to scramble the fighter into the sea zone to defend it, this must be resolved before the land battle and can be done because the enemy ended a combat move into the sea zone adjacent to the island containing the airbase.

So, sea battle begins, it is 2 cruisers against a submarine and a fighter, defender decides he wants his sub to submerge at the beginning of the battle.  So the fight between the two cruisers and the fighter begins.  Had one of the cruisers been a destroyer, then the sub could not have submerged.

So, in conclusion, while the attacker originally choose to ignore the sub, the defender initiated combat with the scramble which included the sub, but then decided to submerge the sub.

[Guest]

I have a negative comment on your comment about negativity, but this time I will keep my comment to myself. :-D