Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Option 63 -- Intelligence

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> Option 63 -- Intelligence Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Option 63 -- Intelligence - 3/9/2006 2:52:54 AM   
wfzimmerman


Posts: 660
Joined: 10/22/2003
Status: offline 		I have been reading the text of Option 63, intelligence. It seems like the basic idea is paying build points for luck. In theory the mechanics of the option would allow for very elaborate back and forth.

Amazingly, it looks as if Chris Marinacci has already successfully implemented this insanely difficult-to-code option in CWIF.

My question, for people who play with this option in regular WIF-- does anyone ever actually build intelligence points? My gut reaction is that I would never want to start building them and that the only way I would consider it is for in some form of gamesmanship -- e.g. trying to trick my opponent into buying too many.



_____________________________

Contribute to the Steve H. thank you book! http://www.nimblebooks.com/wordpress/2009/04/contribute-to-the-wargamers-wwii-quiz-book/
Post #: 1
RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 3/9/2006 3:52:18 AM   
lomyrin


Posts: 3741
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline 		CWiF did not have intelligence implemented.

In WiFFE play I have played with intelligence in many games and also without it in many games.

The option can cause important shifts in initiative and combat odds, it can be very powerful and most players seem to not use it.

Lars

(in reply to wfzimmerman)
Post #: 2
RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 3/9/2006 3:55:04 AM   
wfzimmerman


Posts: 660
Joined: 10/22/2003
Status: offline
quote:

O\RIGINAL: lomyrin

CWiF did not have intelligence implemented.

In WiFFE play I have played with intelligence in many games and also without it in many games.

The option can cause important shifts in initiative and combat odds, it can be very powerful and most players seem to not use it.

Lars


Oh, ok, I stand corrected. It does look like it will be an absolute nightmare to code.

_____________________________

Contribute to the Steve H. thank you book! http://www.nimblebooks.com/wordpress/2009/04/contribute-to-the-wargamers-wwii-quiz-book/

(in reply to lomyrin)
Post #: 3
RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 3/9/2006 4:12:07 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman

quote:

O\RIGINAL: lomyrin

CWiF did not have intelligence implemented.

In WiFFE play I have played with intelligence in many games and also without it in many games.

The option can cause important shifts in initiative and combat odds, it can be very powerful and most players seem to not use it.

Lars


Oh, ok, I stand corrected. It does look like it will be an absolute nightmare to code.


Sort of a combination Hitchcock and Felini nightmare.

Most of the problem has to do with designing an interface to enable the player to do all the things that he is capable of doing under this option.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to wfzimmerman)
Post #: 4
RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 3/9/2006 10:56:41 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

Most of the problem has to do with designing an interface to enable the player to do all the things that he is capable of doing under this option.


- For the "Examine a random half of the entry markers of 1 other major power", a menu item would be fine. The player would just go into this menu item to choose this option. All Intelligence menu items could be regrouped in a single "Intelligence" menu item, with all others items as submenus.

- For the "Randomly add 1 land, naval or aircraft unit to your force pool from next year’s builds", a menu item would be fine. The player would just go into it to choose this option.

- For the "Add ± 1 to any one die roll", I see it by the addition of a checkbox in every dialog after which dices will be rolled. Checking this checkbox just tells the computer that Intell will be applied to the die roll (0, +1 or -1 will be added to the die roll). This could also be a menu item, but it would be tricky to enter the menu item at the right moment.

- For the "Re-roll 1 die", I see it as a command menu that will be always be available just after any dices are rolled.

- For the "Secretly roll the next weather roll (or examine the next one if already rolled)", a menu item would work fine.

- For the "Secretly roll the next initiative roll", a check box in the Initiative dialog would allow the player to tell the computer that he wants to use intell here to roll the next init and attribute it to his or the enemy side. There should be some sort of "I will roll Initiative" dialog displayed before init is rolled, and the checkbox should be here.

- For the "Subtract half of another major power's intelligence points", a menu item would be fine.

- For the "Examine either side’s (but not both) next initiative roll if already determined", a menu item would be fine too.

- For the "Move a randomly chosen entry marker from either US entry pool to the other or from either US tension pool to the other", a menu item would be fine too.

- For the "Give intelligence points to any other active major power on your side", a menu item would be fine too.

Patrice

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 5
RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 3/9/2006 11:23:16 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
quote:

Most of the problem has to do with designing an interface to enable the player to do all the things that he is capable of doing under this option.


- For the "Examine a random half of the entry markers of 1 other major power", a menu item would be fine. The player would just go into this menu item to choose this option. All Intelligence menu items could be regrouped in a single "Intelligence" menu item, with all others items as submenus.

- For the "Randomly add 1 land, naval or aircraft unit to your force pool from next year’s builds", a menu item would be fine. The player would just go into it to choose this option.

- For the "Add ± 1 to any one die roll", I see it by the addition of a checkbox in every dialog after which dices will be rolled. Checking this checkbox just tells the computer that Intell will be applied to the die roll (0, +1 or -1 will be added to the die roll). This could also be a menu item, but it would be tricky to enter the menu item at the right moment.

- For the "Re-roll 1 die", I see it as a command menu that will be always be available just after any dices are rolled.

- For the "Secretly roll the next weather roll (or examine the next one if already rolled)", a menu item would work fine.

- For the "Secretly roll the next initiative roll", a check box in the Initiative dialog would allow the player to tell the computer that he wants to use intell here to roll the next init and attribute it to his or the enemy side. There should be some sort of "I will roll Initiative" dialog displayed before init is rolled, and the checkbox should be here.

- For the "Subtract half of another major power's intelligence points", a menu item would be fine.

- For the "Examine either side’s (but not both) next initiative roll if already determined", a menu item would be fine too.

- For the "Move a randomly chosen entry marker from either US entry pool to the other or from either US tension pool to the other", a menu item would be fine too.

- For the "Give intelligence points to any other active major power on your side", a menu item would be fine too.

Patrice


Thanks. That's a great start.

Just for future reference, it is 1 die and 2 dice. I don't know where that derives from; there is also one mouse and 2 mice.

Back to the intel stuff. The rules seem a little loose about modifying die rolls. Rolling a die comes up a lot. It could be quite bothersome to always have to consider the option to modify the rolls before rolling them during an air combat. But I haven't looked into this fully yet.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 6
RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 3/9/2006 5:52:17 PM   
Mziln


Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline 		The cost in inteligence points:

1 Examine a random half of the USA entry markers of a major power.
3 You can add a unit even if your force pools are not empty.
5 Modify a die or dice roll add 1, subtract 1 or apply no modifier to the result
15 You can re-roll any dice roll
3 Secretly roll the next weather roll or examine the next one if already rolled
5 Secretly roll the next initiative roll
* Attempt to subtract half another major power’s intelligence
1 Examine either side’s (but not both) next initiative roll if already determined
3 For every 2 intelligence points you assign to this operation you can give 1 to any other active major power on your side
x20 Randomly move a chosen entry marker from one USA entry or tension pool to another.

* Die roll for amount of Intelligence points lost

1 build point spent on intelligence is equal to 1 Intelligence operation.

Intelligence operations are subject to Gearing Limits as a separate class.

This doesn't list all the restrictions or requirements.


< Message edited by Mziln -- 3/9/2006 6:29:43 PM >

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 7
RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 3/9/2006 6:08:19 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

1 build point spent on intelligence is equal to 1 Intelligence point.

No.

1 BP spent on Intelligence buys 1 Operation Point (OP).
Every Active Major Power also gets 1 Free OP.
Example : If you're an active major power and you spend 2 BP on Intell, you have 3 OP.

With those OP you can buy either die rolls, or multiples.

Generaly, 1 OP buys only one multiple, OR one die, except the USA for whom 1 OP can buy 2 Dice OR 2 multiples, and the CW & Germany who can buy 2 dice OR 1 multiple with their OP.

Example : If you are the USA, with the 3 OP mentionned above, you can obtain 4 Dice AND 2 multiples if you want, or 2 Dice AND 4 multiples, or 6 Dice, or 6 Multiples.

Then, every side roll the total number of its dice.

There is an Axis best Roll and an Allied best Roll. The winner calculate the difference between both. If it is equal, the Allies win having a difference of 1.

The winner side make the major powers on its side, who have multiples, to gain Intell points equal to the difference multiplied by the multiple.

Example :
Axis : 4 dice, Italy 1 multiple, Japan 1 multiple.
Allied : 8 dice, USA 4 multiples, USSR 3 multiples, China 1 multiple.

Best Axis roll : 8
Best Allied roll : 10

Difference : 2

So the USA gain 8 Intell points, the USSR gain 6, and China gets 2.
Italy and Japan gain nothing.

(in reply to Mziln)
Post #: 8
RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 3/9/2006 6:19:41 PM   
Mziln


Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline 		Keep a written record of how many intelligence points (IP) each major power accumulates.

You can’t spend intelligence points (IP) in The Surprise Impulse if you are surprised in that impulse.

If both sides want to spend intelligence points (IP) at the same time, the side with the initiative spends them first.

Pre-determined dice rolls can still be modified or re-rolled by spending intelligence points (IP) .

In the peace step that a major power’s home country (the UK only for the Commonwealth) is conquered, or a Vichy government installed, that major power loses all accumulated intelligence points (IP) and the conquering major power gains half of them.



Shouldnt Operation Point (OP) be Inteligence Operation (IO) since it refers to a die roll(s) instead of actual points

This is a 56 hour work week for me and I'm still partialy asleep

< Message edited by Mziln -- 3/9/2006 6:46:03 PM >

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 9
RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 3/9/2006 7:02:19 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

Shouldnt Operation Point (OP) be Inteligence Operation (IO) since it refers to a die roll(s) instead of actual points

Sorry, you are right.

RAW calls them Intelligence Operation (IO), and MWiF should call them this way too.

Operation Point (OP) must either come from a ghost of WiF past, because we use this term at our table.

(in reply to Mziln)
Post #: 10
RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 3/9/2006 9:15:31 PM   
wfzimmerman


Posts: 660
Joined: 10/22/2003
Status: offline 		The mechanics of the rule seem pretty clever and as if they would add to gameplay (or at least to gamesmanship).

I am scratching my head a little over whether the rule feels historically accurate enough (I phrase it that way to avoid getting into the perennial debate over simulation v. game).

I wonder if, in theory, in "MWIF 2011" (issued after the triumphant platinum edition of MWIF 1 in 2006), one could make a better intelligence option by selectively turning fog of war on and off.

_____________________________

Contribute to the Steve H. thank you book! http://www.nimblebooks.com/wordpress/2009/04/contribute-to-the-wargamers-wwii-quiz-book/

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 11
RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 3/9/2006 10:43:28 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

I am scratching my head a little over whether the rule feels historically accurate enough (I phrase it that way to avoid getting into the perennial debate over simulation v. game).

I for one like it a lot, and combined with a clever use of the "Initiative" / "Play First" system, having loads of Intell can be vey helpfull in lots of ways : Having initiative nearly anytime you want, knowing the weather of the first impulse before choosing who plays first (important because often the first impule's weather will help making the turn a good or / weather long / short turn), avoiding bad die rolls (15 points), helping search rolls, helping combat rolls are the main examples.
This rule give the Allies a big advantage (the Axis almost never manage at reaching more than 10 intell points in the whole game, and the Allies can go over 100 sometimes -- I as the USA once earned about 80 intell points in a single intell phase, only to expend nearly 60 in the following turn re-rolling dices, buying init, and giving bonuses everywhere), and I think that it is quite historical because the Allies were more advantaged by Intelligence in WWII.

(in reply to wfzimmerman)
Post #: 12
RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 3/20/2006 6:38:55 PM   
Matt242

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 3/15/2006
Status: offline 		They certainly were. It was the Axis to conquer foreign countries, having millions of potential spies behind their frontline.

Your example however, Patrice, shows exactly what imho should not happen in WiF. Using intelligence this way can change a game completely within a single impulse. Is that really desirable? There are already too many situations where this could happen...

Since release of final edition, the Allies have been bolstered again and again to give them what they "should" have. (two considerable production boosts for the USSR, many more resources and factories for the USA and the CW just to mention a few changes). You will always find a reason for an advantage they "should" get - simply because they won this war and wrote ALL history about it...

My cent is: WiF should be a game. It will only make fun for as long as it remains exciting. Exploiting all imaginable assets for the Allies may be accurate. May be. But will it help to keep the game interesting? I don't think so.

However, the other reason for our group not to include intelligence is: It costs additional time. Additionally it increases the factor of luck where less would be better. After all we want to prove our strategic abilities not our patience to roll dice all the time and attend the results after consideration of their value in certain situations. There are more than enough really important matters to think about, i guess.

Intelligence is very good for DoD - and this is a game where it should matter.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 13
RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 3/21/2006 2:41:05 AM   
stewart_king

 

Posts: 21
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline 		We used the intel rules in the last game I played. The effect was as described: the Allies have more countries and also more production points available, hence they generally spend more and unless their dice are miserable they get a bundle of intel points every turn (especially after US DoW). This does make them stronger.

I don't disagree with this. It has been my experience that the Axis still has a significant advantage even with many of the optional rules that favor the Allies in play. I have seen Axis global conquest once (in a 3rd edition game) but in our most recent WiFFE game the Axis was clearly going to have lots more objectives than they bid (a bundle) even though there was no possibility of them crossing the Atlantic.

I wonder what the outcome of the WIFCON games has been? What is the average bid for an Axis power compared to the historical outcome for the Axis in recorded games? Does anybody know?

(in reply to Matt242)
Post #: 14
RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 3/21/2006 1:46:33 PM   
Matt242

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 3/15/2006
Status: offline 		I attended to Euro-WiFCon 5 of 9 times.
Overall games results seem relatively balanced with a certain overall advantage for the Allies. There are better years for the Axis as well as better ones for the Allies.

Since 1997 many rules have changed. Seeing it from today i think that many changes in favor of the Allies were necessary to create a more historical balance. However, if you take a look in the Millenium Annual there seems to be a main difference between players in Euope and overseas:
In Europe Allied players tend to win more games, in the US the reverse is true. But this is only a rough tendency i believe.

Imho one main factor is experience and ambition which often go hand in hand. This often decides which side will win. Optionals have an impact, yes, but during agreement process often a balance is being achieved.

Since many games aren't played to the bitter end, Allied peformance seem a little underrated to me. At a Con you have just a week to get as far as possible. Unless the USSR/CW have crumbled before, 1943 and 1944 are the decisive years for Allied offensives on all fronts. Most tables can't get further, some even do not see 1944...
Have you ever seen the Axis eat five or more offensive chits in a single turn? In 1944 it often happens. Outproducing the Axis several times the Allies can afford so many of them at this stage of the game and this does dramatically change game situation in an instant. Especially if happening several times in succession.

The hope for the Axis is tremendeous succees in the first third/half of the game. If they did not achieve a decisive goal by then, they have to consolidate their lines and fight for bare survival for the rest of the game. Needless to say they do hardly have a chance. That's the way the game is meant to be. If games were played to the end more often, the Allies would win most of them i think.

That is absolutely ok. Close to historical references. Both sides CAN win. This is crucial to a game.

To return to topic: Intelligence is rarely played at Euro-WiFCon. As far as i know: who plays it once there, won't do it again as it is with LiF/CiF/CONViF. Too much hassling for too little effect. If the Allies can afford to gather hundreds of Intelligence points, the game is already decided. What to do with them then? Dead is dead.
Offensive chits achieve more impact on the course of the game, are cheaper and need not be rolled for.

(in reply to stewart_king)
Post #: 15
RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 3/21/2006 5:01:23 PM   
wfzimmerman


Posts: 660
Joined: 10/22/2003
Status: offline 		I put forward a radical suggestion in the beta testers forum: why not use intelligence points to implement the fog of war option in MWIF?

The more intelligence points you spend, the clearer your picture of the enemy's operational dispositions.

_____________________________

Contribute to the Steve H. thank you book! http://www.nimblebooks.com/wordpress/2009/04/contribute-to-the-wargamers-wwii-quiz-book/

(in reply to Matt242)
Post #: 16
RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 3/21/2006 5:13:06 PM   
SamuraiProgrmmr

 

Posts: 353
Joined: 10/17/2004
From: Paducah, Kentucky
Status: offline 		That is an intriguing idea.

I suspect, at least at first, many people will be playing without the fog of war. I know I will during the time when I am reacquainting myself with the game.

This might be an interesting possibility for later, though.


_____________________________

Bridge is the best wargame going .. Where else can you find a tournament every weekend?

(in reply to wfzimmerman)
Post #: 17
RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 3/21/2006 5:30:57 PM   
wfzimmerman


Posts: 660
Joined: 10/22/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer

That is an intriguing idea.

I suspect, at least at first, many people will be playing without the fog of war. I know I will during the time when I am reacquainting myself with the game.

This might be an interesting possibility for later, though.



Fog of war is in my opinion both realistic and fun. This may be especially the case when playing against the AI.

_____________________________

Contribute to the Steve H. thank you book! http://www.nimblebooks.com/wordpress/2009/04/contribute-to-the-wargamers-wwii-quiz-book/

(in reply to SamuraiProgrmmr)
Post #: 18
RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 3/21/2006 5:39:03 PM   
SamuraiProgrmmr

 

Posts: 353
Joined: 10/17/2004
From: Paducah, Kentucky
Status: offline 		I agree that fog of war is intriguing. I also agree that using some sort of intelligence spending will be a wonderful addition to the game.

As with everything, though, balance will be the key.

_____________________________

Bridge is the best wargame going .. Where else can you find a tournament every weekend?

(in reply to wfzimmerman)
Post #: 19
RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 3/21/2006 6:25:10 PM   
Matt242

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 3/15/2006
Status: offline 		Basically an interesting idea.

At the moment i still have problems to imagine how this would function technically.
Another point is planning: A cosim is decisionmaking. Decisionmaking would be very difficult if you don't know what is going on.

two examples:
a) early 1940. fall gelb is about to be unleashed. how could germany decide where to attack? It does matter a lot where the enemy is - his hqs, his planes, reserves etc.
where to strike first and hardest? -> where to strike at all?
how would the CW decide which city/-ies) to bomb? where are enemy fighters? which front hex to disrupt? when is it time to run for another dunkirk?

b) game starts and goes along. how would either side decide whether a sealion is possible? where are the enemy units stationed? what are the builds like? what is the opponent up to?
it would be a strange surprise for the CW if he fought desperately for France, losing several units in his effort to delay the germans.
Then, from nowhere a german CV and another TRS along with a MAR show up and no one knew about their existence at all.
it would also be a strange experience to plan for a sealion just to be expected by 2 hqs, 2 ARM, 2 MEC and a handful of FTR etc.

Must also be funny to play the USSR and prepare for a Barbarossa that will never come. Due to your neutrality you don't have enough intelligence to know that the german spearheads are approaching Gibraltar or London...

surprise, surprise, happy birthday

The flight of a single reconnaissance plane may have been enough. Listening to the radio helps also.

you can imagine millions of examples where fog of war would ruin any strategy in a cosim. In a regular wargame being played in two or three hours this is ok. But WiF requires so much time.

To be honest: i would be really disgusted to lose a game i spent 60 hours on just because i could not see the opponent. a maximum in intelligence (for uncovering the map) would then be a "must have" - for every side. so why not leave it out...

Basically it's a question what game computer-wif shall be. As a cosim it should not have fog of war.
If it is intended to be warcraft (which is a great game) with numbered counters - ok. but then harry won't be happy with giving the license. and i would not play it.

therefore i would prefer intelligence to be included as an optional as it is in RAW.

< Message edited by Matt242 -- 3/21/2006 6:41:31 PM >

(in reply to SamuraiProgrmmr)
Post #: 20
RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 3/21/2006 7:12:25 PM   
wfzimmerman


Posts: 660
Joined: 10/22/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Matt242

...

Basically it's a question what game computer-wif shall be. As a cosim it should not have fog of war.
If it is intended to be warcraft (which is a great game) with numbered counters - ok. but then harry won't be happy with giving the license. and i would not play it.

therefore i would prefer intelligence to be included as an optional as it is in RAW.


Well, the issue is slightly different. A form of fog of war is already programmed into the CWIF "legacy code". It is currently conceptually distinct from the intelligence option #63.

Steve H. (MWIF developer) has already stated his intention to implement a long list of WIF options that includes option 63. So the current expectation is that will be available as part of MWIF.

Steve has also stated his intention to implement CWIF's fog of war as an additional option in MWIF. The question is exactly how should that work. The legacy implementation has some question marks.

The most likely course of events is that Steve will implement intelligence & FOW as completely separate options. My (somewhat troublemaking) counter-suggestion was that we should consider using the concepts developed option 63 as we consider exactly how the FOW option should work.

_____________________________

Contribute to the Steve H. thank you book! http://www.nimblebooks.com/wordpress/2009/04/contribute-to-the-wargamers-wwii-quiz-book/

(in reply to Matt242)
Post #: 21
RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 3/21/2006 7:33:38 PM   
Neilster


Posts: 2890
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline 		I thought from day one that MWiF may begin to depart from WiF in some ways as a result of computerization. As long as we work out where the changes are beneficial it will be a positive development. Fog of War makes for better wargames IMHO as it is more realistic. Once we work out the bugs, I think it will be hugely enjoyable to play using this option. Even the flawed FOW in CWiF made things very interesting and prevented gamey tactics.

Cheers, Neilster

(in reply to wfzimmerman)
Post #: 22
RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 3/21/2006 8:24:17 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline 		I posted this earlier in a nice layout - this is just a crude copy. You can find the pretty one under Scenarios, Options, and Addons: post #114. That is an old thread in this forum (currently on page 3, I believe) and it has a lot of posts concerning optional rules. I am providing this repeat post just to facilitate discussion.
================================================
Here is the final decision on what add-ons and optional rules will and will not be included in MWIF Product 1.

MWIF Product 1 will include the add-ons:
Africa Aflame
Asia Aflame
Carrier Planes in Flames
Convoys in Flames
Cruisers in Flames
Mech in Flames
Planes in Flames
Ships in Flames
*** The Guards banner armies (option 70), and Chinese warlords (option 71) will be included even though technically these are part of Leaders in Flames and Politics in Flames respectively.

MWIF Product 1 will NOT include the add-ons:
Leaders in Flames
America in Flames
Patton in Flames
Politics in Flames
Days of Decision III

Optional Rules
CWIF MWIF 1 Option WIF FE Rules Reference
NA NA 1. African & Scandinavian maps 2.1.1, 2.1.4, 2.4.2
Yes Yes 2. Divisions 2.2, 2.3.1, 9.5, 11.4.5, 11.14, 11.15, 11.16.1, 11.16.5, 22.4.1
Yes Yes 3. Artillery 2.2, 2.3.1, 11.2, 11.5.9, 11.5.10, 11.8, 11.9, 11.11.2, 11.16.4, 11.16.5, 16.1, 16.3, 22.4.2
NA NA 4. Pacific & Asian map ZOCs 2.2
Yes Yes 5. Fortifications 2.3.1, 4.2, 11.16.1, 22.4.9
Yes Yes 6. Supply units 2.3.1, 2.4.2, 11.11.2, 11.12, 22.4.10
Yes Yes 7. Engineers 2.3.1, 11.11.2, 22.2, 22.4.1
Yes Yes 8. Flying boats 2.3.1, 8.2.9
Yes Yes 9. Ships In Flames units 2.3.1, 4.1.4, 4.2, 11.3, 11.5.8, 13.3.2, 13.5.1, 13.6.1, 13.6.5, 14.4.1, 22.4.7
Yes Yes 10. Territorials 11.16.5, 2.4.2, 4.2, 17.3, 18.1, 19.4, 22.4.5
Yes Yes 11. Limited overseas supply 2.4.2, 22.4.11
Yes Yes 12. Limited supply across straits 2.4.2, 11.10, 13.6.1
Yes Yes 13. HQ supply and support 2.4.3, 11.16.3
Yes Yes 14. Synthetic oil plants 4.2, 13.5.1, 22.4.11
Yes Yes 15. Off-city reinforcement 4.2
No Yes 16. Recruitment limits 4.2
Yes Yes 17. HQ movement 11.11.2
Yes Yes 18. Bottomed ships 11.2
Yes Yes 19. In the presence of the enemy 11.4.2
No Yes 20. Surprised ZOCs 2.2
No No 21. Task forces (hidden) 11.4.3
No Yes 22. Bounce combat 14.3.3
Partially Yes 23. V-weapons and Atomic bombs 11.7.1, 11.8
Partially Yes 24. Frogmen 22.4.3
Yes Yes 25. SCS transport 11.4.5, 11.14
Yes Yes 26. Amphibious rules 11.13, 11.14, 22.4.12
Yes Yes 27. Optional CV searching 11.5.5
Yes Yes 28. Pilots 4.2, 11.2, 11.5.8, 11.5.11, 13.6.5, 13.6.7, 13.7.1, 14.6, 19.1, 22.4.19
No Yes 29. Food in Flames 13.6.1
Yes Yes 30. Factory construction and destruction 11.7, 13.6.8, 22.2, 22.4.11
Yes Yes 31. Saving build points and resources 11.7, 13.1, 13.3.2, 13.5.1, 13.6.3, 13.6.8
Yes Yes 32. Carpet bombing 11.8, 14.6
Yes Yes 33. Tank busters 11.9, 11.16.4
Yes Yes 34. Motorized movement rates 11.11.2
Yes Yes 35. Bomber (& no paradrop) ATRs 11.12, 11.15, 11.18.1
Yes Yes 36. Large ATRs 11.12, 11.18.1, 11.18.4
Yes Yes 37. Railway movement bonus 11.11.2
Yes Yes 38. Defensive shore bombardment 11.16.2, 15.1
No Yes 39. Blitz Bonus 11.16.1, 11.16.5
Yes Yes 40. Chinese attack weakness 11.16.5
Yes + Yes + 41. Fractional odds 11.16.5
Yes Yes 42. Allied combat friction 11.16.5
Yes Yes 43. 2D10 Land CRT 11.16.6
Yes Yes 44. Extended aircraft rebasing 11.17
Yes Yes 45. Variable reorganization costs 13.6.3
Yes + Yes + 46. Partisans 13.1, 13.7.4
Yes Yes 47. Isolated reorganization limits 13.5
Yes Yes 48. Oil 5, 13.5.1, 21
No Yes 49. Hitler’s War () 13.3.2
No Yes 50. USSR-Japan compulsory peace 13.7.3
No Yes 51. En-route aircraft interception 14.2.1
Yes Yes 52. Night missions 14.2.1, 14.2.3, 22.4.2
Yes Yes 53. Twin-engined fighters 14.3.2
Yes Yes 54. Fighter-bombers 14.3.2
Yes Yes 55. Outclassed fighters 14.3.2
Yes Yes 56. Carrier planes 4.2, 11.2, 11.5.2, 11.5.8, 11.5.11, 11.18.4, 13.5.1, 13.6.5, 14.3.2, 14.4, 14.4.1, 14.8, 16.2
No Yes 57. Limited aircraft interception 14.2.1
No Yes 58. Internment 14.6.4, 19.1
Partially Yes 59. Flying bombs 14.6, 14.7
Partially Yes 60. Kamikazes 14.6, 14.8
Yes Yes 61. Offensive Chits 16, (16.1 - 16.5)
No Yes 62. The Ukraine 19.12
No Yes 63. Intelligence 22.1
No Yes 64. Japanese command conflict 22.3
Yes Yes 65. Ski troops 22.4.1
Yes Yes 66. The Queens 22.4.4
Mostly Yes 67. City Based Volunteers 4.1.2, 22.4.8
Yes Yes 68. Siberians 22.4.7
Partially Yes 69. Naval supply units 22.4.13
Partially Yes 70. Guards Banner Armies 22.4.14
No Yes 71. Chinese Warlords 22.4.15
No Yes 72. Partisan HQs 22.4.16
Partially No 73. Heavy Weapons Units 22.4.17
Partially No 74. Air Cav 22.4.18
No Yes 75. Cruiser in Flames 13.5.1, 22.4.6
No Yes 76. Convoys in Flames 19.4, 22.4.19


CWIF optional rules that are standard rules in WIF FE and will be standard rules in MWIF 1:
Lend lease,
CV strategic bombing, and
Japanese carrier range.

CWIF optional rules that were discontinued in WIF FE and will not be included in MWIF 1:
Separate die rolls on land combat table,
Territorial conquest, and
Vlassov (replaced by city based volunteers).

CWIF optional rules that are not in WIF FE but will be kept in MWIF 1:
Fog of war,
Limited view of opponent’s production,
Scrap units (play testers requested this be optional to simplify play), and
Facility repair (separated from Option #7 at request of play testers).

_____________________________

Steve

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to wfzimmerman)
Post #: 23
RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 3/21/2006 8:34:33 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline 		Here is Jan's proposal for revised Fog of War rules, and my comments. Again, a lot of the prettiness has been lost when I copied the earlier post.


Jan,

I have rewritten your suggestions replacing the word 'unhidden' with 'known'. I was having trouble keeping things straight when reading it. I also added some color highlights. No offense, I hope.
quote:
====================================================
ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

Category: Fog of War
Severity: Suggestion
ID: JS013

My take on Fog of War (which I doubt I would ever want to play with personally - but still). I have only concerned myself with units on the map - not units in production/repair etc.

Start of turn
Right after the reinforcement stage each unit on the map checks to see if its hidden or known.

If the unit is in a land hex, then it is known if :
- the unit was involved in any combat last turn OR
- the hex is adjacent to an enemy controlled land hex (with or without enemy units) OR
- the hex is adjacent to a sea-area which contains any enemy unit OR
- the hex is within 2 hexes/hexdots of a land hex containing an enemy aircraft
Otherwise the unit is hidden.

If the (non-sub) unit is in a sea-area, it is known if
- the unit was involved in any combat last turn OR
- the sea-area also contains any enemy unit OR
- the sea-area is adjacent to any enemy controlled land hex (with or without enemy units) OR
- the sea-area is adjacent to a sea-area with enemy units
Otherwise the unit is hidden.

If a sub unit is in a sea-area it is hidden unless it took part in a combat last turn.

During the turn
Units will never change from known to hidden during the turn.

A unit will become known immediately if it would have been known at the start of the turn given the present position of units on the map. That is - if at any time a unit fulfills any of the rules that would have made it known at the start of the turn then its immediately known.

If the movement of one of your units cause an enemy unit to become known during the turn then that movement cannot be undone.

Hidden units still show up on the map - but they do not reveal their name, type, size or stats - only a generic land/air/naval icon is shown.
=========================================
I would suggest changing the range for air unit detection to 3 hexes. Otherwise, air units have no additional detection ability unless they are in the front line.

There is the question of what to do about air units that overfly hidden enemy units. If they attack a hex, that act should reveal any hidden units under the condition of the enemy unit was in combat. But how about hidden units in a hex adjacent to the target hex? Do they still remain hidden? Or, if you simply fly a long range bomber out over the entire enemy front line to ground strike a hex at one end, and then come all the way back to return to base at the other end of the frontline? Does that action reveal any hidden units under the flight path?

As for memorizing all the units in the game, that is quite possible, but only about half the time. There are a lot of USSR fighters, but very few battleships. There are a lot of CW battleships, but few Italian. The more unusal the unit type is for a nationality, the easier it will be to identify which unit it is by memorizing unit lists. When a country has a lot of the unit type, it will be quite difficult to be sure what awaits you in the rear areas.
==============
==============

My reply to a Patrice post:

However, I am predisposed to your answer of no additional intel from overflights. My logic here is that the planes often flew high to avoid various types of misery and they would try to fly in a straight line (or a series of straight lines). Sight seeing just wasn't on their agenda. Of course, anything of interest that they saw they reported, but the bombing missions themselves had just one purpose. So their reports were pretty hit and miss.
==============
==============



_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to wfzimmerman)
Post #: 24
RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 3/21/2006 8:57:38 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Matt242

Basically an interesting idea.

At the moment i still have problems to imagine how this would function technically.

...



My 2 previous posts should provide a lot of the detail you are looking for concerning Fog of War.


But before I continue. What is a cosim?


The basic idea of FOW as envisioned (double entendre) for MWIF is that you will see all the units on the map and know their basic unit type. You won't know their numbers though. For the air units, that means you won't know for certain which hexes each air unit can reach (bomber attacks, fighter cover), beyond the obvious nearby hexes. For the land units, that means the units in the rear areas will be hidden. For example, if the USSR retreats units that had not been engaged in combat the previous turn (say during the winter months), the German player will have to first move units adjacent to the retreated units to determine their strength. The mechanism I am thinking of using here is to have all the unit specifics be removed from enemy units (they all become blank) and then redraw them based on whether they are hidden or known. Reinforcements that pop up in rear areas will have their details hidden.

The FOW will be minor for heavily engaged forces:

1 - all adjacent units will be known

2 - all units that fought in the previous turn (not impulse) will be known

3 - all units within the extended 'seeing range' of air units will be known

If a front is static (e.g., China, North Africa, Great Britain), then knowledge concerning the enemy will be less. Which seems right.


Anyway, we are just kicking this around and I am open to everyone's thoughts, ideas, comments, and suggestions about FOW.

There is nothing in WIF FE even close, so we are not restricted by history (double entendre) in what we decide for MWIF. It should add to the enjoyment of playing the game - that's the overriding criterion for how to define it. Oh, and it will be optional of course.

Then there is Fred's idea of using Intelligence Points for revealing hidden units.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Matt242)
Post #: 25
RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 3/21/2006 9:05:43 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

Then there is Fred's idea of using Intelligence Points for revealing hidden units.

Maybe spending 1 Intel Point could reveal 1 unit, or 1 stack of units.
It has to be somehow cheap.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 26
RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 3/21/2006 9:32:16 PM   
Neilster


Posts: 2890
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

1 - all adjacent units will be known


But should they always? What about units that are adjacent across frontiers, say, pre-Barbarossa for example? Also, sometimes armies were very good at masking their strength. I'm thinking of the Ruskies in 43-45 and the Jerries before the Ardennes Offensive.

Cheers, Neilster

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 27
RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 3/21/2006 10:59:17 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

quote:

1 - all adjacent units will be known


But should they always? What about units that are adjacent across frontiers, say, pre-Barbarossa for example? Also, sometimes armies were very good at masking their strength. I'm thinking of the Ruskies in 43-45 and the Jerries before the Ardennes Offensive.

Cheers, Neilster



Using your Ardennes Offensive example, historically the hidden units were very, very close to the front line. In game terms, you merely need to keep them a couple of hexes back - and then move them into the front line to attack. For instance, you can have a few armor + mechanized units in the rear but the opponent doesn't know if they are strong or weak. When you want to go on the offensive, you shuffle the units in the front line and create space for the armor attack. This happens all the time in WIF anyway. The FOW just adds a bit more uncertainty.

Newly arrived reinforcements, or fresh arrivals by rail from another theater of operations could be some 4-3s coming to replace 6-4s that are heading elsewhere. Or they could be 9-4s coming to bust your chops. A little suspense to keep your pulse rate high - especially if it is the AIO shuffling all those units around (what the **** is it doing now?).

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Neilster)
Post #: 28
RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 3/21/2006 11:32:36 PM   
Matt242

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 3/15/2006
Status: offline 		Thanks, Shannon for gently clearing the Fog that got in my sights.

After reading the intended mechanics i slowly start to accept that fog may blur WiF and it still keeps being playable. Slowly.

A few immediate thoughts:
1. Planes are very important to leading the war offensively and defensively as well. Not knowing their values gives me headeaches even when i just think about it. Things seem to become playing lotto until the props clash.

Idea: What about the rule to keep units combat values (which were visible in the past) visible for as long as they do not change position? Otherwise players could come to the idea of recording the values on sheets of paper to remember them. Same effect but somehow buggy, hm?

2. Having a glue at opponent's production can have a great influence on your own strategy. It should do so if you do not want to be surprised by really nasty things going on.

Idea: What about telling the opponent side the types and numbers (at least gearing limits) of units being built after the production phase?

3. Using full corps/armies to investigate the strength of enemy units sounds like good old Panzer/Allied General to me. As a consequence i may initially like the idea but in WiF the units lack the ability be reduced and refreshed.
One would need much more time to plot gound advances since they become so much more dangerous/there are so many more variables to implement in your thoughts. This would certainly slow down action.

After all i must admit that it could be a way to bring new flavor to our beloved WiF.
Shannon, can you please give us a few hints at what the playtesters say?

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 29
RE: Option 63 -- Intelligence - 3/21/2006 11:36:50 PM   
wfzimmerman


Posts: 660
Joined: 10/22/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


A little suspense to keep your pulse rate high - especially if it is the AIO shuffling all those units around (what the **** is it doing now?).


I love the sound of this!

_____________________________

Contribute to the Steve H. thank you book! http://www.nimblebooks.com/wordpress/2009/04/contribute-to-the-wargamers-wwii-quiz-book/

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> Option 63 -- Intelligence Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

5.718