RE: Japan Map

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Japan Map

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 >> RE: Japan Map

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Japan Map - 1/16/2007 4:11:41 AM

Jeff Gilbert

Posts: 67
Joined: 10/2/2005
Status: offline

I agree, this looks good based on my limited knowledge and research.

_____________________________

Jeff Gilbert
US Army [Ret]
Palm Harbor, Florida, USA

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 151

RE: Japan Map - 1/16/2007 4:47:46 AM

lomyrin

Posts: 3741
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline

Looks fine to me.

Lars

(in reply to Jeff Gilbert)

Post #: 152

RE: Japan Map - 3/25/2007 1:46:02 AM

paulderynck

Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

OK I'm new here and apologies if this has been discussed before, but I notice the resource hex northeast of Vladivostok is no longer on the coast.

To me this represents a gap between the boardgame and the computer game because it significantly changes the way Japan must operate if it is interested in taking this resource hex from Russia and using it for itself. It is not the tactics of the situation that interests me but rather the philosophy apparent in attempting to render the boardgame in MWiF.

It may seem like a minor difference and I understand all hexes are now on the European scale and obviously unit density in Asia has to be affected. But the fact that the resource hex is now inland actually creates a whole set of problems for Japan in extracting it - that are not in the boardgame. This means MWiF design has impacted WiF strategy and tactics. IMO such changes force MWiF to be a different game. It could turn out to be a better game, but has there been discussion as to what degree MWiF should replicate the boardgame and what degree of change is desired?

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 153

RE: Japan Map - 3/25/2007 7:15:24 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

OK I'm new here and apologies if this has been discussed before, but I notice the resource hex northeast of Vladivostok is no longer on the coast.

To me this represents a gap between the boardgame and the computer game because it significantly changes the way Japan must operate if it is interested in taking this resource hex from Russia and using it for itself. It is not the tactics of the situation that interests me but rather the philosophy apparent in attempting to render the boardgame in MWiF.

It may seem like a minor difference and I understand all hexes are now on the European scale and obviously unit density in Asia has to be affected. But the fact that the resource hex is now inland actually creates a whole set of problems for Japan in extracting it - that are not in the boardgame. This means MWiF design has impacted WiF strategy and tactics. IMO such changes force MWiF to be a different game. It could turn out to be a better game, but has there been discussion as to what degree MWiF should replicate the boardgame and what degree of change is desired?

Yes, there has been a lot of discussion on those topics. And it is all available for you to read and critique within the MWIF threads. There are separate threads on the Russian map (Mother Russia) and the China map. China required a ton of work by many individual contributors (Wosung and Patrice in particular) because the number of hexes in China increased times 6!

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to paulderynck)

Post #: 154

RE: Japan Map - 3/27/2007 4:32:27 AM

paulderynck

Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

Hi Patrice,

I've reviewed this thread, especially your posts #127, #143, #144 and #149 and I would like to further discuss the placement of the resource near Vlad.

I saw the list of objectives for the map, to reprise:
1 - true to geology and geography (e,g., terrain type and city placement)
2 - true to history (e.g., political boundaries and rail lines)
3 - true to WIF FE.
but I'm unclear on the prioritization of these.

Simply put, compare a Japanese attack on Russia in WIFFE vs. MWIF:
WIFFE: Invade the coastal resource hex, put a convoy in the sea zone and beginning with the current turn enjoy an increase of one PP. Often Vlad may be attacked but not necessarily occupied.
MWIF: Forget about using the resource until you take Vlad.

To me that seems a fairly significant violation of objective 3.

Furthermore the map in your post 127 shows Suchan more east then northeast of Vlad. Presumably Suchan would be important to the collection of the coal in the area, but there are other coal deposits even closer to the coast than Suchan is.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 155

RE: Japan Map - 3/27/2007 8:28:38 AM

Froonp

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

Well, Paul, I would not say that you're wrong, especially regarding the position of Suchan.
There are people supporting the RP on the shore view, others supporting to let it where it was in the first place by the original designers of CWiF.
I must admit that I'm in doubt now.

Also, I would not want this to be a sign that all RP that Japan could access to in WiF FE that were on the shore because of scale to be moved on the shore here too. There are more than simply this one.

Is it really a problem to consider that taking Vlad is necessary to ship the resource ? I understand that it goes agains point #3 that you listed (immediate landing = immediate profit), but it also goes against the gamey strategy of attacking Russia without attacking Vlad (for surrender problems), which is ahistorical & cheesy. The Japanese would have no problems in taking Vlad, and can take it in the first place very easily, so why not leave it this way ?

(in reply to paulderynck)

Post #: 156

RE: Japan Map - 3/27/2007 9:39:24 AM

paulderynck

Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Well, Paul, I would not say that you're wrong, especially regarding the position of Suchan.
There are people supporting the RP on the shore view, others supporting to let it where it was in the first place by the original designers of CWiF.
I must admit that I'm in doubt now.

Also, I would not want this to be a sign that all RP that Japan could access to in WiF FE that were on the shore because of scale to be moved on the shore here too. There are more than simply this one.

Is it really a problem to consider that taking Vlad is necessary to ship the resource ? I understand that it goes agains point #3 that you listed (immediate landing = immediate profit), but it also goes against the gamey strategy of attacking Russia without attacking Vlad (for surrender problems), which is ahistorical & cheesy. The Japanese would have no problems in taking Vlad, and can take it in the first place very easily, so why not leave it this way ?

This goes back to my first post on the subject - it is a question of philosophy. If the decision had first been made to absolutely replicate WIFFE, then there would be three map scales - along with all the attendant programming difficulties that would entail. No doubt those difficulties plus the allure of a world-wide single map scale were what drove CWIF and MWIF toward that decision. Once you make that decision (and believe me, I'm not campaigning to reverse it), you automatically make MWIF a different game. I don't have the benefit of having played CWIF to know what the change in unit density does to WIF in the Pacific, but no doubt it must affect things.

So now the line is crossed, and the risk you run is to be carried away with all the things that by committee seem to need "fixing" and then the purists may be dissapointed with the game when it is published. The WIF community is not very large and we want MWIF to be successful so one must try not to alienate a portion of an already small user group.

As for cheesy, if you have never done the following:
- not taken Vlad so the Russian cannot force peace before you take 2 or 3 more undefended RPs
- not taken the last factory in France or China that would allow the country to surrender, so that you can complete your plans without that tactic being pulled by the Allies
- flown every available Ftr and Nav into the 1-box of the Italian Coast when the Wallies invade
- backed out of or did not progress into a DoW'd Russia in MA41 so that they would not get a production boost
- attacked in Siberia but not in European Russia so they would not get a production boost
- purposely put the Eastern Front Wehrmaht OOS, so Russia would not get a production boost
- delayed attacks into E. Prussia in the late game with Russia so Germany would not get a production boost
- taken the Italian armed forces out of Italy when it is close to surrender
- lent all the Italian BPs to Germany when it is close to surrender
- built the "Bordeaux Redoubt" with the CW
- done a zillion anti-U.S. entry actions with Ge/It after the U.S. goes to war with Japan, so that their "it's war" table becomes less propitious
- etc. etc.
THEN, you may cast the first lump of cheese.

Fact is, last time I looked, all of those tactics were legal under RAW. Shall the MWIF design repair all those? (I'm sure I could think of more, but I am tired of typing and no doubt you may be growing tired of reading.)

I conclude by saying, IMO, all the coastal RPs available to Japan in WIFFE ought to stay that way in MWIF. However, if they don't, I still intend on buying the game.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 157

RE: Japan Map - 3/27/2007 10:49:58 AM

Froonp

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

quote:

(I'm sure I could think of more, but I am tired of typing and no doubt you may be growing tired of reading.)

I'm not tired of reading you, on the contrary.
About the cheesy things (amongst which at least half I never done), I'm not advocating that MWiF should chase & remove them, I'm just saying that here we are killing 2 birds with a single stone (the cheesy thing removed, the geography satisfied -- as I don't think that Suchan was a port nor that there was a port available to ship the coal out of Russia without going through Vlad).

quote:

I conclude by saying, IMO, all the coastal RPs available to Japan in WIFFE ought to stay that way in MWIF. However, if they don't, I still intend on buying the game.

They all are the result of design decisions made in the time of CWiF, in which Harry was implicated, and that he approved. My only part in this now, is just overall checking about details (putting names on resources, drawing the drafts of the coastlines & lakes, looking at cities' population...)
RP that were coastal and that are no more will not be a big problem IMO for Japan.

(in reply to paulderynck)

Post #: 158

RE: Japan Map - 3/27/2007 12:53:19 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Well, Paul, I would not say that you're wrong, especially regarding the position of Suchan.
There are people supporting the RP on the shore view, others supporting to let it where it was in the first place by the original designers of CWiF.
I must admit that I'm in doubt now.

Also, I would not want this to be a sign that all RP that Japan could access to in WiF FE that were on the shore because of scale to be moved on the shore here too. There are more than simply this one.

Is it really a problem to consider that taking Vlad is necessary to ship the resource ? I understand that it goes agains point #3 that you listed (immediate landing = immediate profit), but it also goes against the gamey strategy of attacking Russia without attacking Vlad (for surrender problems), which is ahistorical & cheesy. The Japanese would have no problems in taking Vlad, and can take it in the first place very easily, so why not leave it this way ?

This goes back to my first post on the subject - it is a question of philosophy. If the decision had first been made to absolutely replicate WIFFE, then there would be three map scales - along with all the attendant programming difficulties that would entail. No doubt those difficulties plus the allure of a world-wide single map scale were what drove CWIF and MWIF toward that decision. Once you make that decision (and believe me, I'm not campaigning to reverse it), you automatically make MWIF a different game. I don't have the benefit of having played CWIF to know what the change in unit density does to WIF in the Pacific, but no doubt it must affect things.

So now the line is crossed, and the risk you run is to be carried away with all the things that by committee seem to need "fixing" and then the purists may be dissapointed with the game when it is published. The WIF community is not very large and we want MWIF to be successful so one must try not to alienate a portion of an already small user group.

As for cheesy, if you have never done the following:
- not taken Vlad so the Russian cannot force peace before you take 2 or 3 more undefended RPs
- not taken the last factory in France or China that would allow the country to surrender, so that you can complete your plans without that tactic being pulled by the Allies
- flown every available Ftr and Nav into the 1-box of the Italian Coast when the Wallies invade
- backed out of or did not progress into a DoW'd Russia in MA41 so that they would not get a production boost
- attacked in Siberia but not in European Russia so they would not get a production boost
- purposely put the Eastern Front Wehrmaht OOS, so Russia would not get a production boost
- delayed attacks into E. Prussia in the late game with Russia so Germany would not get a production boost
- taken the Italian armed forces out of Italy when it is close to surrender
- lent all the Italian BPs to Germany when it is close to surrender
- built the "Bordeaux Redoubt" with the CW
- done a zillion anti-U.S. entry actions with Ge/It after the U.S. goes to war with Japan, so that their "it's war" table becomes less propitious
- etc. etc.
THEN, you may cast the first lump of cheese.

Fact is, last time I looked, all of those tactics were legal under RAW. Shall the MWIF design repair all those? (I'm sure I could think of more, but I am tired of typing and no doubt you may be growing tired of reading.)

I conclude by saying, IMO, all the coastal RPs available to Japan in WIFFE ought to stay that way in MWIF. However, if they don't, I still intend on buying the game.

Here comes a lump of cheese - Duck!

I have never done any of the things you listed. About the closest I have come is playing it free and easy with the exchange of RP/BP between Italy and Germany, to optimize builds. I tend to play games "straight up" without recourse to controversial interpretations from rules lawyers. I just simply pound on my opponents until they are vanquished.

One of the thoughts we had when changing the map scale - and we relied on this quite a bit at times - was that the WIF FE designers were constrained by the larger scale and forced to merge places on the map into a single hex. By going worldwide to the finer scale of the European map, we were able to position places more accurately - an option the was not possible with the larger scale. I do not think of this so much as 'correcting' the WIF FE maps, but rather as taking advantage of the finer detail to do things that I believe the original designers would have done if they hadn't been constrained.

This does change the game, specifically in terms of play balance. And we have worried about that a great deal, constantly revisiting decisions in light of new information/ideas (as Patrice is doing with your concern about the placement of the Vlad resource). I might mention here that the position of the resource can be changed rather easily by editing the data files (CSVs), should a player so desire. Though as others have mentioned, whatever decisions are made for the various data fields (and rules interpretations) when MWIF is released are likely to become defacto standards. I worry about that too, having absolutely no desire to become a final arbiter of things WIF.

As you point out, once the decision for the European scale worldwide was made, there are unavoidable repercussions. We do the best we can, and listen to all the advice that is given (some of which is for diametrically opposite choices).

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to paulderynck)

Post #: 159

RE: Japan Map - 3/27/2007 2:58:21 PM

Froonp

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

quote:

One of the thoughts we had when changing the map scale - and we relied on this quite a bit at times - was that the WIF FE designers were constrained by the larger scale and forced to merge places on the map into a single hex. By going worldwide to the finer scale of the European map, we were able to position places more accurately - an option the was not possible with the larger scale. I do not think of this so much as 'correcting' the WIF FE maps, but rather as taking advantage of the finer detail to do things that I believe the original designers would have done if they hadn't been constrained.

I would also like to add that I heard (I do not remember if it was by direct conversation with him, or if it was read somewhere) that the European scaled map was the map that Harry would have wished to have in WiF too.
Space constrains and production costs lead to the Pacific Scaled maps and off-map areas.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 160

RE: Japan Map - 3/27/2007 5:46:58 PM

composer99

Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline

While I agree with pauldernyck (nice user logo, by the way! Go Canucks!

) that some of the map changes alter things for Japan and not always for the better, the altered map scale helps them out in a big way too when fighting the USSR because of the increased mobility. Sure you have to take Vlad to get the resource, but you should be able, in a single summer turn, if you're set up right, to grab Vlad and two or three resources so if the Soviets sue for peace you come out of the war fatter and happier.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 161

RE: Japan Map - 3/28/2007 6:58:25 AM

paulderynck

Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

I might mention here that the position of the resource can be changed rather easily by editing the data files (CSVs), should a player so desire.

If you can make such a thing user configurable and make the railroad move with it so if nothing else changes, Russia can still rail the resource to a factory - then my hats off to you! That's awesome!

Question - do resources that managed to stay on the coast with the new scale require transport to a port before they can be picked up? Or can they always be transported by a convoy as long as they are in a coastal hex (like in WIFFE)? BTW, if yes to that one, it may impact configurability as well.

quote:

...the geography satisfied -- as I don't think that Suchan was a port nor that there was a port available to ship the coal out of Russia without going through Vlad).

For Patrice - the question above is why the existence of ports should not matter if the game is true to WIFFE.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 162

RE: Japan Map - 3/28/2007 8:37:37 AM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

I might mention here that the position of the resource can be changed rather easily by editing the data files (CSVs), should a player so desire.

If you can make such a thing user configurable and make the railroad move with it so if nothing else changes, Russia can still rail the resource to a factory - then my hats off to you! That's awesome!

There are 2 files to modify for this, the TER file for moving the resource, and the HST file for drawing the railway.

quote:

Question - do resources that managed to stay on the coast with the new scale require transport to a port before they can be picked up? Or can they always be transported by a convoy as long as they are in a coastal hex (like in WIFFE)? BTW, if yes to that one, it may impact configurability as well.

Sure. A CP can always pick a resource on a coast.

quote:

quote:

...the geography satisfied -- as I don't think that Suchan was a port nor that there was a port available to ship the coal out of Russia without going through Vlad).

For Patrice - the question above is why the existence of ports should not matter if the game is true to WIFFE.

It is if the RP stays where it is.
To try go in "your" way, I considered making Suchan a port, and placing it on the coast, and leaving the RP where it was and linking both by a railway, but Suchan was not a port in the 40s, and it seems that there were no other port that could have extracted the coal from here except Vlad.

As a side note, Paul, I would like to let you know that your remarks were not useless, because I reviewed the resources that were no longer on coasts in the Pacific in MWiF, and changed the Palembang ones to put them back on the coast (it wasn't anymore), because I read that Palembang was a port (on a river) from which the oil was shipped, and also because its real geographical position is less than 100 km from the coast so it is better depicted in a coastal place.

(in reply to paulderynck)

Post #: 163

RE: Japan Map - 3/28/2007 8:53:22 AM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
As a side note, Paul, I would like to let you know that your remarks were not useless, because I reviewed the resources that were no longer on coasts in the Pacific in MWiF, and changed the Palembang ones to put them back on the coast (it wasn't anymore), because I read that Palembang was a port (on a river) from which the oil was shipped, and also because its real geographical position is less than 100 km from the coast so it is better depicted in a coastal place.

Here is what decided me in the end. An interesting reading on Palembang, and a 1935 map (here only a bit of it scaled down to fit the post).
http://www.leidenuniv.nl/fsw/nas/pub_palembang.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palembang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musi_River_%28Indonesia%29

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 164

RE: Japan Map - 5/1/2007 7:39:36 PM

jcprom

Posts: 36
Joined: 5/1/2007
Status: offline

I suppose this was discussed earlier but it seems to me the at start number of weak defensive units ("ants" like divisions, small garrisons, small territorials...) should be slightly increased for all nations, especially those on the Pacific map, to adequately man the extended fronts and defend the additional ports.

Those units are already available on WIF FE counter sheets, though more 1 or 2 strength points divisions would be useful. They usually existed but rarely appear in WWII simulations due to already crowded maps in Western Europe. For example, the British, NEI and French start most 1936/1939 scenarios with virtually no units on the Pacific map. Actually, they had some weak or very weak units to defend Batavia, Singapore, Hong-Kong, Bombay, Hanoi, Saigon and other important locations.

If the unit density is too scarce, set-up and strategy options will be limited (less interesting). Too often, notional defenses will be the only choice (with naval/air defenses when available). Chinese intial set up in 1936 and 1939 also comes to mind.

Why not allow some breakdowns for strong garrisons/ territorials?

Keep up the good work.

(in reply to wosung)

Post #: 165

RE: Japan Map - 5/1/2007 9:50:48 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

Welcome to the forum. I always like to hear what players have to say about MWIF, both pluses and minuses. Without me receiving feedback from forum members, MWIF would have been radically different, and vastly inferior.

A new optional rule permits unlimited break down of corps/amry units into divisions - not restricted by the WIFFE counter mix. However, ...

1 - the only division sized units that can be built directly are those in the WIFFE counter mix (very few INF types),
2 - only units from major powers can be broken down into divisions (which is also true in WIFFE), and
3 - the corps/army units which are broken down to create the divisions are set aside in a Broken-Down Pool and cannot be rebuilt.

The are other rules about reforming units, which I won't list again here.

Does this address your concern?

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to jcprom)

Post #: 166

RE: Japan Map - 5/1/2007 10:06:16 PM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
A new optional rule permits unlimited break down of corps/amry units into divisions - not restricted by the WIFFE counter mix. However, ...

1 - the only division sized units that can be built directly are those in the WIFFE counter mix (very few INF types),
2 - only units from major powers can be broken down into divisions (which is also true in WIFFE), and
3 - the corps/army units which are broken down to create the divisions are set aside in a Broken-Down Pool and cannot be rebuilt.

The are other rules about reforming units, which I won't list again here.

Does this address your concern?

Hey, after all, why limit Corps Break down to Major Power units ?
If rule 1 & 3 above are in play, this limit any abuse one could make with breaking down minor country units.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 167

RE: Japan Map - 5/1/2007 10:18:52 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
A new optional rule permits unlimited break down of corps/amry units into divisions - not restricted by the WIFFE counter mix. However, ...

1 - the only division sized units that can be built directly are those in the WIFFE counter mix (very few INF types),
2 - only units from major powers can be broken down into divisions (which is also true in WIFFE), and
3 - the corps/army units which are broken down to create the divisions are set aside in a Broken-Down Pool and cannot be rebuilt.

The are other rules about reforming units, which I won't list again here.

Does this address your concern?

Hey, after all, why limit Corps Break down to Major Power units ?
If rule 1 & 3 above are in play, this limit any abuse one could make with breaking down minor country units.

Well, for one reason, I dislike giving the Germans the ability to break down Hungarian and Rumanian units into divisions that serve as cannon fodder. I am sure there are other examples too.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 168

RE: Japan Map - 5/1/2007 10:31:15 PM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Hey, after all, why limit Corps Break down to Major Power units ?
If rule 1 & 3 above are in play, this limit any abuse one could make with breaking down minor country units.

Well, for one reason, I dislike giving the Germans the ability to break down Hungarian and Rumanian units into divisions that serve as cannon fodder. I am sure there are other examples too.

I agree but if they do that, that will be one less corps each time that they will be able to use as a garrison somewhere else. With rule #3, breaking down units gives you more weak divs at the expense of something.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 169

RE: Japan Map - 5/1/2007 11:52:08 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Hey, after all, why limit Corps Break down to Major Power units ?
If rule 1 & 3 above are in play, this limit any abuse one could make with breaking down minor country units.

Well, for one reason, I dislike giving the Germans the ability to break down Hungarian and Rumanian units into divisions that serve as cannon fodder. I am sure there are other examples too.

I agree but if they do that, that will be one less corps each time that they will be able to use as a garrison somewhere else. With rule #3, breaking down units gives you more weak divs at the expense of something.

I guess a fuller explanation is that the optional rule for unlimited break down of corps into divisions has great potential for player exploitation in ways that I may not be currently able to anticipate. By imposing an extra restriction on its use, so it is more in keeping with the intention of the rule, I eliminate some potential abuses.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 170

RE: Japan Map - 5/1/2007 11:56:53 PM

composer99

Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline

Extra divisions from unlimited breakdowns come in handy for:

(1) division invasions (mostly in the Asia-Pacific theatres)
(2) flanking and supply cutting manouevres (mostly useful in the lower-density.... you guessed it, Asia-Pacific theatres).

On the European map, there's nowhere where I'd be prepared to sacrifice corps-scale units on a regular basis for divisions, not even on the Russian front.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 171

RE: Japan Map - 5/2/2007 12:16:59 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

Extra divisions from unlimited breakdowns come in handy for:

(1) division invasions (mostly in the Asia-Pacific theatres)
(2) flanking and supply cutting manouevres (mostly useful in the lower-density.... you guessed it, Asia-Pacific theatres).

On the European map, there's nowhere where I'd be prepared to sacrifice corps-scale units on a regular basis for divisions, not even on the Russian front.

I, on the other hand, would expect to have as many of my casualities as possible taken by divisions instead of corps during the German-USSR conflict. And that would be with me playing either the Germans or the Russians.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to composer99)

Post #: 172

RE: Japan Map - 5/2/2007 9:47:53 AM

jcprom

Posts: 36
Joined: 5/1/2007
Status: offline

(Reply to post 165)

Yes, if it's possible to break down units before set up.

To solve the "cannon fodder" issue with divs, I would suggest the following procedure for land combat.

If the defender has no divisions (nor notional unit), the first loss for the attacker must be a unit with at least 3 strength points.

The effect of this rule would be similar to WIF FE: only a limited number of divs (i.e. those with 3 strength points) can be used freely as "cannonn fodder".

The intent of MWIF is preserved: divs are available to help defend/threaten large or remote territories (Asia, Africa, islands, Scandinavia...).

Then, breakdown rules could be extended to minors and garrisons (since their minor and garr divs would never exceed 2 strength points).

< Message edited by jcprom -- 5/2/2007 9:51:12 AM >

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 173

RE: Japan Map - 5/2/2007 7:13:55 PM

composer99

Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I, on the other hand, would expect to have as many of my casualities as possible taken by divisions instead of corps during the German-USSR conflict. And that would be with me playing either the Germans or the Russians.

And that's about what they're good for - but on defence they're absolutely useless unless backed up by corps: easy to overrun, don't project ZOCs, not enough combat power to present a potent threat.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 174

RE: Japan Map - 5/5/2007 3:26:45 PM

npilgaard

Posts: 175
Joined: 5/3/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcprom
To solve the "cannon fodder" issue with divs, I would suggest the following procedure for land combat.

In the last couple of games I have played we play with a house rule to adress this issue. It simply states that first loss (for both defender and attacker) must be a corps (if available) (except if special divs were used to provide a bonus, eg. ENG). It works very well, and we have now adopted it as a 'regular' house rule.
Of course, since this is a house rule, it won't be implemented i MWiF, but I thought I would just mentioned it anyway, in case it could be useful for anyone.

_____________________________

Regards
Nikolaj

(in reply to jcprom)

Post #: 175

RE: Japan Map - 5/5/2007 10:05:09 PM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: npilgaard

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcprom
To solve the "cannon fodder" issue with divs, I would suggest the following procedure for land combat.

In the last couple of games I have played we play with a house rule to adress this issue. It simply states that first loss (for both defender and attacker) must be a corps (if available) (except if special divs were used to provide a bonus, eg. ENG). It works very well, and we have now adopted it as a 'regular' house rule.
Of course, since this is a house rule, it won't be implemented i MWiF, but I thought I would just mentioned it anyway, in case it could be useful for anyone.

This is a popular house rule.
Maybe, when MWiF 1 will be out, will there be a possibility of making an add-on with all the most famous house rules.

(in reply to npilgaard)

Post #: 176

RE: Japan Map - 5/5/2007 11:59:25 PM

doctormm

Posts: 124
Joined: 5/28/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

3 - the corps/army units which are broken down to create the divisions are set aside in a Broken-Down Pool and cannot be rebuilt.

Doesn't that effectively remove the strongest broken down units from the game? Given the way that the break down/recombine rules work, some corps can never be re-created from divisions.

_____________________________

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 177

RE: Japan Map - 5/6/2007 2:18:33 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: doctormm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

3 - the corps/army units which are broken down to create the divisions are set aside in a Broken-Down Pool and cannot be rebuilt.

Doesn't that effectively remove the strongest broken down units from the game? Given the way that the break down/recombine rules work, some corps can never be re-created from divisions.

I was not aware of that. Could you give an example?

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to doctormm)

Post #: 178

RE: Japan Map - 5/6/2007 7:42:15 AM

Mziln

Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline

The RaW doesn't say what happens to the corps when it breaks down into divisions.

When it breaks down does the corps go back into the force pool like the divisions?

Breaking down

You build divisions in the usual way (see 13.6.5). Alternatively, you can break down a face-up corps or army that isn�t in an enemy ZOC into divisions at the start of the production step. Each corps or army breaks down into 1 division of the same type and 1 INF or MOT division (your choice). SS corps break down into 1 equivalent SS division and 1 SS or normal INF or MOT division.

When you break down a corps or army, you can select any divisions from your force pools but their total combat factors can�t exceed half (rounding up) those of the corps or army you break down.

If there aren�t enough divisions in your force pools to break down a corps or army, you can remove them from anywhere on the maps to make up the shortfall.

Reforming

Divisions can reform into a corps or army. If 2 face-up divisions are stacked together outside of enemy ZoCs at the end of the production step, and 1 of them is a MOT division, you can reform a corps or army of the same type as the other division. If there are no corps or armies of that type available, you can reform them as an INF corps or army instead. Choose the corps or army randomly from the force pools. Keep picking until you find one that has combat factors less than twice those of the 2 divisions.

Put the divisions back into the force pools and replace them on the map with the reformed corps or army.

Example: The Germans have a 2 factor MOT division and a 4 factor SS ARM division stacked together at the start of the production step. You can replace them with any SS ARM or INF Corps that has 11 or less combat factors.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 179

RE: Japan Map - 5/6/2007 10:54:55 AM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: doctormm
Doesn't that effectively remove the strongest broken down units from the game? Given the way that the break down/recombine rules work, some corps can never be re-created from divisions.

I was not aware of that. Could you give an example?

I think he means that :

A 9-4 Corps is broken down into what ?
Half its CF is 5.
Sum of the 2 broken down DIVs cannot exceed 5, so it will be 5.
So a 9-4 Corps is broken down into a 3-4 and a 2-4 DIV.

A 3-4 and a 2-4 DIV are reformed into what Corps ?
Twice the CF of both DIV is 10.
The Corps reformed into must have less than 10 CF.
So the 3-4 and 2-4 DIV can reform into the 9-4 Corps.

A 8-4 Corps is broken down into what ?
Half its CF is 4.
Sum of the 2 broken down DIVs cannot exceed 4, so it will be 4.
So a 8-4 Corps is broken down into a 2-4 and a 2-4 DIV.

A 2-4 and a 2-4 DIV are reformed into what Corps ?
Twice the CF of both DIV is 8.
The Corps reformed into must have less than 8 CF.
So the 2-4 and 2-4 DIV cannot reform into the 8-4 Corps.

But I think that MWiF will work differently than RAW here, in that peculiar thing that (from what I think I understood) the broken down DIV will "remember" from which Corps they were created, and so that the corps will be able to be reformed from these DIVs.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 180