RE: optional rules

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: optional rules

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: optional rules

Page: << < prev 13 14 15 [16] 17 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: optional rules - 10/15/2007 8:57:35 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

Just curious:

Why consider Artillery dependant on and requiring the Divisions optional rule?

You cant break corps (or whatever regular land unit that power uses) down into artillery.

Artillery has it's own gearing limit, seperate from the infantry and armor limits. But IIRC, the Inf/Arm divisions count against their respective limits.

Philosophy.

I (me, myself) consider Divisions the fundamental concept of which ski, artillery, and engineers are specialized subsets. I don't see players using any of the later 3 without using divisions. And I (me, myself) think it would distort play balance.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to mlees)

Post #: 451

RE: optional rules - 10/15/2007 8:59:32 AM

bj_rohde

Posts: 14
Joined: 8/3/2007
From: Norway
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

Just curious:

Why consider Artillery dependant on and requiring the Divisions optional rule?

You cant break corps (or whatever regular land unit that power uses) down into artillery.

Artillery has it's own gearing limit, seperate from the infantry and armor limits. But IIRC, the Inf/Arm divisions count against their respective limits.

Artillery are divisions, and the divisions optional rule increases the stacking limit from two to three if the third unit is a division.

(in reply to mlees)

Post #: 452

RE: optional rules - 10/15/2007 4:32:27 PM

mlees

Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

Just curious:

Why consider Artillery dependant on and requiring the Divisions optional rule?

You cant break corps (or whatever regular land unit that power uses) down into artillery.

Artillery has it's own gearing limit, seperate from the infantry and armor limits. But IIRC, the Inf/Arm divisions count against their respective limits.

Philosophy. I (me, myself) consider Divisions the fundamental concept of which ski, artillery, and engineers are specialized subsets. I don't see players using any of the later 3 without using divisions. And I (me, myself) think it would distort play balance.

Hmmp. I I play with artillery without the rest of the subsets.

But I guess since I only play solotaire, I dont count. *walks off in a huff and a pout*

Why do you think it would distort play balance?

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 453

RE: optional rules - 10/15/2007 4:44:20 PM

mlees

Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bj_rohde

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

Just curious:

Why consider Artillery dependant on and requiring the Divisions optional rule?

You cant break corps (or whatever regular land unit that power uses) down into artillery.

Artillery has it's own gearing limit, seperate from the infantry and armor limits. But IIRC, the Inf/Arm divisions count against their respective limits.

Artillery are divisions, and the divisions optional rule increases the stacking limit from two to three if the third unit is a division.

That really doesn't explain why artillery needs to have divisions included. You can have the same stacking limit in force without having to have the divisions ingame.

In RAW, Divisions (including Infantry type, Armoured, Cavalry, engineers, and ski) are 24.4.1. Artillery is seperated out in 24.4.2. Frogmen are next, etc.

Clearly ADG originally intended that they may be considered a seperate option.

(in reply to bj_rohde)

Post #: 454

RE: optional rules - 10/15/2007 5:10:52 PM

Froonp

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

I think that Mlees is right, but I think that the choice of Steve is OK anyway.

(in reply to mlees)

Post #: 455

RE: optional rules - 10/15/2007 5:30:34 PM

composer99

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

Here's a question unrelated to the previous topic:

How does MWiF calculate which countries are subject to Partisans?

WiF:FE uses the Partisan table on the WiF chart. CWiF used some other table/system that allowed for countries that weren't subject to partisans on the WiF chart to be subject to partisans (e.g. a number of African countries).

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 456

RE: optional rules - 10/15/2007 9:09:57 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

Here's a question unrelated to the previous topic:

How does MWiF calculate which countries are subject to Partisans?

WiF:FE uses the Partisan table on the WiF chart. CWiF used some other table/system that allowed for countries that weren't subject to partisans on the WiF chart to be subject to partisans (e.g. a number of African countries).

A very good analysis of this was done for ADG, specifically for CWIF by J. Jeffery Donahue. It considered the populations of the countries during the war and the presence of trrops in the country (mostly colonial forces). I have read through his analysis and though I haven't cross checked or even trued to validate his conclusions, the quality of his work is clearly very fine.

Here are the numbers we are using in MWIF.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to composer99)

Post #: 457

RE: optional rules - 10/15/2007 9:13:13 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

2nd and last page in series.

Partisans is equivalent to the number printed on the WIF FE maps. Partisans Chance is the probability associated with the die rolling on the partisan table in WIF FE.

There are more entries of lower probability after Spanish Morocco, but they are all 1,0 too.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 458

RE: optional rules - 10/15/2007 9:44:02 PM

composer99

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

I assume that either the table or some other data also indicates whether or not a country is "green" pr "red" as per the WiF:FE partisan table.

Now, the partisan chance for a lot of countries, such as, say Upper Volta, is 0. Does that mean, despite having partisan numbers, that these countries have a 0% chance of being eligible for partisan activity? Or do they even then have some small chance (1%? 2%?) of being eligible for partisans despite not being on the WiF:FE table?

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 459

RE: optional rules - 10/15/2007 10:22:55 PM

lomyrin

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

Here's a question unrelated to the previous topic:

How does MWiF calculate which countries are subject to Partisans?

WiF:FE uses the Partisan table on the WiF chart. CWiF used some other table/system that allowed for countries that weren't subject to partisans on the WiF chart to be subject to partisans (e.g. a number of African countries).

A very good analysis of this was done for ADG, specifically for CWIF by J. Jeffery Donahue. It considered the populations of the countries during the war and the presence of trrops in the country (mostly colonial forces). I have read through his analysis and though I haven't cross checked or even trued to validate his conclusions, the quality of his work is clearly very fine.

Here are the numbers we are using in MWIF.

CWIF's partisan number for China was 20, not 30.

As for a lot of the African minors CWiF does have a possiblility of partisans there although I believe that is due to the newer scenarios from 45 forwards. During the actual war those Minors really did not seem to have much if any partisan activity.

Lars

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 460

RE: optional rules - 10/15/2007 10:23:05 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

I assume that either the table or some other data also indicates whether or not a country is "green" pr "red" as per the WiF:FE partisan table.

Now, the partisan chance for a lot of countries, such as, say Upper Volta, is 0. Does that mean, despite having partisan numbers, that these countries have a 0% chance of being eligible for partisan activity? Or do they even then have some small chance (1%? 2%?) of being eligible for partisans despite not being on the WiF:FE table?

There is another data field I didn't show that inidcates Red Partisans.

I haven't decoded/commented all the partisan calculations from CWIF so I do not know what the zero means precisely. A task for another day.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to composer99)

Post #: 461

RE: optional rules - 10/15/2007 10:31:36 PM

composer99

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian
I have a hard time thinking about using Pilots without the Planes in Flames counters ??? - which leads me to think that perhaps the Planes/Ships/Mech/Politics in Flames kit decisions could perhaps be handled with the optional rules?

[...]

(and Mech in Flames would have - ALL ??? - of it's pieces covered in optionals)

(but Politics in Flames has some regular units, like additional HQs and minor country corps, not covered by an optional - maybe it would be easier to ignore this separate kit/counter-sheet and pretend it is part of standard WiF?)

[...]

The new MiF countersheet has a few corps-sized units (such as, say the Portugese 1930's GARR), which are not to my knowledge covered under an optional rule (i.e. they are simply incorporated into WiF). It also has some normal and some replacement naval units which would be similarly incorporated (to my knowledge).

MiF also has a number of division-sized units which would be packaged with their respective optional rules (including the new Guards Banner divisions).

I can't recall if the new MiF countersheet has any air units or not at this time.

As for Politics in Flames, as far as I know the (corps-sized) units would just be incorporated into the game and the other units would be incorporated as per their optionals, although the PoliF system itself is not part of MWiF.

But I think other people will have to finish painting this picture.

< Message edited by composer99 -- 10/15/2007 10:36:02 PM >

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to brian brian)

Post #: 462

RE: optional rules - 10/15/2007 11:19:40 PM

composer99

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin
CWIF's partisan number for China was 20, not 30.

As for a lot of the African minors CWiF does have a possiblility of partisans there although I believe that is due to the newer scenarios from 45 forwards. During the actual war those Minors really did not seem to have much if any partisan activity.

Lars

This partisan number for China is also the WIF:FE number, not just CWiF. As such, it should be for MWiF as well.

I myself am not convinced that the countries who are not normally eligible for partisan activity in WiF:FE should be so in MWiF even when they were in CWiF, except for future MWiF products that include add-ons like America or Patton in Flames.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to lomyrin)

Post #: 463

RE: optional rules - 10/17/2007 7:33:07 AM

brian brian

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

actually Christoper they answered that above...adding or subtracting counter kits can only be done manually by the user editing the units, which is fine to streamline the game.

another odd thing on that Partisan list - the % chances for Central & South America are 4 & 9 %, not the standard by 10 mutiples

(in reply to composer99)

Post #: 464

RE: optional rules - 10/17/2007 11:24:55 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

actually Christoper they answered that above...adding or subtracting counter kits can only be done manually by the user editing the units, which is fine to streamline the game.

another odd thing on that Partisan list - the % chances for Central & South America are 4 & 9 %, not the standard by 10 mutiples

The computer has more sides than a die.

I vaguely remember why this is - it has to do with the WIF FE tables combining several countries into a single entity on the partisan table, while MWIF has the separate countries.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to brian brian)

Post #: 465

RE: optional rules - 10/19/2007 8:41:03 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

I am working on implementing the additional Chiese cities (actually their removal when that optional rule is not selected).

The question I have is: "Should the additional minor ports be part of that rule or not?" Those are the only two choices, I am not splitting this into two optional rules.

Basically, the additional Chinese cities were added for two purposes: to provide supply to Chiese units in areas that otherwise would require the presence of an HQ and to serve as improved defensive positions for both the Chinese and the Japanese. The additional minor ports perform the first function (providing supply to units that would otherwise require an HQ to be in supply), but in this case it is for the Japanese instead of for the Chinese.

The additional minor ports are: Chefoo, Tsingkow, Wenchow, Amoy, Swatow, Pakhoi. The first 3 are showwn here.

EDIT: corrected teh list of port (there are only 6).

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Shannon V. OKeets -- 10/19/2007 8:51:04 PM >

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 466

RE: optional rules - 10/19/2007 8:45:38 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

Here are the rest of the minor ports that were added.

Just for completeness, the additional Chinese cities are: Ningsia, Sining, Tianshui, Yennan, Tungkwan, Nanyang, Ankang, Ichang, Nanchang, Chihkiang, Hengyang, Kweilin, Kaifeng, Suchow, Paoting, and Soochow. Most off them are visible in these two screen shots. Some are off to the west.

To repeat my question using different phrasing:
Should the additional Chinese minor ports be removed from the map when the additional Chinese cities are removed? Or are the minor ports permanent map features, regardless of optional rules?

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 467

RE: optional rules - 10/19/2007 8:48:47 PM

Zorachus99

Posts: 1066
Joined: 9/15/2000
From: Palo Alto, CA
Status: offline

IMO yep, remove the ports with the cities.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 468

RE: optional rules - 10/19/2007 9:06:50 PM

Froonp

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

Same as Zorachus : the extra minor ports were added within the same philosophy as the cities, so the option should allow to play exactly with the WIF FE cities & ports.

Why not also remove ALL the other added cities and ports elswhere in the world ?

I think it would be a very bad idea to play MWiF without the extra cities & ports warranted by the zoom out effect, but to be coherent, if you don't like the extra Chinese cities, why would you like the extra USSR, American, Finnish or South American cities ? Agreed that they are supposed to almost never see any action, but it would be coherent.

(in reply to Zorachus99)

Post #: 469

RE: optional rules - 10/19/2007 9:37:03 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Same as Zorachus : the extra minor ports were added within the same philosophy as the cities, so the option should allow to play exactly with the WIF FE cities & ports.

Why not also remove ALL the other added cities and ports elswhere in the world ?

I think it would be a very bad idea to play MWiF without the extra cities & ports warranted by the zoom out effect, but to be coherent, if you don't like the extra Chinese cities, why would you like the extra USSR, American, Finnish or South American cities ? Agreed that they are supposed to almost never see any action, but it would be coherent.

Because it is too much work for something that is likely to be used rarely and even then have no effect on game play?

The additional Chinese minor ports is another issue. I am quite happy to think of the additional Chinese minor ports and cities as a single entity. And to even throw them together under the heading "Additional Chinese Cities".

I am going to implement this with these ports and cities appearing together or not at all. If there are significant objections later today/this week, it is easy enough to disable the code for the ports and leave them in.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 470

RE: optional rules - 10/19/2007 10:13:39 PM

composer99

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

I am also of the opinion that the extra minor ports and cities in China should be coupled together in the option.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 471

RE: optional rules - 10/19/2007 10:31:16 PM

brian brian

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

Although you know I think adding additional cities is too much of a gift to the Allies (and makes logistics planning rather too easy for the powers with the new cities), I would keep all the new ports, _if they are geographically realistic_. Some places are harbors that can handle the unloading and docking of several freighters and transports and refueling of combat ships; other coastal hexes can only handle fishing boats. (And WiF is already quite generous with it's coastal supply rules).I mean if Midway and Tarawa are 'port' hexes then probably most of the new ones in China should be as well. (Ditto Goa).

A city is a different animal in WiF, and a very powerful hex - it allows the placement of reinforcements and for military forces to operate from it in perpetuity, when in reality a city cut-off from the rest of the country for very long wouldn't be able to do either of those things (thankfully the reinforcement system is about to change in paper WiF). Adding too many cities adds too much un-reality during game play. What is vitally important is how well a city is connected via transport links to the rest of it's home country; some of the new cities are very well qualified in that regard, others just aren't in non-developed places like Siberia and parts of China. I am very happy you made at least some of the new ones an optional. I find WiF to be slightly pro-Allied right now and anything that makes the game harder on the Axis is not a good idea, in my opinion. The scale change alone should make China more than difficult enough for the Japanese (owners of only five total HQ pieces and three at start); Partisans will become a realistic problem for them instead of just this odd collection of flotsam pieces in eastern Mongolia. As long as the Chinese don't risk their HQ pieces (they are not supposed to be front-line combat pieces even though they have combat factors, use them that way at your own peril - adding cities makes it far less damaging to risk them) and play too aggressively, they should be fine with the regular amount of cities.

Overall I just hope map decisions are made on geographic reality; trying to base them on how to balance the game seems the wrong approach. Players should have to deal with geography as-is, not have it edited to artifically favor one side or the other. But this horse is probably dead by now, thank you for taking the commentary, again.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 472

RE: optional rules - 10/19/2007 10:45:13 PM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Although you know I think adding additional cities is too much of a gift to the Allies (and makes logistics planning rather too easy for the powers with the new cities)

I'm compelled to answer to that.

I don't remember if you have seen China without the additionnal cities, or even played CWiF in the China war, but saying that "adding additional cities is too much of a gift to the Allies" is way too much.

Compare WiF FE map and MWiF map, and you'll see that there is no supply hole in China on the WiF FE map, absolutely none. MWiF China map without the additional cities is just a big supply hole

(exagerating, but not by far).

For me, the additional cities are just restoring the WiF FE situation, they are not a "gift for the allies". They do not make the logistic planning easier, they make it as it is in WiF FE.

For the defense bonus argument of cities, I'd say that for a city to be a difficult hex to take, you have to have an army to defend it, and especially its surroundings. China has none large enough to defend around those cities, so the extra cities wont help China defend the hexes, by the sole bonus they provide in defense.

The only help they give in defense is from the supply status they provide, and this is a help that the Chinese in WiF FE already have, wherever they are in China.

Well, this said, playtesters will tell you about their experiences with & without the cities, when we can run the China war.

(in reply to brian brian)

Post #: 473

RE: optional rules - 10/20/2007 2:02:50 AM

jerome

Posts: 4
Joined: 12/16/2006
Status: offline

INMHO, additional cities and minor ports should be permanent features. No option(s) to remove them.

If you have more hexes, you should also have more cities, more ports and more units (not only more HQ).

If not, the war in China in MWIF might resemble the war in Africa in WiF:FE.

Besides, adding those 2 options will lengthen and complicate the play-testing process.

Once you've decided to use the same scale world-wide, you've made limited but real changes to the game. There's no way you can go backwards. If you remove those ports and cities while using the same scale world-wide, you drift further away from WiF:FE, not closer...

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 474

RE: optional rules - 10/20/2007 2:37:39 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: jerome

INMHO, additional cities and minor ports should be permanent features. No option(s) to remove them.

If you have more hexes, you should also have more cities, more ports and more units (not only more HQ).

If not, the war in China in MWIF might resemble the war in Africa in WiF:FE.

Besides, adding those 2 options will lengthen and complicate the play-testing process.

Once you've decided to use the same scale world-wide, you've made limited but real changes to the game. There's no way you can go backwards. If you remove those ports and cities while using the same scale world-wide, you drift further away from WiF:FE, not closer...

While I agree with your perspective, I see no harm is letting players remove these cities and ports. It's their game to play howsoever they want. They can also change the counters so the Chinese militia are strength 11 and move 6.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to jerome)

Post #: 475

RE: optional rules - 10/20/2007 6:05:59 AM

Zorachus99

Posts: 1066
Joined: 9/15/2000
From: Palo Alto, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

A city is a different animal in WiF, and a very powerful hex - it allows the placement of reinforcements and for military forces to operate from it in perpetuity, when in reality a city cut-off from the rest of the country for very long wouldn't be able to do either of those things (thankfully the reinforcement system is about to change in paper WiF). Adding too many cities adds too much un-reality during game play. What is vitally important is how well a city is connected via transport links to the rest of it's home country; some of the new cities are very well qualified in that regard, others just aren't in non-developed places like Siberia and parts of China. I am very happy you made at least some of the new ones an optional.

I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. A game which simulates this well is Fire In the East in the Europa series. Basically the rule is, if three cities are connected directly by rail, they all are primary supply sources. Otherwise, the cities are no longer primary supply sources. Additionally after about 4 turns (4 weeks?) out of supply the isolated units have a roll to see if they are eliminated. Basics like food become important for large groups of troops, ammunition is even worse.

_____________________________

Most men can survive adversity, the true test of a man's character is power. -Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to brian brian)

Post #: 476

RE: optional rules - 10/20/2007 3:42:20 PM

jerome

Posts: 4
Joined: 12/16/2006
Status: offline

quote:

While I agree with your perspective, I see no harm is letting players remove these cities and ports. It's their game to play howsoever they want. They can also change the counters so the Chinese militia are strength 11 and move 6.

In the event of Chinese militia being that strong, I would suggest the Japanese AI to declare at the end of game turn 1: "I honourably surrender and beg you to let my Emperor remain on the throne. If not, I will spoil your your precious time by making huge mistakes sometime in the mid game".

Anyway, I agree with you. There's absolutly no harm for us players (the burden, if any, is on you and on the play-testers).

While most options modify only minor points, a few options have a significant impact on game experience. A few explanations/comments could be helpful for players with limited experience, to help them choose the type of game they like best.

(in reply to Zorachus99)

Post #: 477

RE: optional rules - 10/20/2007 7:55:14 PM

wosung

Posts: 692
Joined: 7/18/2005
Status: offline

To make the overall changes less disturbing for the veterans, it might be wise to make the additional harbors just an option. So everybody will be happy.

As for the additional cities: Doesen't also the Japanese player profit from them?

Regarding game balance issues, with the CWIF China map I think its possible for Jap to get the Sian and Lanchou Ressources just before the Pacific War.

But keeping the railroads open against partisans will be quite another mattter. Anyway, focus and schwerpunkt will be more important for the Japanese player.

Maybe with additional ports and cities it'll be harder to conquer China. Which IMO would be a good thing: Huge, spacey states with a large population like China or the USSR neither are easily conquered or occupied.

For the fine tuning of game balance with the bigger China map it might be another option to manipulate the number of partisans.

Two historical notes:

1. the new ports in MWIF IRL were 19th century treaty ports, enforced by the West. That means per definitionem their unloading capacity was considerable. Besides, even if their harbor structure was less modern then in Shanghai or Tsingtao: Labor was cheap in China. Logistics profited.

2. For the (new) cities. In WW2 China wasn't able to produce any bigger ammounts of weapons and ammunition. Even before the Sino-Japanese war, when the coastal arsenals weren't occupied by the Japanese, most weapons were foreign imports. In the war nearly 100 Mio. Chinese fleed to the hinterland. In occupied China city population changed considerably.
Thus, Chinese Cities were important not so much as heavy industrial or population centres. They were important as adminstrative, logistical, political and symbolic places. These factors are only partially modelled in WIF.

Regards

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 478

RE: optional rules - 10/20/2007 10:42:42 PM

Zorachus99

Posts: 1066
Joined: 9/15/2000
From: Palo Alto, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wosung
As for the additional cities: Doesen't also the Japanese player profit from them?

Not really.

1) Cities force the Japanese attacker to use the assualt table and a -1 to the die roll unless a HQ or Eng participates.
2) They are Primary supply sources for Chinese units
3) They do not provide supply for Japanese

Pretty major difference.

_____________________________

Most men can survive adversity, the true test of a man's character is power. -Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to wosung)

Post #: 479

RE: optional rules - 10/20/2007 11:18:42 PM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

quote:

ORIGINAL: wosung
As for the additional cities: Doesen't also the Japanese player profit from them?

Not really.

1) Cities force the Japanese attacker to use the assualt table and a -1 to the die roll unless a HQ or Eng participates.
2) They are Primary supply sources for Chinese units
3) They do not provide supply for Japanese

Pretty major difference.

As I said previously, this -1 only matters if you really are forced to fight. The Chinese do not have a large enough army.
I'd add :
4) Provide rail move stations for the Japanese, which is invaluable when fighting the Partisans.
5) Cities force the Chinese attacker to use the assualt table and a -1 to the die roll unless a HQ or Eng participates, when trying to take it back.

So I won't say that they do not profit to the Japanese player.

(in reply to Zorachus99)

Post #: 480