Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Dropping Paras in front of you can't help recreate the German break-through...the Allied player can 'deny the notional' and the Paratroopers just land without a land attack, so the adjacent armor can't advance into their hex.

As usual Steve is very gracious to host this kibbitzing about the future of World in Flames, but that's all we can do here, discuss the future in theoretical terms.

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

COMPLETELY NEW IDEA:

A new proposal for solving the over-strong Belgium/France 1940 problem...

In Guns of August, with which I have been amusing myself recently, you have no control over the set-up of neutrals when they join your side. Why not incorporate this excellent idea into MWiF (as an optional rule if you like)?

I am not suggesting a totally random set-up. Rather, Steve would program, say, six set-ups for each neutral, and the AI would then choose one randomly (even in player-vs-player games), biassed according to who is attacking.

Some of the set-ups would be optimum, some would be foolish. For Belgium, at least one such set-up would involve leaving a clear path through the Ardennes (stack everything in Brussels?) in which event suddenly the historical campaign becomes a game-possibility.

This idea will introduce some much needed variety into games between experienced players, without actually adding any more luck than is already present in some of the extreme CRT results. The French player in 1939 will no longer be able to assume that the Belgians will set up optimally, which in turn will require some shrewd risk-reward decisions on his part.

This idea is also solidly grounded in history. In the first months of 1940, the Belgiums stubbornly refused to co-operate with the British and French at all (our officers had to go on 'holiday' in Belgium to reconnoitre the terrain). The Allied 'player' had no influence on the Belgium 'set-up' at all.

I think this approach also has great merit elsewhere on the map: for example, Spain. Whichever side gets to control Spain, the Spanish always act as lackeys to the controlling player's interests. In reality, if the Axis attacked Spain, Franco wouldn't have given two tosses about the fate of Gibraltar.

If Steve finds this idea too time-consuming, then I suggest he programs only the two really critical minors, Belgium and Spain. Then if there is time and inclination, program set-ups for Poland, Turkey, Norway, Sweden, and perhaps some of the Balkan states...

quote:

ORIGINAL: wosung

I can see the need for map congruence between MWIF and WIFE. ADG will decide this issue (probably in a conservative way). For decades they are used to critics and maybe bored by them.

I also, quite naively, think mapping and military matters should not be discussed too closely. First represent geography, then tailor the rules. But the problem is: Nearly all the posts for leaving the Dutch border as it is are based on non-geographical arguments (WIF-tradition, game balance). So it’s hard to counter them only with geography. And Markus already did this in a very eloquent way, having also the strategic implications in his mind.

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

What brian means is that if you paradrop or invade into a hex, with or without supporting land units attacking from other hexes, the defender has the option of using a 'notional' unit to assist in defending the hex.

If the hex is otherwise empty, then if the defender uses the notional, there is a land combat that the supporting hexes can assist in fighting, and advance into/break through out of the hex when the battle is over.

However, if the paradrop is into a hex devoid of 'real' enemy land units, then if the defender ignores the notional unit, there is no land combat, and the adjacent supporting land units do not participate in conquering the hex and therefore may not advance.

quote:

Incidentally, the real hold-up for the Germans in bashing their way through the Low Countries is not the Belgians. It's the French. It's French ZoCs extending into the Ardennes that prevent the German push through the forests right up to the border, not Belgian ZoCs.

My friend Pablo recently proposed a possible solution, as a variant on 'No ZoC on surprise'. Instead of surprised units exerting no ZoCs, units exert no ZoCs into hexes belonging to a surprised country if they are not units of that country.

So:
- Belgian units exert ZoCs into Belgian hexes when they are surprised, but not French or Dutch hexes.
- Dutch units exert ZoCs into Dutch hexes when they are surprised, but not Belgian or German hexes.
- French units, not being surprised by the Germans, exert ZoCs into French or German hexes, but not Belgian hexes while Belgium is surprised.

Most importantly, Red Army units still exert ZoCs in Soviet territory (this was the big bugaboo of No ZoCs on Surprise).

This definitely is a house rule, so it is waaaaay out of the scope of MWiF 1. However, it would probably ensure French defeat in a reasonable timeframe in WiF (except for really short turns, bad weather, or exceptionally bad German die rolling).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm
One simple new rule regarding minor country setup would solve some of the trouble with Belgium.
-At least one corps sized unit must be set up on the minors capital. (You could add - if the minor has 2 land units or more)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wosung

Many good ideas!

If there should be the need to manipulate the setting for the German campaign in France, probably it's better to restrain/weaken the Wallies (by setup or ZOC rules) instead of strengthening the German side (by OC), because, as was said before, the latter also would change the game balance in the East too much.

quote:

If I may ask, how often are house rules used for WIF board gaming? They are probably easily negotiated at the table, but hard to code.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gendarme

Thinking of Luxembourg --

If... IF... it were to appear on the map where it should be...

Would it rate minor country status (one hex with a capital city), or just a territory with a city dot but no capital?  Just a territory with no city at all?  I've been trying to look up facts about the Grand Duchy in 1940.  Not much out there.

Anthony DeChristopher

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
But, weakening the wallies side may not be a good idea either, because it could create an unwanted France 39 effect. The No ZoC rule has principaly this effect. This makes attacking in surprise so much successful, that it is very tempting to attack in the west in 39, combining the No ZoC rule to the weak 1939 wallies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: visitor_from_ireland

As I just got back from there, I have to point out that the real Wicklow Mts are located just south of Dublin (would be in the same hex as the city). The mountain hexes in the West of Ireland don't seem to have a single name for them, I'm afraid.
I hope this hasn't been addressed before. Maps are beautiful of course!

quote:

ORIGINAL: visitor_from_ireland

As I just got back from there, I have to point out that the real Wicklow Mts are located just south of Dublin (would be in the same hex as the city). The mountain hexes in the West of Ireland don't seem to have a single name for them, I'm afraid.
I hope this hasn't been addressed before. Maps are beautiful of course!

quote:

ORIGINAL: morgil

As I was writingig in another post, French Units do not exert a ZOC into a neutral Belgium, as Belgium is not on the same side as France. It is only by German decleration of war that they get this, and thus it could be argued that they have no ZOC into Belgium in the surprise impulse.

This does by no means suggest that I wouls advocate a change in the map, even though it is horribly incorrect.

However, on the Norwegian map, Bergen is now out of supply, as it is 5 hexes from Oslo.

And another thing, I know you will say no but it would be really nice to have Sub-pens or Sub-bunkers around.
That is, a minor port with a sub-pen would make the subs immune to portstrikes.

The one in Bergen is still standing, exactly as it was built, since the guys in -45 reconed that there was not enough explosives in all of Norway to remove it...

quote:

ORIGINAL: KosMic

I think sub pens have the same priority as things like the ability to build additional railroads or fixed air defenses: nice chrome but not essential to the initial release of MWiF. However, subsequent versions can implement such things without too much difficulty, I would think. To this could also be added rules on national morale, manpower, unit quality, etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: morgil

As I was writingig in another post, French Units do not exert a ZOC into a neutral Belgium, as Belgium is not on the same side as France. It is only by German decleration of war that they get this, and thus it could be argued that they have no ZOC into Belgium in the surprise impulse.

This does by no means suggest that I wouls advocate a change in the map, even though it is horribly incorrect.

However, on the Norwegian map, Bergen is now out of supply, as it is 5 hexes from Oslo.

And another thing, I know you will say no but it would be really nice to have Sub-pens or Sub-bunkers around.
That is, a minor port with a sub-pen would make the subs immune to portstrikes.

The one in Bergen is still standing, exactly as it was built, since the guys in -45 reconed that there was not enough explosives in all of Norway to remove it...

quote:

ORIGINAL: BallyJ

I see Lenigrad is a clear hex. This is a change. What was the thinking here?
regards John