Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

but what if the French get enough across the Rhine to align Yugoslavia? Say against a noob German player thinking, hey, I'll sucker the French into giving me a BP boost...


and a final Barb 40 thought, a fascinating theoretical campaign for me. I'll have to try it sometime. The French/German border is short of course. But the German/Belgian border adds several hexes to it, and I think oddly enough the attacking French would be on interior lines, a rare thing. The French could afford to attack a bit recklessly as the Germans couldn't easily shift back to the west, and their army does improve steadily. If the French were scared to attack, that would mean the Germans have less advancing into Russia. And the Tommies should be busy hurling divisions at the Danish Coast until successful on some sort of lucky invasion / double turn gambit when Gort + Corps unit lands. Or they could invade Norway in 1940 to achieve the same end - a naval base on the Baltic. Or other potential adventures. A fun game for sure, for both sides.


A common generic mistake is to literally 'lose' units. A player puts a nice unit somewhere and then leaves it there for a year or more, doing relatively nothing. Have seen it time and again, might not be any different on the computer version. The burning world is pretty big.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Easo79

quote:

ORIGINAL: jelake

As CW, not garrisoning Gibraltar.

Fine!

I am becoming rather serious at learning the game. I have just bought a penbook (paper, old style)...and I have commenced to take notes.

So...please..could you elaborate at this? One corps as garrison? A division would do the trick?

How it depends on other factors? For instance, one unit at start and afterwards to reinforce it when Germany arrives to the Pyrinees, just in case our beloved Franco let Hitler in?

Is it possible to lose Gibraltar already in turn 1 to a Paradroop Assault? Do I need to prevent that, or it is not possible (-too much distance, transport unavailable??)

Have you looked through the Players' Notes in the Scenario Booklet? Lots of good advice for new players:

http://davecoble.com/WiF/Raw7scenario.pdf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ur_Vile_WEdge

Interesting. My usual first turn build with the Soviets is the Para; whether it's a 40 barb, or a 41 barb, or threatening the Finns, I find that the flexibility of the Para combined with those super long ranged Soviet 4 engine guys makes him the single best build you can make.


The threat of having him jump somewhere is often stronger than any arm or mech.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Any Allied major power building armor in 1939.

Depends on who you have in front. In one EWC, intermediate (lest's say beginners, as much as someone can be a beginner at the EWC) it took the german player more than a year to take Paris, by then (guessing what was going to happen) the French built mechs and Arm,and they were pretty useful...

Since MECHs (5 BPs, 3 turns) are not armor, I wasn't ruling out building them. It's those 6 BPs and 4 turns for armor, planning on a counter-offensive in 1940 that I believe is delusional.

The US should be starting its long term naval builds, China & the USSR building infantry of all types, France shoring up its defensive land units, and the Commonwealth building tons of other stuff that is desperately needed. Only the US should be thinking offensively, and that is for an offense which won't start until 1941 at the earliest.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

but what if the French get enough across the Rhine to align Yugoslavia? Say against a noob German player thinking, hey, I'll sucker the French into giving me a BP boost...


and a final Barb 40 thought, a fascinating theoretical campaign for me. I'll have to try it sometime. The French/German border is short of course. But the German/Belgian border adds several hexes to it, and I think oddly enough the attacking French would be on interior lines, a rare thing. The French could afford to attack a bit recklessly as the Germans couldn't easily shift back to the west, and their army does improve steadily. If the French were scared to attack, that would mean the Germans have less advancing into Russia. And the Tommies should be busy hurling divisions at the Danish Coast until successful on some sort of lucky invasion / double turn gambit when Gort + Corps unit lands. Or they could invade Norway in 1940 to achieve the same end - a naval base on the Baltic. Or other potential adventures. A fun game for sure, for both sides.


A common generic mistake is to literally 'lose' units. A player puts a nice unit somewhere and then leaves it there for a year or more, doing relatively nothing. Have seen it time and again, might not be any different on the computer version. The burning world is pretty big.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

but what if the French get enough across the Rhine to align Yugoslavia? Say against a noob German player thinking, hey, I'll sucker the French into giving me a BP boost...


and a final Barb 40 thought, a fascinating theoretical campaign for me. I'll have to try it sometime. The French/German border is short of course. But the German/Belgian border adds several hexes to it, and I think oddly enough the attacking French would be on interior lines, a rare thing. The French could afford to attack a bit recklessly as the Germans couldn't easily shift back to the west, and their army does improve steadily. If the French were scared to attack, that would mean the Germans have less advancing into Russia. And the Tommies should be busy hurling divisions at the Danish Coast until successful on some sort of lucky invasion / double turn gambit when Gort + Corps unit lands. Or they could invade Norway in 1940 to achieve the same end - a naval base on the Baltic. Or other potential adventures. A fun game for sure, for both sides.


A common generic mistake is to literally 'lose' units. A player puts a nice unit somewhere and then leaves it there for a year or more, doing relatively nothing. Have seen it time and again, might not be any different on the computer version. The burning world is pretty big.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

I read this in this forum or somewhere else, maybe the Wifdiscussion list, and I was shocked. In fact, when I was a total noob I invaded a Sigfried line with holes on it. Everybody laughed at my noob mode but I could have aligned Yugoslavia had I known it, which doesn't say too much about those "veterans".

And if I am not wrong, it doesn't need to give the German any bonus if there is no battle and you go back to France before turn end. Or just one if there is a battle, which is improbable because in this case you'd need to compromise too many effectives on the French side.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wifchart.pdf
13.6.3 PRODUCTION MULTIPLES (a), (b)
Production Multiples Notes:
(a) +0.25 if enemy made any land attacks in your home country (not Siberia and only UK counts for the CW) this turn;
(b) +0.25 while an in-supply enemy land unit is in your home country (not Siberia, and only UK counts for the CW).
(c) +0.25 ~ US entry opt. 22; +0.25 ~ US entry opt. 34; +0.25 ~ war; +0.25 ~ total war; +0.25 each 6 turns after US entry opt. 34.
(d) +0.25 from 1942 onwards if Minsk or Kiev are Russian controlled.
(e) +0.25 from 1943 onwards if Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad are Russian controlled.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

yeah, ARM + GARR, 3 turns straight, then the MECH + 2 cheap Infantry class units. then start climbing the mountain of infantry gearing. also, see my next post.

a 1940 Barbarossa will be a low density affair for each side. in theory, I've never seen one and don't expect to. the Russians get a nice amount of Reserves of course, and against a 1940 attack the instant MIL build would be an OK choice. (I don't build a mass pile of them in M/J 41, just some each turn).

In M/J 40, a Russian ARM, MECH, and re-org'd RES MECH would play like 3 strong safeties, preventing the thinner-than-41 German spearheads from taking a hex beyond the range of the Luftwaffe, greatly slowing the speed of the German advance.

Not stopping the advance, just keeping them from taking hexes before their Infantry and Stukas can be brought forward. Hexes such as the critical rail junctions (including clear terrain INF can't hold) to get the factories to Siberia, which is the #1 key in Barbarossa, worth trading units for. An ARM would join the effort in J/A and S/O 40, along with a MECH that turn. That would give me more security than several extra pre-war Russian Infantry armies that the powerful German units will just pulverize anyway whenever they make contact. I think. And the Germans can't operate on as many axes of advance in 1940 as in 1941. If the Germans concentrate forces on one axis, the Russians mass their armor against it and all the factories escape from the ignored axis. If the Germans spread out, the Russian tanks spread out as they won't need to be as concentrated to prevent panzers from advancing freely without infantry.

Really I have the same philosophy for a 1941 Barbarossa. By then the Russians would have 3 ARM & 4 MECH in their defensive secondary, though now operating in stacked pairs. These stacks also give the Russians flexibility to pick off single exposed forward German units, not to make any kind of devastating counterattack or momentum shift; the Germans have too deep of a bench for that to succeed in 1941. Rather, these fast units can swoop on to any easy kill in the front lines (always and only if and iwhen the Luftwaffe is used up / out of range) to get Guards Banner Army points. Those units can stop German spearheads dead in their tank tracks and require a German Army+ (3 stacks) to overcome them, if they choose to stand and fight, which I would not suggest. GBA units on the map in 1940 would be a glorious thing, but the weak pre-war Russian rifle units won't be able to generate one against the powerful pre-war Wehrmacht units. The black-print Russian tank units of either type aren't all that strong either of course, but their built-in die roll modifiers give them increased combat power over just their combat factors.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kingtiger_501

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

yeah, ARM + GARR, 3 turns straight, then the MECH + 2 cheap Infantry class units. then start climbing the mountain of infantry gearing. also, see my next post.

a 1940 Barbarossa will be a low density affair for each side. in theory, I've never seen one and don't expect to. the Russians get a nice amount of Reserves of course, and against a 1940 attack the instant MIL build would be an OK choice. (I don't build a mass pile of them in M/J 41, just some each turn).

In M/J 40, a Russian ARM, MECH, and re-org'd RES MECH would play like 3 strong safeties, preventing the thinner-than-41 German spearheads from taking a hex beyond the range of the Luftwaffe, greatly slowing the speed of the German advance.

Not stopping the advance, just keeping them from taking hexes before their Infantry and Stukas can be brought forward. Hexes such as the critical rail junctions (including clear terrain INF can't hold) to get the factories to Siberia, which is the #1 key in Barbarossa, worth trading units for. An ARM would join the effort in J/A and S/O 40, along with a MECH that turn. That would give me more security than several extra pre-war Russian Infantry armies that the powerful German units will just pulverize anyway whenever they make contact. I think. And the Germans can't operate on as many axes of advance in 1940 as in 1941. If the Germans concentrate forces on one axis, the Russians mass their armor against it and all the factories escape from the ignored axis. If the Germans spread out, the Russian tanks spread out as they won't need to be as concentrated to prevent panzers from advancing freely without infantry.

Really I have the same philosophy for a 1941 Barbarossa. By then the Russians would have 3 ARM & 4 MECH in their defensive secondary, though now operating in stacked pairs. These stacks also give the Russians flexibility to pick off single exposed forward German units, not to make any kind of devastating counterattack or momentum shift; the Germans have too deep of a bench for that to succeed in 1941. Rather, these fast units can swoop on to any easy kill in the front lines (always and only if and iwhen the Luftwaffe is used up / out of range) to get Guards Banner Army points. Those units can stop German spearheads dead in their tank tracks and require a German Army+ (3 stacks) to overcome them, if they choose to stand and fight, which I would not suggest. GBA units on the map in 1940 would be a glorious thing, but the weak pre-war Russian rifle units won't be able to generate one against the powerful pre-war Wehrmacht units. The black-print Russian tank units of either type aren't all that strong either of course, but their built-in die roll modifiers give them increased combat power over just their combat factors.

I would love to play Germany with a Soviet play who builds like this.

It would be the last time he builds like this!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I thnk you read that a little thinly.

Let's say the Rusians can put 100 BP of units on the board before Barbaross starts.

So I build 23 BP of ARM/MECH....do you think I take the other 77 build points, load them on the Trans-Siberian, and dump them in the Pacific Ocean?

Of course not - I build infantry, and lots of it, and send them to the front lines, over and over again. One can build those 4 ARM/MECH and still empty the Russian infantry class pools, by the way. I just happen to prefer to build the tanks first. They are extremely useful on the defense, and can have good flexibility for adding garrison totals to the pact area in 1940, adding 2 points with just one land move, should the Russians be manipulating garrison ratios for any of several possible reasons.

If one is saying that if the Russians should build 2 ARM on the first 2 turns, they are doomed to lose a 1940 Barbarossa attack, that is rather silly.
The Germans can't exactly launch a surprise Barbarossa, so the Russians could adjust their builds. But an ARM arriving in M/J 40 and possibly J/A 40 would be extremely useful then too.


I have survived a 10 Axis HQ 1941 Barbarossa and enjoy playing the Russians. I'll open a question on Russian buid plans when I get home from yet another remote project - had to drive into 'town' to email in more bids tonight.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I thnk you read that a little thinly.

Let's say the Rusians can put 100 BP of units on the board before Barbaross starts.

So I build 23 BP of ARM/MECH....do you think I take the other 77 build points, load them on the Trans-Siberian, and dump them in the Pacific Ocean?

Of course not - I build infantry, and lots of it, and send them to the front lines, over and over again. One can build those 4 ARM/MECH and still empty the Russian infantry class pools, by the way. I just happen to prefer to build the tanks first. They are extremely useful on the defense, and can have good flexibility for adding garrison totals to the pact area in 1940, adding 2 points with just one land move, should the Russians be manipulating garrison ratios for any of several possible reasons.

If one is saying that if the Russians should build 2 ARM on the first 2 turns, they are doomed to lose a 1940 Barbarossa attack, that is rather silly.
The Germans can't exactly launch a surprise Barbarossa, so the Russians could adjust their builds. But an ARM arriving in M/J 40 and possibly J/A 40 would be extremely useful then too.


I have survived a 10 Axis HQ 1941 Barbarossa and enjoy playing the Russians. I'll open a question on Russian buid plans when I get home from yet another remote project - had to drive into 'town' to email in more bids tonight.

Oh, I agree that if Germany doesn't attack until 1941, your build strategy is quite sound. It's only whether the Armor and Mech are built early or late where our opinions differ.

It is against the 1940 Barbarossa that I think your build strategy runs an unacceptable risk. If Germany DOW's Russia in May/June 1940, the USSR will have only had 8 build points per turn, or 32 BPs worth of units added to their starting forces - and most of those would have been spent on Armor and Mech. I am not sure where you get the 100 BPs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kingtiger_501

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

yeah, ARM + GARR, 3 turns straight, then the MECH + 2 cheap Infantry class units. then start climbing the mountain of infantry gearing. also, see my next post.

a 1940 Barbarossa will be a low density affair for each side. in theory, I've never seen one and don't expect to. the Russians get a nice amount of Reserves of course, and against a 1940 attack the instant MIL build would be an OK choice. (I don't build a mass pile of them in M/J 41, just some each turn).

In M/J 40, a Russian ARM, MECH, and re-org'd RES MECH would play like 3 strong safeties, preventing the thinner-than-41 German spearheads from taking a hex beyond the range of the Luftwaffe, greatly slowing the speed of the German advance.

Not stopping the advance, just keeping them from taking hexes before their Infantry and Stukas can be brought forward. Hexes such as the critical rail junctions (including clear terrain INF can't hold) to get the factories to Siberia, which is the #1 key in Barbarossa, worth trading units for. An ARM would join the effort in J/A and S/O 40, along with a MECH that turn. That would give me more security than several extra pre-war Russian Infantry armies that the powerful German units will just pulverize anyway whenever they make contact. I think. And the Germans can't operate on as many axes of advance in 1940 as in 1941. If the Germans concentrate forces on one axis, the Russians mass their armor against it and all the factories escape from the ignored axis. If the Germans spread out, the Russian tanks spread out as they won't need to be as concentrated to prevent panzers from advancing freely without infantry.

Really I have the same philosophy for a 1941 Barbarossa. By then the Russians would have 3 ARM & 4 MECH in their defensive secondary, though now operating in stacked pairs. These stacks also give the Russians flexibility to pick off single exposed forward German units, not to make any kind of devastating counterattack or momentum shift; the Germans have too deep of a bench for that to succeed in 1941. Rather, these fast units can swoop on to any easy kill in the front lines (always and only if and iwhen the Luftwaffe is used up / out of range) to get Guards Banner Army points. Those units can stop German spearheads dead in their tank tracks and require a German Army+ (3 stacks) to overcome them, if they choose to stand and fight, which I would not suggest. GBA units on the map in 1940 would be a glorious thing, but the weak pre-war Russian rifle units won't be able to generate one against the powerful pre-war Wehrmacht units. The black-print Russian tank units of either type aren't all that strong either of course, but their built-in die roll modifiers give them increased combat power over just their combat factors.

I would love to play Germany with a Soviet play who builds like this.

It would be the last time he builds like this!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

First of all let me say this is my opinion on the MWiF forums and not in any way about the game.

As any opinion of the game is a violation of the Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA) as per section 3 Confidential Information, paragraph 3.

The NDA itself cannot be considered as confidential information after it was given "shotgun distribution" to anyone who applied for the "Final Beta".

I know because for the fun of it I actually applied and received a copy of the NDA and sent in my application.

Don't worry your little ivory towers are safe they will never accept me into the "Final Beta".



My first mistake was getting involved with and devoting so much of my time trying to help with this game.

It has become the standard mantra in these forums that I am incorrectly interpreted the rules (for example see composer99 post # 400).

I have said time and again your views and my views of the rules differ greatly. It doesn't make me wrong or you wrong it means we disagree.

I am being held to a different standard than anyone else in these forums. I am required to post portions of the rules to justify my opinions while others are allowed to make unsupported statements that are considered as facts. This is a transparent attempt to heap ridicule upon anyone with a different interpretation of the rules.

When confronted with an actual rule quote I am being told I am not reading enough into the rule.

This statement is ludicrous in it's self you shouldn't be reading into the rules. Otherwise they are not rules they are just guidelines. Which may be fun for rule lawyers in a board game but it has no place in a computer game.


My second mistake was assuming others wanted what I did, a better game.

How I ask you, can you be a beta tester and not explore all the options available in the game? As a beta tester your preferences are secondary to the functioning of the game. If you don't like the 2d10 combat results table fine but as a beta tester you have to become familiar with it to test it.

Imagine how surprised I was when someone actually posted in this forum that they would rather flame someone than post something constructive about the game.

I was sick of it then and am just as sick of it now having to ask the same questions three or more times just to get an simple answer.


My third mistake was giving in to easily. Yes, giving in to easily. I am accused of bullying others in an attempt to get my opinions accepted and not admitting when I am wrong. Really? I have seen no one in this forum required to apologize for having made an error in this forum except myself. I have seen no one called on to apologize for making insulting remarks in this forum except myself.


My forth mistake expecting people in this forum to be civil to one another.


My fifth mistake was allowing someone to accuse me of trying to be politically correct and not calling them on it. I wasn't me who decided "not to glorify the Nazis" by changing the control markers for the hexes from a Nazi battle flag,

quote:

ORIGINAL: peskpesk
I too am sorry you feel that way, Extraneous and I'm sorry you want to leave. My guess is that old players already have heard the rule discussion many,many times and can't stand to take it up again and explain. The want to concentrate on the strategy/tactics. Also sometimes I get the impression that you dont give in to easy, even when the evidence is against you...that can be hard for some people to take...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
About the Nazi flag ... it is illegal to sell a product in Germany which contains the Nazi flag (or some other symbols of the Nazi party). We want to sell the game in Germany, hence the replacement of the Nazi flag. This was decided in 2005 if I recall correctly - definitely by 2006.