Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Absolute Minimum

 
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 >> WIF School >> Absolute Minimum Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Absolute Minimum - 1/21/2014 6:07:37 PM   
WarHunter


Posts: 1207
Joined: 3/21/2004
Status: offline 		I'm curious.

The only option i feel is absolutely necessary in a game is Scrap units. Anything added from then on is personal taste.
No other option is required to play the game and still have fun. Or am i wrong?

What are the absolute minimum options you would play with?

Options added since topic started.
Divisions
Artillery
Ski Troops
Engineers - Combat
Chinese Warlords
Siberians
Queens
Offensive Chits
Fortifications
Motorized Movement Rates
Amphibious Rules
SCS Transport
Emergency HQ Supply
Fighter Bombers
Tank Busters
Flying Boats
Extended Aircraft Rebasing
Saving Oil Resources and Build Points
Off City Reinforcement
Scrap Units
Fractional Odds
Extended Game
Additional Chinese Cities
Blitz Bonus for 1D10 or 2D10 whatever your preference.


< Message edited by WarHunter -- 1/29/2014 5:10:54 PM >

_____________________________


“We never felt like we were losing until we were actually dead.”
Marcus Luttrell
Post #: 1
RE: Absolute Minimum - 1/21/2014 6:12:50 PM   
AxelNL


Posts: 2386
Joined: 9/24/2011
From: The Netherlands
Status: offline 		Offensive chits? Important for USA late-game? And to break open French and Russian defensive lines, and Pearl Harbour ...?

(in reply to WarHunter)
Post #: 2
RE: Absolute Minimum - 1/21/2014 6:30:42 PM   
WarHunter


Posts: 1207
Joined: 3/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AxelNL

Offensive chits? Important for USA late-game? And to break open French and Russian defensive lines, and Pearl Harbour ...?

You bring up a good point. Offensive chits help add choices to any nation willing to spend for them. Especially the boost depending on impulse choice. This option is worth considering as an absolute minimum.

_____________________________


“We never felt like we were losing until we were actually dead.”
Marcus Luttrell

(in reply to AxelNL)
Post #: 3
RE: Absolute Minimum - 1/21/2014 6:40:39 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline 		My absolute minimums i.e. if I was offered, at some point in the future, a multi-player game - what would I point-blank refuse to play without?

Carrier Planes
Cruisers In Flames
Convoys In Flames (if available)
Amphibious Rules
Divisions
Artillery
Pilots
Saving Build Points - I did not include this in my current AAR and its a pain...

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to WarHunter)
Post #: 4
RE: Absolute Minimum - 1/21/2014 8:10:46 PM   
Courtenay


Posts: 4003
Joined: 11/12/2008
Status: offline 		I regard motorized movement costs as fundamental to the play of the game.

O-chits are pretty high up there.

Fractional odds and saving build points are not essential, but both of them make the game easier to play, not harder.

There are many rules that I will not play without, but they are not essential.

_____________________________

I thought I knew how to play this game....

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 5
RE: Absolute Minimum - 1/21/2014 9:30:27 PM   
Ur_Vile_WEdge

 

Posts: 585
Joined: 6/28/2005
Status: offline 		I'd say that

Pilots
Partisans
O-Chits
Motorized Movement
SiF
Compulsory USSR-Japan peace

Are the vital ones.

Shortly behind them are

Amphibious rules
Limited Overseas supply
Oil
Divisions/Artillery
In the Presence of the Enemy (to keep the U.S. from launching suicide cruisers at the Sea of Japan until they get a lucky roll)


Warspite: I don't mean this in an accusatory way, but why did you list Cruisers in flames as a "vital" optional? I'm not even 100% convinced it makes the game better, it makes this much, much easier for the Allies to operate, especially early in the game.

(in reply to Courtenay)
Post #: 6
RE: Absolute Minimum - 1/21/2014 9:39:59 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline 		Have to agree about Cruisers in Flames. I think that option is almost as unbalancing in favor of the Allies as No ZOC on Surprise favors the Axis.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Ur_Vile_WEdge)
Post #: 7
RE: Absolute Minimum - 1/21/2014 9:40:08 PM   
WarHunter


Posts: 1207
Joined: 3/21/2004
Status: offline 		If its not clear by now, I'm trying to get an idea of what options would make an ideal "absolute minimum" global campaign scenario.

Disclaimer
All opinion is directed at the options not the individual. This is a mental exercise to find the fewest options to use in a game, and still have fun. A sort of balance between history and playability. Nothing is personal.

Thank you for your participation, in advance.

_____________________________


“We never felt like we were losing until we were actually dead.”
Marcus Luttrell

(in reply to WarHunter)
Post #: 8
RE: Absolute Minimum - 1/21/2014 9:42:20 PM   
WarHunter


Posts: 1207
Joined: 3/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

My absolute minimums i.e. if I was offered, at some point in the future, a multi-player game - what would I point-blank refuse to play without?

Carrier Planes
Cruisers In Flames
Convoys In Flames (if available)
Amphibious Rules
Divisions
Artillery
Pilots
Saving Build Points - I did not include this in my current AAR and its a pain...


Warspite1,
I'm glad you included Convoys in Flames. Even though its not coded for the name yet. It is worth noting the options not yet active for the future.
Now about your choices.

Amphibious Rules: This is a great canidate for inclusion. It adds to gameplay choices without added complexity.
Saving Build Points: Another very good addition. Not being forced to discard 1 BP and save it for use later is noteworthy.

Pilots: With this option you get a pilot counter for the cost of 2 BP. All aircraft are 2BP less. So you end up buying more of them. Without this option all aircraft costs are increased by 2 BP. You make due with the random pick of aircraft. Because of the minimumlist approach. pass.
Carrier Planes: Another option that adds many counters and complexity. Mixing and matching CVP with CV. up to 2 CVP per CV. This another option i love to play with. So with much remorse. pass.
Cruisers In Flames: I like it. It just adds alot more counters. This one gets passed over.

Divisions & Artillery: These 2 options add a very important change to the game. Being able to stack up to 3 land units in a hex. I like the options. Have always played with them. Even though the options add counters, for the scale of the game they may be needed additions. I'm on the fence. Help me!

Convoys in Flames: Sidelined awaiting the day of activation.


_____________________________


“We never felt like we were losing until we were actually dead.”
Marcus Luttrell

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 9
RE: Absolute Minimum - 1/21/2014 9:44:11 PM   
WarHunter


Posts: 1207
Joined: 3/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay
I regard motorized movement costs as fundamental to the play of the game.
O-chits are pretty high up there.
Fractional odds and saving build points are not essential, but both of them make the game easier to play, not harder.
There are many rules that I will not play without, but they are not essential.


Courtenay, Thanks for the input.

Motorized movement costs: This is another fine addition to minimum options. It recreates the differences between leg and motor units pretty well. Added.

Saving build points: Agree that it makes playing easier.
O-chits: Another vote in favor.

Fractional odds: Do not agree it makes playing easier. It just means a player can be sloppy. Rather than sending 15 combat factors for a 3-1. A player will send more units equal to X and hope the RNG gives him another odds in his favor. Because this option only favors the attacker, it will not be included as absolute.


_____________________________


“We never felt like we were losing until we were actually dead.”
Marcus Luttrell

(in reply to Courtenay)
Post #: 10
RE: Absolute Minimum - 1/22/2014 12:37:25 AM   
WarHunter


Posts: 1207
Joined: 3/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ur_Vile_WEdge
I'd say that

Pilots
Partisans
O-Chits
Motorized Movement
SiF
Compulsory USSR-Japan peace

Are the vital ones.

Shortly behind them are

Amphibious rules
Limited Overseas supply
Oil
Divisions/Artillery
In the Presence of the Enemy (to keep the U.S. from launching suicide cruisers at the Sea of Japan until they get a lucky roll)


Ur_Vile_WEdge, Thanks for adding to the conversation.

O-Chits: Added.
Motorized Movement: Added.
Amphibious rules: Added.


Partisans: Another rule that probably should be included. Without it, too many areas of the map become empty. The inclusion of this option gives ammo to include Divisions and Artillery. On the fence waiting for more input.

Divisions/Artillery: You are helping convince me to include it as core minimum.

Pilots: Another vote for pilots. The allure is there, the multitude of counters in its wake. Your vote gives strength to including it. I really want to include it. But must resist just for the sake of letting others have a say.


Limited Overseas supply: Using counters meant for another purpose. Now doing double duty for an idea that should have had its own counter set. Not a good fit for an absolute minimum option.

In the Presence of the Enemy (to keep the U.S. from launching suicide cruisers at the Sea of Japan until they get a lucky roll): Interesting caveat. I suspect this is a gamey tactic you despise with a passion. I'm not in favor of using this option. Not convinced a rule should be included because of possible gamey tactics. We are adults. This is something that could be talked about before hand. I would lend an ear to what house rule you have come up with without resorting to this marginal use option.

Oil: Currently i won't touch this one until it flows like black gold from a gushing Texas oil well right into the refinery. If it was working smoothy. Is the added complexity worth the time? I'll let the audience have their say. Kinda in the camp of a non-absolute minimum scenario.

Compulsory USSR-Japan peace: This is one I'd like to see coded. How it affects deployments for the Japanese and Soviets won't be known until it is. Sidelined.

SiF: An option to add even more ships?





< Message edited by WarHunter -- 1/22/2014 1:38:48 AM >

_____________________________


“We never felt like we were losing until we were actually dead.”
Marcus Luttrell

(in reply to Ur_Vile_WEdge)
Post #: 11
RE: Absolute Minimum - 1/22/2014 12:40:52 AM   
WarHunter


Posts: 1207
Joined: 3/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

paulderynck,
Have to agree about Cruisers in Flames. I think that option is almost as unbalancing in favor of the Allies as No ZOC on Surprise favors the Axis.


I have not played with Cruisers in Flames. Please give us some background on the unbalancing nature of this option. When you have some time. I'd like to read what is known.

< Message edited by WarHunter -- 1/22/2014 1:41:19 AM >

_____________________________


“We never felt like we were losing until we were actually dead.”
Marcus Luttrell

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 12
RE: Absolute Minimum - 1/22/2014 2:12:20 AM   
Dabrion


Posts: 733
Joined: 11/5/2013
From: Northpole
Status: offline 		my 2cents:

First stating the obvious: the absolute minimum is everything unchecked;) Not sure it makes for a good game.


Most of the "options" reflect evolution of the game/rules over the years and editions. I would say that these should be ON as the foundation. They also have a high chance to be core in future version of WiF. These include:
* Divisions, Artillery, Funnies, Partisans, GBA!!, CBV, Siberians, Pilots, CVP, Queens, OChits (Points preferred), Forts & facilities
* Mot.Move, 2D10 LCRT
* Amphibious, Annual naval offensive bonus,
* Emergency HQ supply
* all air rules, exc. en-route and night missions
* off-city reinf., fractional odds, scaping units (this is an option?!)

Pretty sure most of these are rather undisputed in WiF SD games. This makes a solid basis and leave lot of room to customise with the rest.


Second block (balancing options):
* CLiF - the amount of CL the CW starts with is insane! JP has the best cruiser pool (quality wise), but still it favours the allies, esp. early on. It also has issues with SCS transport acting as divisional launchpads.
* ITPOTE - incentifies to stay at sea, favours the defender (IT/JP), tones down allied naval power projection
* No ZOC in surprise - killer, can go either way, generally said to favor axis
* nation specific rules - their effect is obvious
* carpet bombing - pro allies


Third block (flavour):
LOS - some say its too trivial to hold supply without, convoy tax for wallies, supply is more of a search roll gamble now
OIL - AfA oil is bad, hopefully we see KiF oil soon, without oil the axis will play balls out (including saved oil and synth)
CoiF - larger focus on strategic naval warefare (more subs, convoy patrols, surface raiders, subhunters), by favorite naval kit
TERR, Partisan HQ, NSU, and basically all other options that add counters are fine
Hitlers War - only tried once and didn't like it - some say it is pro axis
Supply rules - straights will have you transport more by CP
night missions - only for strat bombing would be ok
Intelligence - aka "sanctioned cheating" .. another set of variable to track.. old rules where to powerful (interfering with USE), the KiF variant seems alright

Not sure what I forgot... Most other rules will act as a magnifying glass for a specific aspect of the rules (variable reorg etc.)




_____________________________

“WiF is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.”
- Richard P. Feynman, 'WiF, Sex, and the Dual Slit Experiment'.

(in reply to WarHunter)
Post #: 13
RE: Absolute Minimum - 1/22/2014 3:00:49 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline 		r.e. CLiF - pretty much what Dabrion said. With so many CLs the CW can make the Battle of the Atlantic useless to even try, when it's already very difficult for the Axis.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Dabrion)
Post #: 14
RE: Absolute Minimum - 1/22/2014 3:13:36 AM   
Dabrion


Posts: 733
Joined: 11/5/2013
From: Northpole
Status: offline 		Is the CL damage rule in MWiF, where you have to allocate a damage/destroyed towards one BB or 2 CA/CL ?

_____________________________

“WiF is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.”
- Richard P. Feynman, 'WiF, Sex, and the Dual Slit Experiment'.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 15
RE: Absolute Minimum - 1/22/2014 3:48:01 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ur_Vile_WEdge

I'd say that

Pilots
Partisans
O-Chits
Motorized Movement
SiF
Compulsory USSR-Japan peace

Are the vital ones.

Shortly behind them are

Amphibious rules
Limited Overseas supply
Oil
Divisions/Artillery
In the Presence of the Enemy (to keep the U.S. from launching suicide cruisers at the Sea of Japan until they get a lucky roll)


Warspite: I don't mean this in an accusatory way, but why did you list Cruisers in flames as a "vital" optional? I'm not even 100% convinced it makes the game better, it makes this much, much easier for the Allies to operate, especially early in the game.

warspite1

Warhunter asked for personal opinions on what are the minimum options we would each play with. I gave mine as each have given theirs.

I chose cruisers in flames because that option is important to me. The naval aspect of WWII holds the most interest and getting to play with all those famous ships is a bonus for me.

I am new to the current rule set and many of the options. If Cruisers In Flames unbalances the game that much then maybe over time I will be forced to think differently, but that is not my view at present.

BTW You mentioned SiF - but I did not think that was an option - that is compulsory, or have I missed something?


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 1/22/2014 5:24:53 AM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Ur_Vile_WEdge)
Post #: 16
RE: Absolute Minimum - 1/22/2014 4:42:24 AM   
WarHunter


Posts: 1207
Joined: 3/21/2004
Status: offline 		Dabrion, Happy to see you pitch in your 2cents. I knew you liked the game, just not happy with the money spent. Same way i felt about my last trip to the strip club. Over priced drinks, Cheap no skillz dancers and only 1 person in the joint, me. At least the DJ played my requests. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c24SiqJbLDg

The Absolute Minimum should be no options. But without Scraping as a starting point the game fails. I've tried it more than a few times since buying. Since not using it is so painful. I've decided it will be the foundation of a Absolute Minimum option scenario.

I'm not going to comment on your 2nd or 3rd Block options. Suffice to say they are far up the ladder and are effectively out of range for this conversation.

Your 1st block is worth discussing. Going to break them down a little.
Scraping units, OChits, Amphibious, Motorized Movement. These 4 have made the cut in my opinion.

Hobart Funnies? Divisions, Artillery, Partisans: Again these show up. The overall tilt is going there way. Not yet though.

Fractional odds: Still not sold that this option does anything but help the attacker. It is being mentioned, so must have consideration.


First time mentioned. If anyone has something to add about these options, please speak up.

Queens: Fast transport for infantry types. Its not hard to implement and gives variety and flavor.
Siberians: Historical flavor. Can't think about the East front without Siberians.
Fortifications: Allowing players to build forts is not excessive addition. Pretty easy to implement.
Off City Reinforcement: Helps with stacking problems during reinforcements.
Emergency HQ supply: Allow HQ to supply in an out of supply condition.

2D10 Land CRT: This is an option. Advanced play. 1D10 is more of the basic training CRT.

All air rules, exc. en-route and night missions: The fact this adds sixteen options -2. We will pass on these. Unless some sort of reason is put forth for each individually.

Not exactly clear on what Facilities. Synthetic Oil Plants? Factory Destruction & Construction?

Annual naval offensive bonus: Never heard of this option in MWiF. Is there another name for it?

City Based Volunteers, Guards Banner Armies: Currently not coded. Sidelined for later discussion.

My purpose is to create a list of options to be used by a new player, old player, returning player anyone who wants to learn the game and not be overwhelmed. If we have an understanding of what options people like to play with, we can go forward with a basic set of options and add from there.

Its just a starting point for players to decide what is a fun, fair game. No arguments. Just set up and play. We all know what to expect. I already see some options are popular. To a new person this is helpful to know. When playing solo, adding these well liked options will help ease a new player into the game. Hopefully an old hand at the game will be more inclined to include a new player with these options as a foundation.

Hell, I'm not even sure anyone would play with the options chosen in this topic. But I'll give it a damn good try at finding out.


_____________________________


“We never felt like we were losing until we were actually dead.”
Marcus Luttrell

(in reply to Dabrion)
Post #: 17
RE: Absolute Minimum - 1/22/2014 10:16:30 AM   
AxelNL


Posts: 2386
Joined: 9/24/2011
From: The Netherlands
Status: offline 		Partisans adds complexity. It is stated it affects both sides in a balanced game (e.g. india), than taking it away would not hinder the game balance too much. In my current game it adds time and dilutes focus. For a minimum set I would vote to keep them out. I will certainly leave them out in my next game.

Divisions adds counters, but not that much time. Makes play a bit easier I would say. I would vote in favour.

(in reply to WarHunter)
Post #: 18
RE: Absolute Minimum - 1/22/2014 10:20:17 AM   
AxelNL


Posts: 2386
Joined: 9/24/2011
From: The Netherlands
Status: offline 		Pilots adds counters and an extra phase to spend time/mental power on. Yes, it makes Air more flexibile, but is that needed in the minimum set?

(in reply to AxelNL)
Post #: 19
RE: Absolute Minimum - 1/22/2014 1:24:28 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8802
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline 		The absolute minimum for me:

Motorised movement rates
HQ support
Emergency HQ supply
Pilots
USSR-Japanese compulsory Peace
Carrier planes
Additional Chinese cities
Offensive chits
No ZOC on surprise impulse (since it is historically correct to play with this rule, which does favour the Axis). I would have liked to see this rule in the rulebook itself and not having it as an optional one...

Optional rules which I don't want to play with are:

Construction Engineers. There aren't enough engineer units for this rule to be valid. It tends to balance game towards the allied side a lot, since to use factories, the Axis need to repair them and build points gone in 1939 take a huge toll on the Axis economy...

Convoys in Flames. Adds to many units and make the game too complex. But perhaps this will be better in MWIF...
Oil tankers. Adds to the complexity of the game and makes convoy routing even harder than it is now...

In the presence of the enemy. I just don't like this rule.

Limited overseas supply. I simply cannot understand why this optional rule is so popular. Now, I can understand that merchantmen have to be used to supply units overseas, but to use a whole convoy point to supply only one division? That's ridiculous and completely a-historical. There should come a better rule to simulate this. You should be able to break down convoy points into supply ships and than use those for supply. A convoy point simply is to much shipping to keep certain area's in supply. Roughly speaking, a German soldier needed about 400 kg. a month to be fully supplied. So to keep 10.000 men in supply for two months you would need one ship capable of cargoing 8.000 tons, not a convoy point which simulates far more shipping. This rule is too much and a-historical...

Night air missions: too much for a strategic game...
Japanese command conflict: historically correct? I don't know if the producing of planes was really the point where the generals and admirals were bickering about. Anyway, I don't like the way this is done in WiF.

Intelligence: this rule favours the allies too much, since they have far to many build points in late game to spare for intelligence. Also, the US gets far to many for their build points spend. Apart from this I don't like the opportunity to roll for the next impulses weather. The weather comes as it is and there wasn't any country in the world which could make a good forecast during WW II for more than a couple of days...



_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to AxelNL)
Post #: 20
RE: Absolute Minimum - 1/22/2014 1:49:42 PM   
Mike Parker

 

Posts: 583
Joined: 12/30/2008
From: Houston TX
Status: offline 		I am going to throw in my thoughts on fractional odds option. I think it is a must.

I think it does alot to streamline the game. Perhaps I am just way too quirky, but without fractional odds I go to great lengths to make sure I am not wasting factors. This doesn't just impact attacks but I have to plan my moves with much greater precision, and that means often painstakingly going over each units options and seeing which combinations lead to the most perfect attacks. Without fractional odds, I feel each side really needs to invest the time in doing this each time they move land units. I would guess it easily triples the time I need to move land units, although it does reduce some the time I take doing attacks since I plan just about every attack ahead of time as in knowing exactly which units will participate, whereqas with fractional odds I know in general what I will use then when I get to the actual decision I sometimes add in units to help the fraction.

I think playing with Fractional Odds firstly makes the play of the game simpler. It also for me seems to make things seem a little more natural. For example with fractional odds I am very unlikely to find myself moving a 7 factor unit to area one while simultaneoously moving a 6 factor unit from area one to area two JUST because one or the other attack is made "better" by addition or subtraction of a factor. I do such odd thngs without fractional odds and they just seem a bit unnature, especially when its moving a lower strength unit just because I do not waste a factor.

If you really do like all the extra planning then no fractional odds is I am sure just fine, just to my minf with Fractional Odds one can live with not being as exacting, and I think in a very reasonable and realistic manner.

(in reply to AxelNL)
Post #: 21
RE: Absolute Minimum - 1/22/2014 5:28:08 PM   
WarHunter


Posts: 1207
Joined: 3/21/2004
Status: offline 		Woo Hoo! More participation. Lots to read and think about. Be back later to continue our trimming of the fatty options. If only it was so easy to shed real pounds.








_____________________________


“We never felt like we were losing until we were actually dead.”
Marcus Luttrell

(in reply to Mike Parker)
Post #: 22
RE: Absolute Minimum - 1/22/2014 8:20:31 PM   
alexvand


Posts: 380
Joined: 11/29/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline 		I would also like to chime in to say that fractional odds are a must.

You end up spending so much time hunting up exactly the right numbers and when you are one short you keep looking. It takes too much time.

Instead you throw the best you've got into the fight and roll with it. It speeds up play and reduces how much time I spend agonizing over already complex manuevers of units.

Take into account how difficult it is currently in MWiF to switch two units from one stack to another. Move one unit you don't actually want to move, then move the two units you want to move, then undo the first unit. Multiply that by a lot.

Fractional odds speeds up play in an already long game.

(in reply to WarHunter)
Post #: 23
RE: Absolute Minimum - 1/22/2014 8:29:48 PM   
alexvand


Posts: 380
Joined: 11/29/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline 		I'm curious, why are so many people insistent on the motorized movement rules. I've never played with them nor even felt the need to. Heck, I don't think I have even read the rules!

So what's the big deal?

(in reply to alexvand)
Post #: 24
RE: Absolute Minimum - 1/22/2014 8:33:28 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

I knew you liked the game, just not happy with the money spent. Same way i felt about my last trip to the strip club. Over priced drinks, Cheap no skillz dancers and only 1 person in the joint, me. At least the DJ played my requests.


That's a quality opening to a post.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to WarHunter)
Post #: 25
RE: Absolute Minimum - 1/22/2014 8:40:48 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8802
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: alex_van_d

I'm curious, why are so many people insistent on the motorized movement rules. I've never played with them nor even felt the need to. Heck, I don't think I have even read the rules!

So what's the big deal?


Terrain is very important for fast movement of motorised columns. In rugged terrain (mountains, wooded hills and so on) motorised columns often can't use any other parts of the country than the roads they are on. Therefore, units on foot were often faster, because they could move around obstacles...

I've read once a book in which the problems of a Soviet armoured division were stated while crossing the Karpathians... The column was repeatedly stopped by road blocks which than needed to be cleared, while three division were waiting to continue on that road later...

Motorized movement rules simulates this...

< Message edited by Centuur -- 1/22/2014 9:41:50 PM >

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to alexvand)
Post #: 26
RE: Absolute Minimum - 1/22/2014 8:52:26 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline 		Another observation on fractional odds. Playing without, when your opponent clears a 1 factor bomber through at -7 odds, and changes your 3-1 attack to a 2-1, then next time you'll vote to play with fractional odds where the same occurrence changes it to a 2.9 to 1.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 27
RE: Absolute Minimum - 1/22/2014 9:54:41 PM   
MatJack

 

Posts: 33
Joined: 11/11/2013
From: Bedminster, New Jersey GMT-5
Status: offline 		Just wanted to say great thread idea and great input with back and forth by the more experienced to allow noobs like me to soak up and later try and apply with better understanding.

< Message edited by Mat_Jack -- 1/22/2014 10:55:05 PM >

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 28
RE: Absolute Minimum - 1/22/2014 10:25:02 PM   
Courtenay


Posts: 4003
Joined: 11/12/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: alex_van_d

I'm curious, why are so many people insistent on the motorized movement rules. I've never played with them nor even felt the need to. Heck, I don't think I have even read the rules!

So what's the big deal?

Several reasons:

Without motorized movement costs, motorized units are just too good in bad terrain, for example the Pripyat marshes. The game plays completely differently with and without motorized movement costs, and the "with" strikes me as far more historical.

Also, several rules trace distances to HQ using motorized movement costs. (HQ reorganization and O-chit distance.) Again, I feel that this is not a decision the designers of the game made lightly.

To reiterate an earlier post, this rule is the only rule that I feel is fundamental to the design of the game. There are other rules that have a huge impact. For example, WiF with and without divisions is almost two different games, but both those games do feel like the game is reflecting WWII. To have armored formations running through the Pripyat is just wrong.

_____________________________

I thought I knew how to play this game....

(in reply to alexvand)
Post #: 29
RE: Absolute Minimum - 1/22/2014 11:01:14 PM   
WarHunter


Posts: 1207
Joined: 3/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Another observation on fractional odds. Playing without, when your opponent clears a 1 factor bomber through at -7 odds, and changes your 3-1 attack to a 2-1, then next time you'll vote to play with fractional odds where the same occurrence changes it to a 2.9 to 1.


paulderynck and Mike Parker and alex_van_d,
Thanks for the insights about Fractional Odds. Its been a while since playing the boardgame. We loved playing with the rule. Seems like ages ago.

Decided unless there is major push back, to include Fractional odds as an option for Absolute Minimum. I did not want to elaborate to much against it. But now that i am at peace with the decision. Let me add full disclosure about how i really feel about this option.


Why i dont like playing with Fractional odds.

Lets pretend we are playing MWiF in a perfect world. The time it takes to move counters is time we enjoy. We share the bliss of counting movement points. The exhilaration of shifting combat factors around 1 hex.
I'm sitting here in rap anticipation of your last and final land move. You have squeezed out every last combat factor to get your 3-1 on the hex NE to Paris. Its 46 to 15. Now its Ground support. All i have is 1 french twin engine bomber. Its got alot going against it flying as a bomber. But if it makes it in its a 2-1. If not it is 3-1.

You the German player know the score. You have to stop that damn french bomber. You knew it as you were setting up the attack. Everyone knows it. But you have the fighters waiting to pounce.

They shoot that little bastard bomber down.

Time for the main event. 3-1 with 1 extra factor over. OMG the fractional odds works and now its a 4-1. Roll for the 4-1. end of story.

So the Defender has a fighting chance to stop a 3-1 and fails in a test of wills through the RNG. Both sides put up a unit. Both sides roll a die. One side wins.

Fractional odds has none of the fairness of shared risk. One player, the Attacker gets what he pays for, or gets an advantage. The defender waits to be the attacker to visit upon his opponent the same measure of inequality.

This over time creates a monster.

There is probably an overall time savings. That time savings is shared. Either waiting to move or actually moving. The loss is actual combat. The meat of any wargame.

It is the nature of the CRT that forces our hand eye brain to concede fractional odds is superior. We attempt to get the best odds possible. This is divided among possible candidates along a front. As the game drags on, we fatigue, we tire, our hands twitch, eyes loose focus, brain gets mushy. We grasp at fractional odds to help ease the pain. It helps. Its why i both love it and hate it. I don't like to be sloppy but i like to save time.

I no longer know exactly where that cannon fodder is. Nor do i care really. Only the biggest numbers matter. Its close enough, fractional odds will save the day. I dont have to plan for the worst possible roll. I plan for 2 die rolls in combat. the first one either helps me gain another odds level or not. The next roll vindicates my easy and sloppy choices.

My opponent does the same thing i do. I hate him for it. I hate myself for what i have become. Even if i could make the odds exact, I can't stop. I always add a little more. Always looking for the edge that my opponent cannot completely eliminate without dropping the odds. Even then i have a chance to get back to the original odds.

Fractional odds is a whore for combat factors, no matter the size you can contribute. There is a slice of heaven waiting for success.

There would be balance, if the defender had a chance to roll.
Instead the defender shrugs his shoulders. Furrows his brow. Beginning another time-saving sloppy ground offensive.

When the game is stable for net play. Anyone who wants to play with or without the option is ok with me. I just wonder if anyone will want to look me up for a game after reading this.


Back to the sifting of options





< Message edited by WarHunter -- 1/23/2014 12:03:44 AM >

_____________________________


“We never felt like we were losing until we were actually dead.”
Marcus Luttrell

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> WIF School >> Absolute Minimum Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





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


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.641