RE: optional rules (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames



Message


Froonp -> RE: optional rules (8/30/2006 5:16:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees
quote:

No, For 5 IP you can add +1, 0 or -1 to any die roll.

I haven't finished my morning coffee yet.
Why would you spend the points to add +0 to a roll?
Just to get rid of the IP's?

Well, the trick is that you have to declare you are using 5 IP to modify the dice(s) before the dices are rolled.
So if the rolled results satisfied you better than the result -1 or the result +1, you are entitled to keep the rolled result by adding 0 to it.
There are cases where the upper result is not better than the one you rolled for, in certains ways.
For example, in the 2d10 CRT (you roll 2d10), a 14 is more deadly to the attacker than a 15, and a 13 does no result.
So if you are the defender, and you have expended 5 IP, if the attacked rolls 14, you will prefer to keep this so that he looses 3 units (2 units plus an extra loss depending on the combat conditions). With a 15 he only looses 2 units, and with a 13 he looses nothing. On the other hand, on a 14 or 15, you also loose a unit, so you could also apply a -1 so that no one looses nothing.




mlees -> RE: optional rules (8/30/2006 5:32:30 PM)

I knew you could explain it. Thanks. :)




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: optional rules (8/30/2006 8:07:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
quote:

(1) I remember during the WiFCon 2005 seeing the latest Naval O-Chit rules in action at another table. It turned out to be a bit of a dud - but that was Pablo's bad luck on the dice.

I don't like the latest Naval OC, I prefered the old, and I would have prefered if the game gave the choice between the 2 variations of the OC.
Steve, do you think that MWiF could give the player the choice between the 2 Naval OC, the old and the "new" ?
After all, the old OC is already coded in MWiF.

quote:

(3) The CWiF extended game option will not make a lot of sense unless you are playing with the WiF/AiF/PatiF "Supergame" rules, but of course they will not be implemented in MWiF. Otherwise, they just mean the Allies have three more years to beat the Axis to bits.

Yes, I agree.
I played a CWiF 1939 Campaign up to end of 1946 once, and the endgame was boring because there was nothing left to produce.
This is the reason why I was talking Steve to introduce the additional aircrafts & ships of AiF & PoliF & PatiF (taking only the latest), because that makes units to produce up to 1950, but he does not want.
It is common practice, and it is the way ADG says it should be played, to add AiF, PoliF and PatiF counters to regular WiF FE campaigns for players who own them.


A couple of answers to different posts.

The extension to 1948 only adds 2 years/12 turns. If a player is running out of units to produce that soon, there isn't much 'play' left in the game anyway - the map is full of units (IMO). If we were talking about adding 4 more years, then the need for additional units makes more sense. I also have the feeling that the more you extend the game beyond what the designers intended, the more pressure you put on distorting the simulation beyond reason.

I prefer the rule from WIF FE for the benefits of the Naval OC chit (that is the one in my writeup). This opinion is both as a player and as a designer. Permitting a player to demand re-rolls galls me in general. I know that WIF has this as part of its general design (e.g., asking for a re-roll for the initiative) but I am from the old school, where the dice are roll and you take your lumps if they come disgustingly wrong. Yelling and screaming at the dice for their evil behavior is part of playing a war game as far as I am concerned. [:@][my player's viewpoint]

For PBEM permitting a player to see die rolls and then ask for re-rolls is going to add alot of extra emails to game play. An extra email would be needed for almost every die roll since the player would have to be asked whether he wants a re-roll or not. Yuck.[sm=vomit-smiley-020.gif] This is the primary reason I removed the optional rule for Intelligence when playing by email. However, removing the Offensive Chit optional rule can't be done - it is too important a game element. [my designer's viewpoint]

Therefore I propose to keep the Naval OC rule as defined in WIF FE. Options within optional rules is not to my taste; although I will be discussing that in general later today in my post on the last optional rule (Convoys in Flames).




lomyrin -> RE: optional rules (8/30/2006 10:15:30 PM)

The extension to 48 adds three years, 18 turns.

In longtime CWiF PBEM play I have never used intelligence rules, not implemented in CWIF anyway.

Lars




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: optional rules (8/30/2006 10:24:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

The extension to 48 adds three years, 18 turns.

In longtime CWiF PBEM play I have never used intelligence rules, not implemented in CWIF anyway.

Lars

Ah, yes - the old subtraction trick.




Froonp -> RE: optional rules (8/30/2006 11:45:37 PM)

quote:

A couple of answers to different posts.

The extension to 1948 only adds 2 years/12 turns. If a player is running out of units to produce that soon, there isn't much 'play' left in the game anyway - the map is full of units (IMO). If we were talking about adding 4 more years, then the need for additional units makes more sense. I also have the feeling that the more you extend the game beyond what the designers intended, the more pressure you put on distorting the simulation beyond reason.

Steve it must be a long time since you played WiF FE for the last time, as force pools (playing without the AiF & PaitF extra air & naval counters) are all built at the end of 1945 already. There is already not much to built in each major Power's force pool in 1945, usualy this is all built in 2 turns.
All what is left is navies, but navies are out of the built plans in the late war. The Losses are also to be rebuilt, but this makes for a pretty useless Production phase, and this for a lot of turns.

quote:

I prefer the rule from WIF FE for the benefits of the Naval OC chit (that is the one in my writeup). This opinion is both as a player and as a designer. Permitting a player to demand re-rolls galls me in general. I know that WIF has this as part of its general design (e.g., asking for a re-roll for the initiative) but I am from the old school, where the dice are roll and you take your lumps if they come disgustingly wrong. Yelling and screaming at the dice for their evil behavior is part of playing a war game as far as I am concerned. [my player's viewpoint]

Well, I like it from a personal player point of view, but I do not like it from a design point of view. If this game has to be true to the latest incarnation of WiF FE, at least as of 2006, or even 2005, or even 2004, it has to have the new Naval OC.
When I proposed to have the choice between both incarnations of the Naval OC, it was not in the options that I was talking about. It was in the game. That is, in a game played with OC turned on, a player could choose the reroll OC or the Reorg OC for a naval OC, at the moment he chooses to play an OC on a naval action.

Also, I do not see the rerolls as you see them. In WiF it is just a way to have a feat achieved for the Major power who tries to avoid its doom, or who desesperatly tries to achieve playing first, it is quite exciting. Anyway, everyone knows that rerolls are possible, so when you are playing WiFFE, you wait for everyone having accepted the result and declined to reroll before rejoicing [:D]




Froonp -> RE: optional rules (8/30/2006 11:47:57 PM)

quote:

Also, I do not see the rerolls as you see them. In WiF it is just a way to have a feat achieved for the Major power who tries to avoid its doom, or who desesperatly tries to achieve playing first, it is quite exciting. Anyway, everyone knows that rerolls are possible, so when you are playing WiFFE, you wait for everyone having accepted the result and declined to reroll before rejoicing

This said, the cases when you reroll in WiF FE are not so many :
- In some circumstances, for Initiative.
- If you have heaps of Intelligence (more than 15).
- For the Naval OC, the Air OC (Ground strikes under OC are kind of a reroll)




Zorachus99 -> RE: optional rules (8/30/2006 11:54:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

Also, I do not see the rerolls as you see them. In WiF it is just a way to have a feat achieved for the Major power who tries to avoid its doom, or who desesperatly tries to achieve playing first, it is quite exciting. Anyway, everyone knows that rerolls are possible, so when you are playing WiFFE, you wait for everyone having accepted the result and declined to reroll before rejoicing

This said, the cases when you reroll in WiF FE are not so many :
- In some circumstances, for Initiative.
- If you have heaps of Intelligence (more than 15).
- For the Naval OC, the Air OC (Ground strikes under OC are kind of a reroll)


I respectfully disagree [sm=00000622.gif]




Froonp -> RE: optional rules (8/31/2006 12:10:19 AM)

quote:


I respectfully disagree

You disagree to what [X(] ?




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: optional rules (8/31/2006 12:52:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
quote:

Also, I do not see the rerolls as you see them. In WiF it is just a way to have a feat achieved for the Major power who tries to avoid its doom, or who desesperatly tries to achieve playing first, it is quite exciting. Anyway, everyone knows that rerolls are possible, so when you are playing WiFFE, you wait for everyone having accepted the result and declined to reroll before rejoicing

This said, the cases when you reroll in WiF FE are not so many :
- In some circumstances, for Initiative.
- If you have heaps of Intelligence (more than 15).
- For the Naval OC, the Air OC (Ground strikes under OC are kind of a reroll)


I really like the re-roll for the initiative, because of the emotional pressure it puts on players: "Do you want to sell your future for a second chance now?"

But it only occurs once per turn and can be a preplanned decision when playing by email (e.g., "if I lose the initiative roll, I will demand a re-roll.").

I dislike the Intelligence optional rule and the new Naval OC rule. I guess I see it as permitting a bully (whoever has the most Intelligence points) to have his way just because he is bigger. Using the OC chit in any of the other possible ways matches my expectations of what saved logistical power can accomplish: doubled strength for a few units, additional reorganization capabilities, coordinating massive combined actions, ...; while getting to re-roll because things didn't go your way is pure gamesmanship (IMO).




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: optional rules (8/31/2006 1:11:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

Steve it must be a long time since you played WiF FE for the last time, as force pools (playing without the AiF & PaitF extra air & naval counters) are all built at the end of 1945 already. There is already not much to built in each major Power's force pool in 1945, usualy this is all built in 2 turns.
All what is left is navies, but navies are out of the built plans in the late war. The Losses are also to be rebuilt, but this makes for a pretty useless Production phase, and this for a lot of turns.
.



Actually you are making my point quite well here. The players stop building 2 year naval units because the game is ending. So they are just building air and land units (and special stuff). By extending the game 3 years, they should still be building naval units up through 1946 (second cycle production).

If they are not, then we are talking about distorting the game design a lot. I doubt that the designers intended on the players to not build naval units for 3 or 4 years straight. The amount of build points available to the players as the production multiples increase, with new oil plants and newly built factories on line is very large. Maintaining that level of build points for 3 more years and not using any of them for naval units, seems like a gross imbalance. Making a lot of new units available to accommodate production levels that have reached a silly level, is a fault in many wargame designs (6 or 7 come to mind immediately).

America in Flames and Patton in Flames were specifically designed to go beyond 1945. Let's let those addons simulate those years, and merely let the players extend the MWIF product 1 into 1948 if they want - without making the numerous modifications to the WIF design that should be made for those extra years.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: optional rules (8/31/2006 4:33:33 AM)

Last, but not least, the final optional rule writeup.

At several places in this thread forum members have mentioned than the player should have the ability to select some parts of an optional rule and not other parts. This possibility is most apparent for the Convoy in Flames optional rule below, which introduces many different unit types. How do you feel about this? Should there be a sub-selection process for some optional rules? I am opposed to adding sub-choices simply for the sake of adding sub-choices. Afterall, the 80 or so separate optional rules seems like a lot to me - "Jeez Louise, enough already!". However, fighting to keep an open mind on this, I ask for your opinion, and will cut them into separate pieces when a good reason for doing so is put forth. For example, I already have split the engineer optional rule into 2: combat and construction.

=============================================================
[72][Convoys In Flames][RAW 76 s. 11.11.2, 19.4, and 22.4.19]
This optional rule adds all the elements of the WIF add-on module Convoys in Flames to the game. Note that when using the Convoys in Flames optional rule, you must also use the Carrier Planes optional rule. The Convoys in Flames optional rule introduces new unit types that represent in greater detail the naval battles conducted against merchant marine shipping, especially battles by and against submarines. These include:
∙ Minor Convoys
∙ ASW Units
∙ SubHunters
∙ Surface Raiders
∙ Tankers
∙ Milchcow Submarines
∙ Walther Submarines
∙ Flying Submarines
∙ Schnorkel Submarines
∙ Supply Submarines
∙ Missile Submarines

Minor Convoys
When using this optional rule, the number of convoys with which minor countries start is different from the number they normally receive. Some of the convoys may be oil tankers.

ASW Units
ASW (anti-submarine warfare) units represent the corvettes, destroyers, submarine chasers, and escort carriers that were used to guard convoys. Some ASW units have an air component, representing escort carrier task forces. Like all other carriers, you need to equip an ASW carrier with a carrier air unit (and its pilot if using the Pilot optional rule) to gain any benefit from the carrier’s air power. ASW units without an air component are SCSs.

All ASW units are placed into a new force pool (which includes both those with an air component and those without). When using these units, no major power receives ASW factors based on the number of convoy points located in a sea zone. Instead, ASW units may be built, and they provide special ASW capabilities, as described later in this section. Other unit types (i.e., SCS, carrier, and aircraft) still provide their usual ASW factors during submarine combat.

In some ways, ASW units are treated like convoy points, specifically:
∙ When ending their move in a sea area they must be placed in the 0 box.
∙ At the end of the turn, they do not need to return to base.
∙ They may not attempt to intercept nor initiate a search.
∙ If included during submarine combat, they count as an "Enemy Ship" and the owner may choose to take losses on ASW units or convoys (unless the other side spends 3 surprise points to select an enemy target of course).

ASW units have a special pre-fire attack against included enemy submarines (only) in each surface or submarine round of naval combat - but not in an air round of naval combat. The attack factors of all included ASW units are totaled, adding in all included ASW air-to-sea factors on that side as well (all these factors may be modified by weather). All other included units on that side are ignored for the pre-fire attack against submarines.

The pre-fire attack uses the Anti air and Surface row of the naval combat chart, cross-referencing the total modified ASW factors with the number of included enemy submarines (which use the Enemy ships column). Die rolls are as per anti-aircraft combat. For every 10 points, one enemy submarine (owner's choice) suffers an 'X' result, for every remaining 5 points, one enemy submarine (owner's choice) suffers a 'D' result. After applying these results, any remaining points are subtracted from the total submarine factors that press the attack in the ensuing combat round.

In all other combats, ASWs have 0 attack factors.

For example, in fine weather, two Axis submarines with 2 SCS find enemy Allied convoys escorted by one pink-shaded ASW unit and one red-shaded ASW unit, along with one SCS. The red-shaded ASW also has an air component whose carrier plane has 2 air-to-sea factors. The Axis use 4 surprise points to call a round of surface combat so that their SCS can fight (if they did not spend the surprise points, the ASW with an air component could have required the round to be naval air combat).

The ASW units now add up their ASW factors. The pink-shaded ASW's factor is a 2, and the red-shaded is a 1, plus its 2 air-to-sea factors. Therefore the total ASW factors on the two included units is 5 (2 + 1 +2). Note that the SCS cannot participate in this special pre-fire attack so its attack value is ignored.

Using the anti-aircraft column with 5 ASW factors against 2 submarines gives the Allies the worst of 6 rolls, which turns out to be a 2. The submarines have 3 and 4 attack factors respectively, and so in the ensuing round of surface combat they will contribute 5 factors (7 - 2). If the ensuing round of naval combat is a submarine combat, the pink-shaded ASW's attack factors count as ASW factors, and red-shaded ASW's attack factors count double as ASW factors. This is in addition to their air component (if any).

Sub-hunter Aircraft
The land-based aircraft units with pink- and red-circled air-to-sea values represent aircraft capable of being upgraded to Sub-hunters. Sub-hunters (only) may attempt to intercept a moving enemy task force of submarines provided the submarine task force is entering or leaving a port from or into a sea area. If successfully intercepted, the submarines must stop their move in that sea area or fight their way through it as normal, except that they must all be included during the interception combat.

For example, Germany has many submarines in Brest, and will move them all with its lone naval move during a Combined impulse. The submarines sail in numerous task forces, heading for several locations around the Atlantic. The first group of submarines to move is a task force of two submarines. A face-up Commonwealth Sub-hunter in the Bay of Biscay attempts to intercept, and successfully searches. The submarines must either cease movement, or conduct interception combat against the Sub-hunter. The submarines elect to cease movement and place themselves into the 3 sea box. Other submarine task forces move out and are not intercepted.

The Sub-hunter could try to initiate combat against the submarines during the naval combat step, but the submarines as usual would have the option of not committing to combat.

During the return to base step, an active US Sub-hunter in the Bay of Biscay elects to stay at sea, and attempts to intercept those same two submarines, who are now returning to base in Brest. If successful, the submarines must fight from the 0 box; they cannot avoid interception combat and are all included in combat.

Additionally, in a round of submarine combat, the ASW value of a pink-circled Sub-hunter is equal to its printed air-to-sea factors and the ASW value of a red-circled Sub-hunter is equal to double its printed air-to-sea factors (before the usual modifications for weather, extended range, etc.)

Sub-hunters cannot be built directly. Instead, when a Sub-hunter becomes available, it is placed into a Sub-hunter pool. In order to upgrade an aircraft into its Sub-hunter equivalent, the corresponding aircraft unit must be in the Reserve Pool during the Production step. The cost to upgrade an aircraft to its corresponding Sub-hunter is 1 build point and the Sub-hunter arrives as a reinforcement next turn. After putting the Sub-hunter onto the production spiral, the replaced unit is placed in the Sub-hunter pool.

Alternately, a Sub-hunter in the Reserve Pool during the Production step may be reverted to its normal version, also at a cost of 1 build point and taking 1 turn. Place the Sub-hunter back into the Sub-hunter pool, and the normal version onto the production spiral to arrive in the following turn.

If a Sub-hunter is destroyed, place it in the Sub-hunter pool and the normal version back into the force pool.

German Auxiliary Cruisers (CX)
The German auxiliary cruisers (commonly referred to as surface raiders) are treated as SCS units in all respects, except that:
∙ 2 is added to all interception attempts when a force is composed solely of auxiliary cruisers, (i.e., it is more difficult to intercept them).
∙ They may not transport any units.
∙ They are always in supply.
∙ They do not need oil to reorganize.
∙ When repaired, they are chosen randomly.

They may also sail from and return to base to a neutral minor country port. While any active auxiliary cruisers are in such ports, each German naval move can only be used to move them to sea. If they are ever in a neutral port when the port is enemy controlled, they are immediately destroyed.

Tankers
Oil-carrying tankers are a special kind of convoy. They are treated as convoy points for all purposes unless otherwise indicated below. Only tankers can transport oil resources overseas and only convoys may transport non-oil resources or build points overseas.

Each tanker costs 1 build point and takes 5 turns to build.

At the start of any friendly impulse, a player may freely convert any of their active convoy points in port into tanker points, or vice versa. When doing so, it takes 2 convoy points to convert into 1 tanker point, or 2 tanker points to convert into 1 convoy point.

For example, desperate for more tankers, Kasigi converts 4 convoys in Tokyo into 2 tanker points at the beginning of his impulse, and then sails them immediately.

If you are not playing with this option, tankers are just considered more convoy points.

Milchcow Submarines
Milchcow submarines are treated as submarines in all respects except that:
∙ They must always end their move in the 0 sea box section when at sea.
∙ They need not return to base at the end of the turn.
∙ They have the special capability to act as a floating port as described next.

When a Milchcow is active at sea, you may convert it to a floating port/supply source any time you wish. Doing so makes the Milchcow passive. While passive, a Milchcow may act as a port to any one German submarine or SCS unit (provided the latter is not transporting any unit). The submarine or SCS unit basing on the Milchcow submarine is always considered in supply and will automatically reorganize during the Final reorganization step without needing any oil.

When the unit based on the Milchcow moves, the Milchcow immediately becomes active again. While passive, the Milchcow and the unit based on it (if any) is considered an SCS (not a submarine) and thus is automatically committed to combat (even if other submarines on that side are not). Any result suffered by the Milchcow while passive is also applied to the unit based with it.

For example, a Milchcow submarine is located in the US East Coast sea area. During the return to base step, a German submarine decides to return to base at the Milchcow. The Milchcow becomes passive to allow this. The other submarine is reorganized (even though it had no overseas access to supply or oil). The Allies move first at the start of the next turn, and the USA sends a cruiser squadron into the US East Coast sea area. The Milchcow is automatically committed to the combat, and the US units find it and apply an 'X' result to it. The 'X' is also applied to the other submarine based on it.

Schnorkel Submarines
Schnorkel submarines are treated as submarines in all respects except that they are not included in the special pre-fire combat by ASW units unless at least one of the included ASW units is red-circled.

Walther Submarines
Walther submarines are treated as submarines in all respects except that they are never included in the special pre-fire combat by ASW units, and Walther submarines may also voluntarily abort back to port at the beginning of any naval combat round, immediately after search dice have been rolled.

For example, a German Schnorkel submarine and a Walther submarine attack Allied convoy lines in the North Atlantic. There are 3 ASW units (2 pink circled, and 1 red-circled) plus several convoys for the Allies. The submarines successfully search and elect to fight a submarine round of combat. The Walther is not affected by the ASW pre-fire attack. However, since one of the ASW units is red-circled, the Schnorkel can be affected, and in fact it is aborted and must immediately return to base.

The Walther stays at sea and another naval search is conducted. This time an Allied naval air unit in the 3 box successfully searches while the Walther does not. The Walther decides to immediately return to port at a nearby active Milchcow (which then becomes passive).

Flying Submarines
Flying submarine units are treated as submarines in all respects except that they provide a naval search bonus as if they were a naval air unit.

Supply Submarines
Supply submarine units are treated as submarines in all respects except that when active they may provide one reorganization point, exactly like an active naval transport unit.

Submarines with Missiles
Some submarine units have missile capability. They are treated as submarines in all respects except that when active they may fire their missiles against any land hex within 6 aircraft movement points of any sea dot in the sea zone.

The missile attack is a strategic bombardment attack. This attack counts against aircraft mission limits for the controlling major power and is subject to weather and terrain limitations and modifications as if it were a land based bomber, but it may not be intercepted. After conducting the attack, the submarine becomes passive.

For example, an active German submarine with 2 missile factors is located in the US East Coast sea zone. During a Fine weather impulse, the submarine conducts a strategic bombardment attack against Boston with its 2 strategic bombing factors (receiving a +1 to the die since the attack cannot be intercepted). This costs Germany an air mission, and the submarine becomes passive after the attack.




trees trees -> RE: optional rules (8/31/2006 7:42:33 AM)

Convoys in Flames is a fun kit that I have enjoyed in several games since it came out. I think I will always use it, though with some house rules. But I don't think it has received universal acceptance the way say Ships or Planes in Flames has (yet). There are so many things to add, and the Battle of the Atlantic sufficiently mystifies players already, that I wouldn't mind if it was added to MWiF at a later date.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: optional rules (8/31/2006 7:53:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: trees trees
Convoys in Flames is a fun kit that I have enjoyed in several games since it came out. I think I will always use it, though with some house rules. But I don't think it has received universal acceptance the way say Ships or Planes in Flames has (yet). There are so many things to add, and the Battle of the Atlantic sufficiently mystifies players already, that I wouldn't mind if it was added to MWiF at a later date.


Well, that was my opinion, but I was overruled by David Heath. So MWIF product 1 will include Convoys in Flames - no doubt about it.




Froonp -> RE: optional rules (8/31/2006 11:53:05 AM)

quote:

At several places in this thread forum members have mentioned than the player should have the ability to select some parts of an optional rule and not other parts. This possibility is most apparent for the Convoy in Flames optional rule below, which introduces many different unit types. How do you feel about this? Should there be a sub-selection process for some optional rules? I am opposed to adding sub-choices simply for the sake of adding sub-choices. Afterall, the 80 or so separate optional rules seems like a lot to me - "Jeez Louise, enough already!". However, fighting to keep an open mind on this, I ask for your opinion, and will cut them into separate pieces when a good reason for doing so is put forth. For example, I already have split the engineer optional rule into 2: combat and construction.

I'd make 2 subrules :

Subrule 1 (asw, special submarines and CX)
∙ ASW Units
∙ SubHunters
∙ Surface Raiders
∙ Milchcow Submarines
∙ Walther Submarines
∙ Flying Submarines
∙ Schnorkel Submarines
∙ Supply Submarines
∙ Missile Submarines

Subrule 2 (tankers)
∙ Minor Convoys
∙ Tankers


If I wanted to refine, I'd make 3 subrules :

Subrule 1 (asw and CX)
∙ ASW Units
∙ SubHunters
∙ Surface Raiders

Subrule 2 (tankers)
∙ Minor Convoys
∙ Tankers

Subrule 3 (special submarines)
∙ Milchcow Submarines
∙ Walther Submarines
∙ Flying Submarines
∙ Schnorkel Submarines
∙ Supply Submarines
∙ Missile Submarines

But I think 3 subrules are not worth the trouble, the 2 subrules I listed above should be ok with most of the people. Only the tankers has to be separated from the core of the rule, because, having played Tankers twice, they are not giving as bang for the buck as the rest.

Special submarines are rare anyway, except for a Milchcow in the early years, which is not that bad if you know how to take advantage of it. In this regard, I think your example about Milchcow is not good inspiration for the Axis player. A Milchcow rather be placed in a remote Sea Area, out of the convoy sea lanes, and should learn to make himself forgotten by the enemy. In practice, a Milchcow can stay during all the war in the same Sea Area, and only serve as a port a handfull of times, to avoid attracting a task force of hunters in his area.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: optional rules (8/31/2006 12:32:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
quote:

At several places in this thread forum members have mentioned than the player should have the ability to select some parts of an optional rule and not other parts. This possibility is most apparent for the Convoy in Flames optional rule below, which introduces many different unit types. How do you feel about this? Should there be a sub-selection process for some optional rules? I am opposed to adding sub-choices simply for the sake of adding sub-choices. Afterall, the 80 or so separate optional rules seems like a lot to me - "Jeez Louise, enough already!". However, fighting to keep an open mind on this, I ask for your opinion, and will cut them into separate pieces when a good reason for doing so is put forth. For example, I already have split the engineer optional rule into 2: combat and construction.

I'd make 2 subrules :

Subrule 1 (asw, special submarines and CX)
∙ ASW Units
∙ SubHunters
∙ Surface Raiders
∙ Milchcow Submarines
∙ Walther Submarines
∙ Flying Submarines
∙ Schnorkel Submarines
∙ Supply Submarines
∙ Missile Submarines

Subrule 2 (tankers)
∙ Minor Convoys
∙ Tankers


If I wanted to refine, I'd make 3 subrules :

Subrule 1 (asw and CX)
∙ ASW Units
∙ SubHunters
∙ Surface Raiders

Subrule 2 (tankers)
∙ Minor Convoys
∙ Tankers

Subrule 3 (special submarines)
∙ Milchcow Submarines
∙ Walther Submarines
∙ Flying Submarines
∙ Schnorkel Submarines
∙ Supply Submarines
∙ Missile Submarines

But I think 3 subrules are not worth the trouble, the 2 subrules I listed above should be ok with most of the people. Only the tankers has to be separated from the core of the rule, because, having played Tankers twice, they are not giving as bang for the buck as the rest.

Special submarines are rare anyway, except for a Milchcow in the early years, which is not that bad if you know how to take advantage of it. In this regard, I think your example about Milchcow is not good inspiration for the Axis player. A Milchcow rather be placed in a remote Sea Area, out of the convoy sea lanes, and should learn to make himself forgotten by the enemy. In practice, a Milchcow can stay during all the war in the same Sea Area, and only serve as a port a handfull of times, to avoid attracting a task force of hunters in his area.

Splitting these into 2 seems good to me. But not 3, since adding the ASW units should be balanced by the new submarine types. Having the oil tankers as a completely separate optional rule is quite feasible.




Froonp -> RE: optional rules (8/31/2006 12:56:38 PM)

quote:

Submarines with Missiles

Maybe you should also note in your writeup that those subs only appear in 1945.

Maybe you should also add that all sub subtypes are mixed in the SUB force pool and that the owner cannot choose which sub he builts, at least for 1st cycle.

Maybe you can add how many of each are in game :
Flying : 1 (JAP, 1941).
Milchcow : 4 (GER). All are for 1943 or before.
Missile : 12 (7 GER from which 5 are Walther SUBs, 2 USA from which 1 is Schnorkel and 1 is Walther and 1st is in 1947, 3 USSR from which 2 are Schnorkel and 1 is Walther and 1st is in 1947). Only 2 are for 1945 or before.
Schnorkel : 21 (1 CAN, 1 FR, 8 GER, 3 IT, 2 JA, 1 UK, 3 USA, 2 USSR). Plus the Schnorkel Missile ones. 15 are for 1945 or before, mostly GER.
Walther : 8 (4 GER, 1 IT, 1 USA, 2 USSR). Plus the Walther Missile ones. Only 2 are for 1945 or before, GER.
Supply : 2 (1 GER, 2 JA). All from 1941 or before.

Out of a grand total of 156 SUB in the game (1 AUS, 2 CAN, 8 FR, 50 GER, 17 IT, 18 JA, 3 CH, 1 NETH, 14 UK, 23 USA, 19 USSR) (133 are from 1945 or before).




Neilster -> RE: optional rules (8/31/2006 2:11:45 PM)

quote:

Flying Submarines
Flying submarine units are treated as submarines in all respects except that they provide a naval search bonus as if they were a naval air unit.


What are these representing? The Japanese subs that could deploy aircraft? If so, the name is a bit confusing. Perhaps Aircraft Carrying Submarines would be clearer. As it is I'm picturing submarines leaping out of the water and taking off on naval patrols. [X(]

Cheers, Neilster




Froonp -> RE: optional rules (8/31/2006 5:01:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster
quote:

Flying Submarines
Flying submarine units are treated as submarines in all respects except that they provide a naval search bonus as if they were a naval air unit.


What are these representing? The Japanese subs that could deploy aircraft? If so, the name is a bit confusing. Perhaps Aicraft Carrying Submarines would be clearer. As it is I'm picturing submarines leaping out of the water and taking off on naval patrols. [X(]

Cheers, Neilster

Yes, they are representing these submarines.
The name is the one chosen by the designer and is the one used in WiF FE, and I agree it is not well chosen and onfusing. Yours would be better, or Submarine aircraft carrier.

There is an article about them at Wikipedia :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_aircraft_carrier




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: optional rules (8/31/2006 8:22:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster
quote:

Flying Submarines
Flying submarine units are treated as submarines in all respects except that they provide a naval search bonus as if they were a naval air unit.


What are these representing? The Japanese subs that could deploy aircraft? If so, the name is a bit confusing. Perhaps Aicraft Carrying Submarines would be clearer. As it is I'm picturing submarines leaping out of the water and taking off on naval patrols. [X(]

Cheers, Neilster


I'll stay with ADG's terminology here, though it is not perfect.

By the way, Aircraft Carrying Submarines causes me to picture a plane with a submarine strapped under each wing.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: optional rules (8/31/2006 8:25:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

Submarines with Missiles

Maybe you should also note in your writeup that those subs only appear in 1945.

Maybe you should also add that all sub subtypes are mixed in the SUB force pool and that the owner cannot choose which sub he builts, at least for 1st cycle.

Maybe you can add how many of each are in game :
Flying : 1 (JAP, 1941).
Milchcow : 4 (GER). All are for 1943 or before.
Missile : 12 (7 GER from which 5 are Walther SUBs, 2 USA from which 1 is Schnorkel and 1 is Walther and 1st is in 1947, 3 USSR from which 2 are Schnorkel and 1 is Walther and 1st is in 1947). Only 2 are for 1945 or before.
Schnorkel : 21 (1 CAN, 1 FR, 8 GER, 3 IT, 2 JA, 1 UK, 3 USA, 2 USSR). Plus the Schnorkel Missile ones. 15 are for 1945 or before, mostly GER.
Walther : 8 (4 GER, 1 IT, 1 USA, 2 USSR). Plus the Walther Missile ones. Only 2 are for 1945 or before, GER.
Supply : 2 (1 GER, 2 JA). All from 1941 or before.

Out of a grand total of 156 SUB in the game (1 AUS, 2 CAN, 8 FR, 50 GER, 17 IT, 18 JA, 3 CH, 1 NETH, 14 UK, 23 USA, 19 USSR) (133 are from 1945 or before).

I'll put in something about this, without as many details (I usually avoid giving the # of units in the counter mix).




wfzimmerman -> RE: optional rules (8/31/2006 8:47:57 PM)

I assumed the flying sub was a reference to the 50's-era Convair Cormonant prototype here.




Mziln -> RE: optional rules (9/1/2006 4:00:33 PM)

Actualy, I belive it references a Soviet flying sub that was in developennt (but dropped late in the war). But the link was at www.airforce.ru and has been removed.




Mziln -> RE: optional rules (9/2/2006 5:14:20 AM)

The History Channels Secret Russian Aircraft of World War II - VHS Video
See how, despite ever-present danger from Stalin's purges, Soviet designers mastered astonishing technical hurdles. Rare footage, photos and plans show their creations: a swept-wing delta design, a rocket-powered fighter, a flying tank prototype, a submarine-bomber combination, a canard-wing aircraft, and others. Learn which of their designs made it into production and which inspired their successors to greater heights. 50 minutes.




Neilster -> RE: optional rules (9/2/2006 12:36:33 PM)

quote:

By the way, Aircraft Carrying Submarines causes me to picture a plane with a submarine strapped under each wing.


Well, we're clearly talking about submarines...so maybe if you've been smoking some of that potent, local, Maui Wowie, man. [:D]

Cheers, Neilster





Mziln -> RE: optional rules (9/2/2006 10:30:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I'll stay with ADG's terminology here, though it is not perfect.

By the way, Aircraft Carrying Submarines causes me to picture a plane with a submarine strapped under each wing.



A picture is worth a thousand words: Japanese Aircraft Carrier Submarines

I-Go 14 Type (Type "Ko-Kai 2" : Modified A Type2) I-Go 14 Aircraft Submarine
I-Go 15 Type (Type "Otsu" : Type B) I-Go 26 Aircraft Submarine
I-Go 54 Type (Type "Otsu-Kai 2" : Modified B Type2) I-Go 54 Aircraft Submarine
I-Go 400 Type (Special Submarine) I-Go 402 Aircraft Submarine




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: optional rules (9/3/2006 2:59:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I'll stay with ADG's terminology here, though it is not perfect.

By the way, Aircraft Carrying Submarines causes me to picture a plane with a submarine strapped under each wing.



A picture is worth a thousand words: Japanese Aircraft Carrier Submarines

I-Go 14 Type (Type "Ko-Kai 2" : Modified A Type2) I-Go 14 Aircraft Submarine
I-Go 15 Type (Type "Otsu" : Type B) I-Go 26 Aircraft Submarine
I-Go 54 Type (Type "Otsu-Kai 2" : Modified B Type2) I-Go 54 Aircraft Submarine
I-Go 400 Type (Special Submarine) I-Go 402 Aircraft Submarine


Thanks for the reference. We'll call them "Aircraft Carrier Submarines" then.




Neilster -> RE: optional rules (9/3/2006 10:19:38 AM)

The reason I suggested "Aircraft Carrying Submarines" rather than "Aircraft Carrier Submarines" is that the latter implies that aircraft can take off in much the same manner as an aircraft carrier, whereas in this case the aircraft had to be unpacked and assembled before flight.

Cheers, Neilster




amwild -> RE: optional rules (9/4/2006 7:35:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

The reason I suggested "Aircraft Carrying Submarines" rather than "Aircraft Carrier Submarines" is that the latter implies that aircraft can take off in much the same manner as an aircraft carrier, whereas in this case the aircraft had to be unpacked and assembled before flight.

Cheers, Neilster



This distinction could be made in the unit descriptions.

They could also be called "seaplane carrier submarines", since the aircraft they carried were not both launched and retrieved from the deck.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: optional rules (9/4/2006 7:40:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: amwild

This distinction could be made in the unit descriptions.

They could also be called "seaplane carrier submarines", since the aircraft they carried were not both launched and retrieved from the deck.


I like it. Aircraft Carrier Submarines did sound too grandiose.




Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.78125