RE: Europe map? (Full Version)

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



Message

marcuswatney -> RE: Europe map? (5/23/2008 11:22:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Borger Borgersen
I agree with most of the comments made by Marcus, but I also realize we can NOT implement any changes in this area (give the Maastrict hex to the Netherlands and maybe give an O-chit to Germany to compensate) without Harry's consent. We can't let MWIF be different from WIFFE here.

So if anything will change here then it will be because Harry accepts that this needs to be addressed, maybe after a discussion among the die-hard WIFFE fans on the official WIF forum. Our job in this forum is to simply draw this "problem" to Harry's attention so it has a chance to be considered. Then we will await his reply. Patrice has already sent an email to Harry so I propose we just wait to hear what Harry says. If MWIF will change the map in the Netherlands then it will be because WIFFE will change and make an official errata about this.


Of course Harry's approval is needed, and any change should bleed through to WIF:FE (which, with the continuing publication of the Annual, is already anything but a Final Edition). Perhaps the best approach is to focus initially on our concerns at the unrealistic strength of the French in 1940, which everyone seems to agree about, and propose as the solution an extra O-Chit for Germany, balanced by giving Maastricht to the Dutch ... thus simultaneously solving two inaccuracies.

This tweak could be offered as an optional rule until it gains widespread approval in the community, and programmed into MWiF as a toggled option at start. Steve: I trust programming a one-hex one-chit option would be no more complex than the disappearance of the Maginot Line after conquest?



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Europe map? (5/23/2008 12:45:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

quote:

ORIGINAL: Borger Borgersen
I agree with most of the comments made by Marcus, but I also realize we can NOT implement any changes in this area (give the Maastrict hex to the Netherlands and maybe give an O-chit to Germany to compensate) without Harry's consent. We can't let MWIF be different from WIFFE here.

So if anything will change here then it will be because Harry accepts that this needs to be addressed, maybe after a discussion among the die-hard WIFFE fans on the official WIF forum. Our job in this forum is to simply draw this "problem" to Harry's attention so it has a chance to be considered. Then we will await his reply. Patrice has already sent an email to Harry so I propose we just wait to hear what Harry says. If MWIF will change the map in the Netherlands then it will be because WIFFE will change and make an official errata about this.


Of course Harry's approval is needed, and any change should bleed through to WIF:FE (which, with the continuing publication of the Annual, is already anything but a Final Edition). Perhaps the best approach is to focus initially on our concerns at the unrealistic strength of the French in 1940, which everyone seems to agree about, and propose as the solution an extra O-Chit for Germany, balanced by giving Maastricht to the Dutch ... thus simultaneously solving two inaccuracies.

This tweak could be offered as an optional rule until it gains widespread approval in the community, and programmed into MWiF as a toggled option at start. Steve: I trust programming a one-hex one-chit option would be no more complex than the disappearance of the Maginot Line after conquest?


I am holding the optional rule count at 81 - that seems sufficient.



BallyJ -> RE: Europe map? (5/25/2008 4:25:48 PM)


I have lurked in this forum for too long. I feel I must make a comment regarding any changes to the map around the Dutch border. This will clearly change the way the start of the game plays. Please don't make this chance because of some perseved error in the WIFFE map. Having said that I must also say that I have been impressed by the work done so far and I am looking forward to the final release of the game. Well done and keep up the excellent work.
Regards John



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Europe map? (5/25/2008 8:51:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BallyJ


I have lurked in this forum for too long. I feel I must make a comment regarding any changes to the map around the Dutch border. This will clearly change the way the start of the game plays. Please don't make this chance because of some perseved error in the WIFFE map. Having said that I must also say that I have been impressed by the work done so far and I am looking forward to the final release of the game. Well done and keep up the excellent work.
Regards John

Welcome. Thanks.

Please continue to let me/us know your opinion - on issues large and small. The better I understand what each player thinks about different aspects of MWIF, the better in tune with the desires of players overall I can make the product.



Orm -> RE: Europe map? (5/26/2008 11:58:51 AM)

Please leave the Belgian / Netherlands / German borders as they are in WIFFE. [:-]

I have to vivid memories from older editions of WIF where Germany got stuck in Belgium and has trouble to even enter France. In several of those games the Germans had to rely on an Italian declaration of war and attack on the Italian/France border as well. In 2 games Germany (out of desperation) attacked Switzerland. France holding out untill USA declared war was not that uncommon. Personally I usually tried to grind through the maginot line early just for safety against getting stuck in Belgium.

The map change in this area made WIFFE alot more playable than earlier versions.

The suggestion to give Germany another offensive may leave a lucky German with 3 offensives against Russia. A possibility comes to mind that you defend agaist France and instead attack Russia 1940. With 3 offensives it looks like a very nice alternative that I do not like to see.



marcuswatney -> RE: Europe map? (5/26/2008 2:37:50 PM)

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, making the border accurate by giving Maastricht back to the Netherlands does NOT make life harder for Germany in a conventional game where the Dutch are attacked a little before Belgium anyway.

Where there may be a change of balance is in those games where Germany chooses to leave the Netherlands neutral in order to give Japan a 'surprise' advantage against the Netherlands East Indies later.  Personally, I think the reward from that 'surprise' is too great at the moment, so a balancing penalty against Belgium is a reasonable price to pay.

Naturally, an extra O-Chit could be used somewhere completely different (and that sort of 'abuse' is certainly something that should be considered carefully), but given the many complaints in this forum that France is unreastically strong in 1940, Wosung's suggestion does seem to me to kill two birds with one stone, and in a very simple and satisfying way.

A few minutes ago, I was looking at some screen shots of Matrix's Guns of August, at a scale similar to MWiF, and it was revealing that the Maastricht border is properly portrayed there, causing no difficulty in that game (and Luxembourg is shown).  Depicting the 140km German border with Belgium/Luxembourg as more than 300km is too great a fudge for a self-respecting game like MWiF.



Zorachus99 -> RE: Europe map? (5/26/2008 5:28:55 PM)

This topic has been chewed like a rag-doll in a dog's mouth.  Changing the european map should wait for MWIF v2, and I suggest we let Marcus playtest the proposed changes to determine the results. [:D]



Astarix -> RE: Europe map? (5/26/2008 6:46:51 PM)

It should also be pointed out that Guns of August and MWiF are 2 completely unrelated game designs. I think it is safe to say that the WiFFE designers understood that the border with Belgium is inaccurate and that they made it this way for a reason. I have seen many games, both as the Axis and Allies prior to this version with the Germans bogged down inside Belgium and going nowhere until either the Russians or U.S. Dow'd.

In a game I played recently, the Germans still got bogged down inside Belgium, through no fault other than bad luck, until I dow'd as Russia. True, the German player didn't hit the Netherlands first, but he blew BOTH O-chits and still couldn't break the line in time to fend off the Soviets. Only, finally conquering Belgium, after the DoW.

The map scale has remained unchanged in Europe and dramatic changes in central areas of the map that have critical impact on game play, such as this border, should not be taken lightly. I think Steve and Patrice are very cognizant of this, and thus their reluctance to impose the change that a number of posters have been advocating. Anything that has a material change in game play, has the potential to impact or alienate a large portion of the WiF playing base, who have been looking forward for 13 years, to a product that as closely resembles WiF:FE as possible.

Making a German attack on the Netherlands essentially compulsory, dramatically changes the thinking and options of the Axis players. Keep in mind that every DoW the Axis make forces a U.S. Entry roll as well. Depending on Axis Strategic direction, they may have very valid reasons, other than a percieved benefit to the Japanese surprise, to wish avoiding a DoW on the Netherlands. Besides, the Japanese get the surprise regardless, as the Dutch are not active on the Pacific Map. They are only an aligned minor of the CW but not at war with Japan and therefore, still subject to full surprise. The real benefits the Axis achieve, is denying the CW the convoy points and a couple of CA's and avoiding another U.S. entry roll. It also, forces the CW and allies to plan and play the BoA more carefully, whereas if they Axis are forced to dow the Netherlands, the CW can essentially be guaranteed of the covoys and CA's.

Adding an O-chit to the German OOB, is not a very good solution either. As it stands now, the German player must consider very carefully how he expends his O-chits. With a 3rd O-chit, sufficient good whether in 1939, could virtually guarantee the conquest of France before the end of '39. Now only really achievable if using the No ZoC on surprise rule, not withstanding extremes of luck or player skill.

I'm for keeping the map as is in this section.

Jason



wosung -> RE: Europe map? (5/26/2008 6:50:24 PM)

Playtesting it might be indeed a good idea.

OTOH one can easily argue, that WIFE is already a product of decades of playtesting...

And: Steve already stated the end of Dutch/Belgian/German border debate as far as programming MWIF is concerned.

The one thing I personally don't get in this debate is:

There's a vast, enjoyable collective effort ongoing to add more detail and realism to exactly all those parts of the map...

which are, in the end, only secondary for gameplay.

(I know this may sound eurocentric, but how many Wif games are decided on those parts of the map, representing, say, the Minneapolis area?)

In 100% of MWIF games the Dutch/Belgian/German border will be combat zone. What will be the percentage for Minneapolis, or other areas, which are "marginal" in this context?

I know, the answer probably will be: Just because central parts of the European map are so vital for game play, they should not be experimented with. Never change a running system.

But if the setting of the Battle of France 1940 is such a delicate thing to recreate (the setting, not the outcome!), one wonders, is abstracted/debatable/wrong mapping really the key to this broader issue?

Regards



Zorachus99 -> RE: Europe map? (5/26/2008 7:56:03 PM)

The answer to a lot of your questions Wosung reside in two simple ideas:

1) The game designers wanted to make the flow of the game follow the historical events, but allow changes to the master plan be allowed.

2) Changing a map which has been extensively playtested, griped about, etc... is not within the scope of what Steve was commisioned to do. He was asked to translate the board game, not re-interpret what the original designer had done in regards to balancing either the map or the land units.

Simply conside the huge change in asia where there are 2.5x the number of hexes, but the same exact forcepools. We do not know how that is going to turn out. There are ideas, but we havent played the new map perhaps 100's of times to critique the issues properly in a thoughtful manner.

I fought the scale change in the Pacific tooth-and-nail, but eventually came to accept it as being more natural for many different reasons. My new Japanese - Chinese setups very much remind me of the game GO, where control is exerted on the front line only after you have most likely won.

BTW, Steve has already slated a few ideas for changing the European map in V2.



wosung -> RE: Europe map? (5/26/2008 8:53:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
1) The game designers wanted to make the flow of the game follow the historical events, but allow changes to the master plan be allowed.


That's why I distinguished between recreating the setting of the Battle of France and recreating the Battle of France. And political geography is exactly neither historical event nor master plan.

And most posts against changing the Dutch border were based on the argument that such a change would make the Battle of France harder/impossible to win for the German player. Thus they were based on the strict historical course of the war themselves. Obviously the "right" amount of historical rigidity/openness of WIF is debatable. (Admittedly, the recreation of the Battle of France in 1940 as WW1 trench warfare in every 2nd game of WIF wouldn't be very much fun.)

quote:


2) Changing a map which has been extensively playtested, griped about, etc... is not within the scope of what Steve was commisioned to do. He was asked to translate the board game, not re-interpret what the original designer had done in regards to balancing either the map or the land units.

But, as you wrote, map changes are implemented all the time, even on the European map (esp. Scandinavia = less important parts of the map)


quote:


BTW, Steve has already slated a few ideas for changing the European map in V2.

There are plans for V2?

Regards




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Europe map? (5/26/2008 10:45:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wosung

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
1) The game designers wanted to make the flow of the game follow the historical events, but allow changes to the master plan be allowed.


That's why I distinguished between recreating the setting of the Battle of France and recreating the Battle of France. And political geography is exactly neither historical event nor master plan.

And most posts against changing the Dutch border were based on the argument that such a change would make the Battle of France harder/impossible to win for the German player. Thus they were based on the strict historical course of the war themselves. Obviously the "right" amount of historical rigidity/openness of WIF is debatable. (Admittedly, the recreation of the Battle of France in 1940 as WW1 trench warfare in every 2nd game of WIF wouldn't be very much fun.)

quote:


2) Changing a map which has been extensively playtested, griped about, etc... is not within the scope of what Steve was commisioned to do. He was asked to translate the board game, not re-interpret what the original designer had done in regards to balancing either the map or the land units.

But, as you wrote, map changes are implemented all the time, even on the European map (esp. Scandinavia = less important parts of the map)


quote:


BTW, Steve has already slated a few ideas for changing the European map in V2.

There are plans for V2?

Regards



The changes to the map in Minnesota, for example, are because we are pretty much starting from nothing. The WIF FE mini-map of America uses a scale that is nowhere close to what MWIF uses (WIF FE European scale). Now CWIF had made a pass at filling in the terrain for the entire world using the European scale, but that was an enormous task and "perfection is an elusive goal".

Patrice, with the help of numerous other forum members has been making the terrain (hex terrain, hexside terrain, rivers, lakes, cities, rail lines and on and on) more accurate. If at all possible, I keep my involvement in the map minimal and work on other stuff. But the task of making the map more accurate is a truly worthy goal. There seems little sense in creating a world that is inaccurate, regardless of the practically zero chance of players of MWIF product 1 ever using most portions of the map. The rivers that run north out of Siberia come to mind.

Changes to Scandinavia were more or less required (and I made some important decisions there) because: (1) CWIF got it terribly wrong, and (2) WIF FE distorted that portion of the map, probably for game play purposes. Case in point was the location of Bergen.

For a long time we had a "no changes" policy for the European map, since it was designed by ADG using the "European Scale". Only in Scandinavia did we deviate from that policy. One other change came from Harry Rowland at ADG (the change in the Bessarabia border). And there might be a few other small corrections. I seem to remember that CWIF had made a change that we 'undid' in eastern Hungary.

About 2 weeks ago I asked Patrice to stir up this discussion, because we were evaluating whether to make the changes in Tunisia and NW Africa that had been proposed, and more or less agreed to in the forum as being more accurate. I wanted a thorough review of proposed changes to the European map - basically so I could have a tidy list.

The discussion has drifted rather far from my original modest objective.[8|]
=============
The only thing certain about MWIF product 2 is that it will not be released before MWIF product 1.[:D]



michaelbaldur -> RE: Europe map? (5/26/2008 11:14:17 PM)

[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]



Peter Stauffenberg -> RE: Europe map? (5/26/2008 11:23:25 PM)

I think it won't be necessary for Steve to make an optional rule for the Maastrict hex. MWIF should be exactly identical to WIFFE on the European map with the sole except of the European map border like Scandinavia and maybe even Tunisia. Either WIFFE is changed or MWIF will have to use the Belgian / German border as is.

Patrice has sent an email to Harry Rowland so he can comment on the necessity of changing the WIFFE map (not only the MWIF map) to correct this. If Harry says no then he probably has a reason for that and we will have to accept his objections to the change and not make any changes to the MWIF map. But if Harry says it's a mistake and should be fixed in the next official WIFFE errata then Steve can change the MWIF map for this hex to make it identical to the updated WIFFE. But we don't know yet what Harry will say so it's a moot point discussing this further.



wosung -> RE: Europe map? (5/26/2008 11:47:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
The discussion has drifted rather far from my original modest objective.[8|]



"original modest objective"?

Says who?

The one man programming MWIF???!
[:D]





jcprom -> RE: Europe map? (5/27/2008 1:21:28 PM)

I agree with Borger Borgersen and Steve: changes to the European map should be submitted to Harry (otherwise, we’ll end up with 2 different maps).

Note: „easy” changes (with little or no impact on game play) could be submitted quickly (frex: as mentioned by Patrice, the island of Elba is Italian, not French) and some of them included in MWIF 1, when an elegant solution is found and Harry approves. More difficult decisions could be kept for MWIF 2 (if it ever comes to life, of course).

Side note (not applicable for MWIF, concerns only WIFFE, for the pleasure of discussion) : I would appreciate the proposed modification to the Dutch border. IMO, attacking only across the narrow Belgian border would have been sub-optimal for the Germans. It would have created huge bottlenecks on the Belgian roads. Besides, Allied forces would have been less scattered and in a better position to slow the advance of the PanzerGruppe.

IMO, the the general flow of the campaign in the West (i.e. the strength of the French Army) and the Maastricht hex are two distinct matters which should be discussed separately:

-If the designer wanted to make it feasible/desireable for the Germans to bypass/leave alone he Netherlands, he could for example prevent the Belgian army from setting up all its units on the the Liege/Ardennes sector. He could impose restrictions on set-up: such as at least 1 unit in each city. Or change the sequence of DoWs: first declare war on 1st minor, set up 1st minor’s units, then declare war on 2nd minor and so on (Belgians would set up without knowing if germany also attacks the Dutch). Or make minor units appear constantly on-map. Or…

-If the designer wanted to shorten the French campaign, he could for example slightly reduce the effect of smaller cities (Liege won’t slow the panzers as well as Paris). He could increase or extend the effects of surprise (some effects would last several impulses…). Or…




Froonp -> RE: Europe map? (5/27/2008 8:27:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcprom
-If the designer wanted to shorten the French campaign, he could for example slightly reduce the effect of smaller cities (Liege won’t slow the panzers as well as Paris). He could increase or extend the effects of surprise (some effects would last several impulses…). Or…

This already exist in WiF FE, with the penalty for th enumber of factory stacks that the city have.



Froonp -> RE: Europe map? (5/27/2008 8:33:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Borger Borgersen
Patrice has sent an email to Harry Rowland so he can comment on the necessity of changing the WIFFE map (not only the MWIF map) to correct this. If Harry says no then he probably has a reason for that and we will have to accept his objections to the change and not make any changes to the MWIF map. But if Harry says it's a mistake and should be fixed in the next official WIFFE errata then Steve can change the MWIF map for this hex to make it identical to the updated WIFFE. But we don't know yet what Harry will say so it's a moot point discussing this further.

No answer yet from Harry, and without answer, no change.

This said, changing this hex from German to Dutch is VERY easy:
- 1 number to change in a file from 79 (Germany) to 78 (The Netherlands)
- 2 digits to exchange to shift the Resource to the adjacent hex in another file.

I'll explain anyone who wants to try that how he can do that in the game. Be warned though that games saved with this modified game may not load in the non modified game. But you can also save the original files to go back to the normal game.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Europe map? (5/27/2008 8:49:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Borger Borgersen
Patrice has sent an email to Harry Rowland so he can comment on the necessity of changing the WIFFE map (not only the MWIF map) to correct this. If Harry says no then he probably has a reason for that and we will have to accept his objections to the change and not make any changes to the MWIF map. But if Harry says it's a mistake and should be fixed in the next official WIFFE errata then Steve can change the MWIF map for this hex to make it identical to the updated WIFFE. But we don't know yet what Harry will say so it's a moot point discussing this further.

No answer yet from Harry, and without answer, no change.

This said, changing this hex from German to Dutch is VERY easy:
- 1 number to change in a file from 79 (Germany) to 78 (The Netherlands)
- 2 digits to exchange to shift the Resource to the adjacent hex in another file.

I'll explain anyone who wants to try that how he can do that in the game. Be warned though that games saved with this modified game may not load in the non modified game. But you can also save the original files to go back to the normal game.

Yes.

The program is rather insensitive to changing who controls any particular hex. For instance, the later scenarios start with larges swathes of the USSR controlled by Germany. There is a separate data file for resetting who controls which hexes on the map each year. You could even 'give' Germany a few select hexes in Iowa if you so desired.

The same is true for cities, factories, ports, resources, and so forth.

Of course, I have spent almost zero effort on making these things easy to do (i.e., no program interface) but the data files are intentionally all comma separated values (CSV) and can be edited using Micorsoft's Notebook if you so desired.

On the downside are 2 items:
1 - changing any of the data files while in the middle of a game is verboten.
2 - the AI Opponent may not be able to cope, since it assumes certain aspects of the map are unchanged from how it was shipped in the product release.



jcprom -> RE: Europe map? (5/27/2008 10:09:46 PM)

quote:

On the downside are 2 items:
1 - changing any of the data files while in the middle of a game is verboten.
2 - the AI Opponent may not be able to cope, since it assumes certain aspects of the map are unchanged from how it was shipped in the product release.


I gather it's possible to add or remove 1 or 2 units from at start forces ? (for play-balance purposes using a particular set of options).



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Europe map? (5/27/2008 11:10:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jcprom

quote:

On the downside are 2 items:
1 - changing any of the data files while in the middle of a game is verboten.
2 - the AI Opponent may not be able to cope, since it assumes certain aspects of the map are unchanged from how it was shipped in the product release.


I gather it's possible to add or remove 1 or 2 units from at start forces ? (for play-balance purposes using a particular set of options).

Ah, no.

The starting setups are taken from the WIF FE spreadsheets and if you look at them you will notice all these 'notes' that apply to each scenarios, and each major power. There is also all that stuff at the start of the scenario booklet about which optional rules are being used, sorting out the counters, and on and on.

The scenario booklet has a bunch of text at the end describing game play strategies, but if you remove all of that, you are still left with a hefty volume of fine print about how to set up the units for each major power for each scenario. That is 11 scenarios with an average of 6 or 7 major powers per scenario. Let's call it 70 major powers, each of which has, on average, over 6 set up locations. I make it 400+ setup locations, each of which has units that are to be placed on the map or in one of the off-map pools.

It is very difficult to write code to accommodate all the variety of 'special' rules concerning setup. [vast under-statement][8|]

Most, but not all, of the code concerning setting up units is in one Pascal module containing 5400 lines of code. 3200 of those lines are 'pure' data. The rest of the code is to handle 'stuff'.

I have put zero effort into making this accessible to the players - the code is far too complex with interactions within it that can cause program failure if they are even slightly out of sync.

This is something for the "WIF game design kit", and not part of my current task list.



jcprom -> RE: Europe map? (5/27/2008 11:22:51 PM)

quote:

This already exist in WiF FE, with the penalty for the number of factory stacks that the city have.


You're right, Paris has factories, unlike Liege.

Anyway, I just meant the designer has a lot of options available to help the German attack across a narrow Belgian border IF he thinks it's useful to do so.

For example, "other cities" like Liege could have their "defender's choice" of CRT canceled during surprise impulse(s).

quote:

This is something for the "WIF game design kit", and not part of my current task list.


All right. Thanks for the explanations.




brian brian -> RE: Europe map? (5/28/2008 7:35:25 AM)

In WiF, there isn't much of a way to simulate Hitler's tendency to procrastinate on major decisions. He had no idea what to do in the summer of 1940. Now, human players can easily have this problem too, and that's fine, but one of the purposes of playing the game is to see what Germany could have done with more effective leadership. Further weakening the French might help the less skilled German players, but would result in a Germany always free to roam in 1940, in every game.

Giving the Germans a third O-chit is right out, in my opinion. Changing that hex to a Dutch hex is a whole nother kettle of fish. It does incredibly complicate the German's rather handy no-Netherlands option...due to the other terrain in Belgium and the mechanics of ZoCs and cities in WiF. To change that hex and then try and get an historical result would require at a minimum subject the Belgians to no ZoC on surprise, or some other changes to the terrain in Belgium (such as jcprom's idea on cities and table choice on surprise). In WiF, the Germans can't screen Brussels with an Infantry corps while the panzers simultaneously plunge through the Ardennes and smoke the French forces on the Meuse. True, the German/Belgian frontier is much shorter in reality than in WiF...but the 1940 Belgians probably didn't exert a Zone of Control either.

P.S. If you can't figure out how to beat the French as the Germans, here is the longwinded short version: play 2d10; S/O 39 - Build the Guderian HQ (yes, that means you have to dive in to the add-on kits and play with the Politics in Flames countersheet); M/A 40 DoW Belgium and drop the Paras on Brussels (make your own choices on to Holland or not to Holland, to try and go first or second that turn and know the weather for this op or the potential counter-attack, and whether to do it late in the turn or not, but definitely do it with Rundstedt, and the 4-2 ART adjacent, as well as most of the Luftwaffe in range, as well as being ready in the German hex in question in this thread with an excellent stack (9-4 INF, Rundstedt, 4-2 ART or ENG with AA cover adjacent) ready to roll the bones against a cheeky Belgian set-up in Antwerp (hint: the Luftwaffe flying Artillery doubled on surprise makes this easy actually)); then wait and see what the French do (the odds are good for you, maybe a +6 if you cover your end correctly); M/J 40 when the weather clears, take an air impulse and re-org 4 Stukas with Guderian; smash the flipped over French; repeat. It also helps to understand the basics of 2-hex vs 3-hex attacks...2-hex ones are risky for the attacker and only a fool keeps valuable defensive units in a hex that the Wehrmacht has a 3 hex-side frontage against. If the Paras fail in Brussels somehow or the Stuka-less French get lucky against them, you'll probably have to resort to an O-chit to break in to the tank country, and if you are afraid to risk the Paras like that, I have to ask - WHY? They'll be back in time for Gibraltar; the only thing they could miss out on would be the ever exciting 1940 SeaLion. Also, I highly suggest using the LoC Vichy rules - they are fun and make every game of WiF unique.

And let's look at a one stack German attack on the two Belgian INF in Antwerp in current WiF, or against two in Brussels sheltered behind the truly Dutch Maastricht: Rundstedt ( 7(4)4 ), an Engineer (1-4) , and the 9-4 INF make up the stack. Two Stukas rolling two dice most likely flip both defenders. A Stuka and/or several twin engine bombers double the land attack. Now we are at 34:9, a +7.5. +4 for flips, +2 HQ Support and you have a +13.5; Germany takes the hex on a 6 or higher, depending on how you play fractional odds, and without casualties on a 10 or higher and a couple other results between 6 & 10. Not such a terrible proposition. Things probably get better if you use the 4-2 ART instead of the Engineers I think - 40 : 9 = +14.8 all together (only +13.8 on Brussels) unless you have bad Stuka dice and a unit didn't flip (maybe 25% chance? 12% for neither?)



Gendarme -> RE: Europe map? (5/28/2008 7:42:37 AM)

Can't maintain silence any more on this point. 

Of course I realize my opinion matters not, but I'm hoping HR does change the map to give the Netherlands that hex, and I'd like to see Luxembourg as that one hex of the Ardennes too.  I realize it will change the whole opening of the Battle for France.  But if this change reflects increased accuracy for the map, then arguments like "it's more difficult for Germany now" don't cut it for me.  The German player will just have to change his plans now, adapt to the new situation, instead of doing it the way we've been used to after umpteen games of Wif.  I realize Luxembourg will be one more minor, one more DOW, one more USE.  Oh well.  If you want that room to maneuver and outflank the cities and rivers, you have to go through the Netherlands.  If you want to leave the Dutch neutral so as to avoid giving all those ships to the Allies, there's a price to pay.  Less wriggle room.

Once Germany gets to those clear hexes anywhere on the French border, with the blitz/armor bonuses of the 2d10 chart and average luck, the Germans start chewing up the pale blue guys quickly.  How is France too strong?  If it seems that France is too strong already, it may be because the Allied players just aren't playing into the German's hands like they did historically, that's why France may not fall in three impulses of May/June 1940 like they did.  Hopefully, us players aren't going to make some of the mistakes our historical counterparts did, and hence the flow of the game will be different.  (Italy invading Greece on a storm/snow impulse with two INF corps, and leaving their fleet with no air cover in Taranto waiting to be port struck?  USSR setting up the bulk of its army on the border waiting to be surprised?)  But that's all a different issue than having a map that's as accurate as possible.  And I agree that the Benelux borders should be altered for increased accuracy. 

As someone else on the forum mentioned already, it seems that if we were to try and translate history into a Wif turn, then May/June 1940 was a long turn with lots of clear weather, Germany rolled exceptionally well in the air and on the ground, and the Allied player(s) kind of bumbled around the map straight into disaster.

If Germany doesn't roll well, then the one Dutch hex more or less isn't going to make or break them anyway. 

About breaking into France on the same impulse as advancing into Belgium and the Netherlands -- historically, what was the frontage of the German attack at Sedan, how many corps were involved and how many French were defending? If we were going to Wif it, were the Germans attacking from the one hex where Luxembourg should be, or both of the forest hexes south of Liege? Was it against one French INF corps, like a 3-3, or one of the better ones? With the Guderian HQ, another ARM corps, ARM div, and ground strikes/support, I think you can gain the French hex west of Metz the same impulse as you go into the low countries. After that, you're getting two-hex attacks with armor and the blitz table on French infantry stacks all the way to the Channel.

Anthony DeChristopher



brian brian -> RE: Europe map? (5/28/2008 8:22:33 AM)

it's not a question of the Germans having the combat power to do it, but rather the I-go You-go stop-in-ZoC movement system. The Belgians set up in Liege and west of Brussels, the Germans move into the initial border hexes and have to stop due to ZoC, and can't attack an empty hex in front of them. The game mechanics just don't permit the Germans to enter France or cross the Meuse on the first impulse of war with Belgium unless you use Option 20, no ZoC-on-surprise, which is quite unpopular.

Basically, if Maastricht is Dutch, the Belgians can guarantee to hold Brussels if the Germans don't attack the Netherlands ... unless the Germans use an O-chit to overrun the 5-3 INF in front of Brussels, making the price of the no-Netherlands option one O-chit most of the time. An interesting decision to make.



Gendarme -> RE: Europe map? (5/28/2008 8:27:38 AM)

True, true.

After reading a map of the campaign [:o], I see that the German advance was not south into the hex west of Metz, it was through both forest hexes of the Ardennes straight west into France.  Which of course cannot be replicated in the game with a Belgian unit in Liege exerting a ZOC.  So game mechanics prevent a perfect re-creation of Guderian's blitz, not anything else, in my opinion.  I wouldn't rectify that with a no-ZOC rule, however.

P.S. if the German wants to get silly he can paradrop onto an empty hex against the (surprised) notional, and with another land unit in an adjacent hex aiding so the Para won't be alone after the combat is resolved... still doesn't give them the breakthrough they achieved in what must be one impulse.

Anthony DeChristopher 



Froonp -> RE: Europe map? (5/28/2008 12:02:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gendarme

True, true.

After reading a map of the campaign [:o], I see that the German advance was not south into the hex west of Metz, it was through both forest hexes of the Ardennes straight west into France.  Which of course cannot be replicated in the game with a Belgian unit in Liege exerting a ZOC.  So game mechanics prevent a perfect re-creation of Guderian's blitz, not anything else, in my opinion.  I wouldn't rectify that with a no-ZOC rule, however.

Wrong.
You are forgetting the ZoC exerted by the French units in France, on their border. This is they who prevent the historical breakthrough in the forest, not the unit in Liege, and playing with or without the NoZoC don't change that as the Germans don't surprise the French.

quote:

P.S. if the German wants to get silly he can paradrop onto an empty hex against the (surprised) notional, and with another land unit in an adjacent hex aiding so the Para won't be alone after the combat is resolved... still doesn't give them the breakthrough they achieved in what must be one impulse.

Anthony DeChristopher 

You can also advance from SW of Liege to SE of Liege, paradrop into the hex SW of Brussels with helping armor, and breakthrough into the forest where there is the partisan number, or the hex W of Brussels. If breakthouging into the forest, you will disrupt, so you need a nearby HQ to reorg.

You can also paradrop SE of Liege with helping armor, and breakthrough into the forest where there is the partisan number with nearby HQ to reorg.

Both these moves recreate the historical breakthrough.



wosung -> RE: Europe map? (5/28/2008 12:47:03 PM)

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

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

To represent the setting for the campagain in the West (1940) is one of the trickier parts in most grand strategy games I know. Often the player thinks this campaign is too hard for the German side, having a script in mind of what should happen. So much for the often demanded openess of game narrative.

History
The historical strategy discussion for the campagain in the West (1940) itself somewhat was a horse beaten to death: Quite a fixed strategical situation. At least decades of planning on the German and the French sides. All variants seemingly well-known, most of them (un)successfully put into practice once in a while. If they do this, we do that (quite like the WIF opening moves).
The revolutionary Manstein plan played with this strategic canon (No Schlieffen, no Manstein. No 1914, no 1940), adding the one element, which changed over the time: Technology. Fast Troops through the hill-mountain forests of the Ardennes (Luxembourg/Belgium) using 8 E-W roads for Guderians 19th Corps (1st, 2nd, 10th Panzer Divs, Infantry Reg. Grossdeutschland). The corps, with its division slices, would form a column of 80 km lenght. On the 5th day of the campaign (13th of May) it was supposed to cross the Meuse.
The revolutionary plan had only a chance of ever being adopted against the will of a conservative tank-sceptical military, because of the internal struggle beween the the rather cautious military, which feared a repetition of WW1 in France, and the vabanque-player Hitler.
The original plan in 1939 has been some sort of Schlieffen 2: Outflanking the fortified French border through Belgium and even through the Netherlands (neutral in WW1) by a rather broad offensive without a real Schwerpunkt.
The German attack on the Netherlands 1. camouflaged the unthinkable attack over the Meuse, 2. set the trap for the French. In anticipation for an ordinary, albeit extended Schlieffen maneuver the most mobile elements of the French Army rushed into Belgium to bolster the Belgian defences.
The Belgian Ardennes only were lightly defended by the Belgian 7th Corps (8th Div, Motorized 2nd Chasseurs Ardennais Div) in Namur and by French Cavalry. Why? According to common military wisdom (on Wally and on the German side) it would have needed 10 days to reach the Meuse: Enough time to move reserves to the river if needed.
But Guderians 19th Corps crossed the river on day 5 on both sides of Sedan (another historical marked place) under an air umbrella. This sector then was only defended by the French 55th Inf. Div (with only 5 of 9 authorized bataillons of 40 year old reservists) and the Fortress Infantry Regiment 147 (2 bats.) in bunkers. Counter attacks by the French light Tank Bataillons 4 and 7 couldn’t destroy the German bridgehead, nor could British bomber attacks destroy the German ponton bridges over the Meuse.
Afterwards Guderians 19th Corps raced towards the Atlantic coast (Abbéville) which was reached on May 19th. Until then Corps (Kleckern, nicht klotzen, schnell, schnell!!) and Heeresgruppe (caution!!) constantly struggled about the pace of this thrust.

Bottom line, translated to WIF :
1. The German advance was south into the hex west of Metz and not straight to the West, because it crossed the French part of the Meuse, not the Belgium part. (IRL the Meuse crossing was in N-S direction, due to the River course around Sedan.). From then onwards it went into a bow (“Sichel”, like in “Sichelschnitt”) to Abbéville via St. Quentin
2. To make such a thrust possible it would need no ZOC, at least for the “Saa”[brücken] hex.
3. IRL and in WIF there’s only a limited set of operational choices for the German side:
a) through Belgium (Schlieffen)
b) through Belgium and the Netherlands (Schlieffen 2)
c) through the Ardennes (Manstein/Guderian)
e) through the fortified German-French Rhine-Border
f) combinating c) and a) or b) (France 1940)
4. IRL and in WIF both sides know the operational choices (well, except for the Meuse variant in 1940) and know the other side know this.
5. So both sides have to make operational choices and live with the consequences.

Regards



marcuswatney -> RE: Europe map? (5/28/2008 1:02:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian
Basically, if Maastricht is Dutch, the Belgians can guarantee to hold Brussels if the Germans don't attack the Netherlands ... unless the Germans use an O-chit to overrun the 5-3 INF in front of Brussels, making the price of the no-Netherlands option one O-chit most of the time. An interesting decision to make.

I think this is a very telling point. While I agree that an extra O-Chit could have undesirable ramifications if used elsewhere on the map, and that this needs to be debated, would the risk-reward balance not favour the use of the extra O-Chit in Belgium most times? Thoughts?


COMPLETELY NEW IDEA:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




brian brian -> RE: Europe map? (5/28/2008 3:00:13 PM)

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

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



Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
5.375