Quick question about losses and divs/mil (Full Version)

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



Message

jjdenver -> Quick question about losses and divs/mil (3/4/2012 9:41:54 PM)

Hi,

Probably if I read every thread on the forum I could find this answer somewhere but hopefully someone who lives on this forum can just give me a brief answer.

I have played WIF since the mid 80's and am still playing it. One thing that I've found a lot of players don't like with the introduction of DIVs and MIL is that attackers usually carefully manuever their forces to always be able to take these as cheap losses in their attacks. So there are various house rules used to force attackers to lose corps, or lose X number of factors based on defender factor count, etc.

Is there any way in CWIF/MWIF to use DIVs (and of course MIL) but prevent the attackers from taking DIVs (and MIL) as cheap losses in every attack?

Thanks for any assistance here.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Quick question about losses and divs/mil (3/4/2012 9:53:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jjdenver

Hi,

Probably if I read every thread on the forum I could find this answer somewhere but hopefully someone who lives on this forum can just give me a brief answer.

I have played WIF since the mid 80's and am still playing it. One thing that I've found a lot of players don't like with the introduction of DIVs and MIL is that attackers usually carefully manuever their forces to always be able to take these as cheap losses in their attacks. So there are various house rules used to force attackers to lose corps, or lose X number of factors based on defender factor count, etc.

Is there any way in CWIF/MWIF to use DIVs (and of course MIL) but prevent the attackers from taking DIVs (and MIL) as cheap losses in every attack?

Thanks for any assistance here.

No.

House rules are not part of MWIF. I have added the ability to have the game run past the normal termination point for the scenario, but aside from that there are no house rules.

I have also added 2 optional rules: making scrapping units optional (so new players do not have to make those decisions immediately upon starting their first new game), and making it slightly easier to break the Nazi-Soviet pact.

There are ~80 optional rules, so the thought of adding more doesn't make me leap up in the air with delight.



paulderynck -> RE: Quick question about losses and divs/mil (3/4/2012 10:07:23 PM)

This is one house rule that could be handled by the players. Just agree how it is to work and then let the attacker remove the appropriate losses. The game supports the ability for the attacker to select his own losses. Of course the rule agreement would not be enforced by the MWiF program, but I can't see why my suggestion would not work if the players agree and remain vigilant.



jjdenver -> RE: Quick question about losses and divs/mil (3/4/2012 11:55:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
This is one house rule that could be handled by the players. Just agree how it is to work and then let the attacker remove the appropriate losses. The game supports the ability for the attacker to select his own losses. Of course the rule agreement would not be enforced by the MWiF program, but I can't see why my suggestion would not work if the players agree and remain vigilant.


ok good to know paul. Thank you.

Also thanks for reply Shannon.



brian brian -> RE: Quick question about losses and divs/mil (3/5/2012 1:30:18 AM)

Divisions is an optional rule that can be selected?

I do know some folks who always play without them due to the concern mentioned.

I haven't heard of not using MIL though. The most common house rule along these lines is first loss must be a corps/army.



obermeister -> RE: Quick question about losses and divs/mil (3/5/2012 2:38:01 AM)

Play 2D10. The attacker can still play that game with only taking DIV losses, but only if attacking at high odds. If you attack at marginal odds in unfavorable terrain, there are lots of chances to take 3 or even more losses. 2D10 also provides many opportunities for better defense like city modifiers that aren't available in 1D10.

I just think it's a better table for playing with divisions.



Evildan -> RE: Quick question about losses and divs/mil (3/12/2012 12:24:30 AM)

I think JJ's point is not that "the Attacker can still play that div loss game", but rather the attacker MUST play that division loss game. This is regardless of the Chart being used.

The attacker is penalized by not unrealistically shuffling units around to minimize the cost of his losses. This is the part of the game he is instersted in removing. Just like Fractional odds removes the annoyance of factor counting, a thougtfull Division loss rule would speed play and remove this condition, which doesn't add any real tactics to the game.
MIL units and any other unit that is disproportional in cost/turns vs strength and losses should also be modified.

I always push for no Divisions for many of these reasons, but non-division games aren't popular enough yet. Even without divisions, a similar rule should be considered for the MIL units.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.578125